Obama vs. Boehner
JUL 26 2011, 1:54 PM ET17
If the test was likelihood of swaying the uncommitted, I saw no winner
in last night's broadcast contest. Obama and Boehner were both
addressing mainly their own supporters. Neither rose above partisan
talking-points.

The "balanced" approach advocated by Obama makes much more sense,
though not because taxing corporate jets is a top national priority at
the moment. Bearing in mind what is at stake, tirelessly underlining
this point is ridiculous. The best thing about the White House's
approach is that it aims to backload the austerity (eg, by extending
the payroll-tax cut). The GOP's biggest mistake is to want to cut
spending as much as possible as fast as possible: fiscally speaking, a
self-defeating agenda.

So on the substance, Obama has the better plan--but his talk failed to
make this clear. Presumably he thinks the argument for gradualism is
already lost. Even if it is, though, his comments were odd. Almost in
the same breath as "corporate jets" and "millionaires and
billionaires", he endorsed (admittedly without much enthusiasm) the
Reid proposal, which includes no extra revenues. It was as though his
remarks were written a week ago. Looking at where Congress stands at
the moment, Obama's main theme---we must have revenues as well as
spending cuts--was simply beside the point. Congress is no longer even
talking about this.

The truth is, the Reid plan and the Boehner plan are not that
different. Downpayment of spending cuts; process for further deficit
reduction later. Neither plan is what I would propose, but either
would raise the debt ceiling and avoid default--which after many
wasted months is what matters most. Contrary to Obama's pitch, there
is no real ideological distance between the two schemes.

The question is whether Boehner and Cantor (who now appear to be on
the same side) can get their plan through the House, and then
(presumably with modifications) the Senate. If they can, Obama would
surely have to sign it, despite his earlier threats (conspicuously
absent last night) to veto a short-term deal. How could Obama possibly
justify such a veto? "I am plunging the economy into instant turmoil
because this bill creates too much uncertainty." That doesn't work
very well, does it? "I am plunging the economy into instant turmoil
because this deal does not give me political cover on the budget all
the way through next November." I don't think so.

If the House Republicans support the Boehner plan, Obama and the
Democrats will have to give way--again. The only consolation for
Democrats is that many Republicans will be as dismayed by this outcome
as they are. If the GOP says no, and the US government then defaults,
the economy gets kicked in the teeth and the GOP will get the blame.