11-Dimensional Budget Chess

Chris Weigant nails down the grandstanding on debt ceilings:

Stalling helps both sides in this fight, in two major ways. The first is purely political, and the second is more practical. With the clock busily ticking away, everyone involved in this struggle is scoring political points with the public (or, at the very least, trying their hardest to do so). When a deal emerges at the last minute, all the politicians in Congress will be able to go to their party’s base and state: “We fought as hard as we could, and we got the best deal we possibly could have gotten.” The very fact that the negotiations went down to the wire will bolster this assertion — again, for both sides. Remember, right after this deal is struck, Congress will be going on vacation for a month, and both parties want to be able to face the voters with the claim that they didn’t prematurely give in on their core party principles. If a deal is struck too early, then it will appear one side or the other caved too fast. Which means that both parties have a vested interest in pushing things to the very last instant.

That press conference yesterday in which the president spoke civilly of John Boehner and told Republicans to eat their peas? Within hours, Adam Green of Bold Progressives sent me a histrionic email, very upset by this line from the president:

We’re going to have a sales job. This is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. (Emphasis mine)

Green only hears “trimming benefits.” Republicans only hear “increasing revenues.” With the Overton Window thus centered, the president stands in the middle — as always. Any change to entitlements is surrender. Any change in the tax code is surrender. Yet these extreme positions will probably find a synthesis in the nick of time because Obama remains in the center. It’s called the burden of governing.

About Matt Osborne

Veteran blogging the culture wars from Alabama. Video journalist, mash-up artist, aspiring novelist, and metalhead. Expect bunnies, geekery, dark humor, and snarky empirical analysis to annoy idealists of all stripes. You can follow me on Twitter, but be ready 'cause it might get loud.
This entry was posted in 11-Dimensional Chess, Morning Awful. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Anonymous

    Kent Conrad’s proposal is what I’d call ‘the center.’ The rumored “85% cuts, 15% revenues” proposal, I wouldn’t call the center – that’s tilted mighty far to the right.

    If Obama signs something with Medicare and/or SS cuts, it will probably be the worst domestic initiative he’s lent his pen to. It wouldn’t be nearly as bad as if the Dems had kept the House, so I don’t blame Obama 100% – but that won’t change the law if it gets signed. Bad laws stay bad even if the other side made them and our side got pressured into it. If anything, this is an indicator that the Dems need to retake the House – like I’ve said on Twitter, compare the ’09 budget to the ’11 budget. Same President, different outcomes, the factor of change being the House of Reps.

    Lawrence lays out a good enough timeline – I saw it all over Twitter last night – but I wonder if we’re all grabbing onto this because it’s telling us what we want to hear about Obama’s secret motivations. I’m not telepathic and I can’t read Obama’s mind, but I think Kevin Drum has the right of it today: what Obama wants is not in line with what we want when it comes to this. Obama is within my PEE-Zone on a hell of a lot, but not on this. I simply will have to ride it out until the debt ceiling is past, because right now I’m just shaking my head at proposals like raising the Medicare eligibility age. If stuff like that becomes law, it won’t erase all the good Obama’s done – but it will make a dent.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    So you’re withholding your support from the president over a proposed fourteen-cent reduction?

    “If enacted, the average social security recipient would get 14 cents less of an increase per month, but only in a month in which the social security benefit actually went up by about $34.  So the assertion being made in several diaries is that social security recipients will revolt because their average monthly benefit went up from $1,044 to $1,078.31 instead of $1,078.45.”

  • Anonymous

    And you operate on lies and nonsourced leaks to form your opinions?  Do you form your opinions based on anonymous comments/posts on the internet too?  Do you understand STRATEGY?   

  • Anonymous

    I understand strategy just fine, I’m just not convinced by Lawrence’s breakdown of the strategy. We’re all human beings with selection bias and I worry – not 100% convinced, but I worry that we’re all grabbing onto this because it looks like something we want to think is true. We just are not going to know until pen touches paper. Going to be a long, long two weeks.

    I was dismissive of leaks and anonymous sourcing as well, but like John Cole says, it’s hard to deny it when the President’s saying it straight up. If you all turn out to be right I’ll play this song with a big smile on my face, and I hope to hell you all are right and the debt ceiling is lifted cleanly.

  • Anonymous

    I think I’m being unclear, and sorry about that: Medicare/SS cuts are outside my PEE Zone but I’m not withholding any support for the POTUS over this. The POTUS does a number of things I don’t support – we’ve gone back and forth over Libya, for example – but 2009-2010 and its armlong list of accomplishments secured my support and I want more of that stuff, and the best way to get more is to hold the executive and Senate and retake the House.

    I have no desire to mix fire and bags, so relax. :) And anyways, I’m an outsider in this affair, since I’m not a U.S. citizen.

  • http://www.chessiq.com/2011/07/12/osborne-ink-%c2%bb-blog-archive-%c2%bb-11-dimensional-budget-chess/ Osborne Ink » Blog Archive » 11-Dimensional Budget Chess | Chess IQ

    [...] is the original post: Osborne Ink » Blog Archive » 11-Dimensional Budget Chess Filed Under: Chess, General Tagged With: chess, entry, morning, posted-on-tuesday, [...]

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    MagicLoveHose is a strategy-oriented-enough fellow. Give him a chance :)

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    I wouldn’t mistake you, of all people, for a firebagger. My question is whether you would trade a fourteen cent reduction for Warren Buffet paying the same rate of tax as his secretary.

  • Anonymous

    I think Warren should pay more than his secretary, but “the same rate” is a nice enough signpost on the way there, and a 14 cent tweak is fine – especially one as well-hidden as one that applies only to increases of 34 bucks or more. Those two things in isolation are fine.

    But they’re not in isolation – if rumors are true, then Warren’s secretary’s mother will have to wait two extra years to join the Medicare rolls, and in the meantime there’s going to be a rather sharp economic downturn due to government spending being cut. If they backload it so that much of it comes about in ten years, that’ll be better – but we don’t know how much is being backloaded, or what’s being backloaded.

    And that’s the sticky part. We don’t know what all is in the deal, and if they take this right down to the wire it’s going to get voted on with a very narrow window between us knowing what’s in it and it becoming law. This is assuming the deal happens at all, of course – Zandar seems to think that a clean vote is what’s about to happen, and I will dance the Dance of Joy if that is the end of the state of play. Right now, we just don’t know, but the rumors I’m hearing are not good, and I’m not 100% convinced by other’s reasoning that things are great.

    Right now we’re all trying to discuss the movie based on a few scattered spoilers dropped by OptimusTruckNutz2002 on Ain’t It Cool News and the movie’s not out yet. That’s why I’m typing the word ‘if’ so often.

  • Anonymous

    I should, by the way, thank Lawrence, for teaching me the correct way to pronounce ‘Boehner.’ I liked my old way of pronouncing it more, though – it described Boehner more accurately.