With regards to immigration: while significant progress has been made on the Senate side, we still don't know whether or not enough Republicans will flock to the bill to get it to the desired 80-vote threshold. What's even less certain is if the Republican-controlled House will take up a large bill dealing with comprehensive reform, let alone vote for such a bill.
With regards to entitlements: the President has already proposed moving Social Security to a chained CPI as well as raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67. These proposals went nowhere. (Granted, these proposals were tied in to a larger compromise. But the compromise was centrist, so centrists should have loved that.)
With regards to tax reform: Representative Camp and Senator Baucus are working on reforming the tax code. The only missing ingredient? The President's blessing, according to the Economist.
Not to skew the Economist too hard. Prima facie, the argument for bipartisan compromise on these three issues is compelling, and the Economist spells out a particularly good case for why compromise should appeal to both sides on the issue of tax reform. But the fact is, the current incarnation of the Republican party has neither the desire nor the incentive to compromise with the President and Senate Democrats on important issues.Compromise with the Democrats helps the Democrats build their brand as a serious, centrist party, while tarnishing the Republicans' brand of unapologetic conservatism that appeals to the only voters that the Republicans need in their heavily gerrymandered districts in November: their base.
No comments:
Post a Comment