Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:14 AM ET, 12/ 2/2010

The deficit dance and the 2012 election

By Jennifer Rubin

The maneuvering in response to the results of the president's debt commission has begun. The proposed mix of tax rate reductions, spending restraint and adjustments to Social Security have made previously controversial Republican positions the stuff of responsible center-right consensus. No wonder Sen.Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) have such kind words for the commission's work.

The reactionary left, nicely embodied in the personage of Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky (who at some point must realize she was there to have her views repudiated by centrist Democrats), is appalled at the plan. When a freeze on federal workers pay is regarded as an abomination and capitulation to the right, you understand how ominous the plan must seem to liberals.

If you're a wagering person, here's a relatively safe bet: The commission won't come close to 14 votes (to be honest, that was never in the cards) and Obama will continue to demonstrate an utter lack of leadership. But Republicans will create a budget proposal combining elements of the fiscal commission plan, the equally dramatic Ryan-Rivlin plan for entitlement reform, and a plan to repeal Obamacare. That budget will pass the House and go to the Senate, where a handful of Senate Democrats perhaps will join the Republicans, while the left wing of the Democratic caucus filibusters. Republicans will chortle at the newfound fondness for Senate procedure. But that formula then sets the stage for 2012. The Erskin/Bowles-Ryan/Rivlin -no Obamacare plan vs. Schakowsky's. That's a dream scenario for the GOP. Oh, and if it could sucker punch the administration into only a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts (this is a "throw me into the briar patch" moment, says a senior House Republican aide), that would be almost too much to hope for.

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 2, 2010; 11:14 AM ET
Categories:  2012 campaign, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The most transparent administration ever?
Next: Bob McDonnell interview


Let the games begin!!!

Let's face the facts: Obama barely made it through the primaries. The democrats were so desperate to win in 2008, the Hillary people reluctantly came in behind Obama.

The Obama campaigns were filled with deceptions and lies - the performance of Obama in office can best be described as "BAIT AND SWITCH."

The American People have a phrase for this: snake-oil salesman.

Anyway - it is unfortunate that the nation is not being led by an experienced and qualified person. The nation has ZERO CONFIDENCE IN OBAMA.

And this is true in a way that people will not give Obama a second look.

The thing with Obama is unique; the way he offends people with his deceptions and lies, no one wants to ever give him a second chance. Obama is not coming back in the polls.


The issue with the liberals is that they set out to fool the nation, but they ended up fooling themselves.

The liberals actually believed Obama's deceptions.

That is their major problem - the liberals WANT THE LIES TO BE TRUE.

But the lies are NOT true.

Instead, the Republicans now have control of the House.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 2, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The Obama people are still stunned from the election

What is worth, they have no program - they have no direction.

Recycling the old parts of the liberal agenda which has been REJECTED by the American People is not a strategy or a direction, or anything that resembles governing.

The liberals do not realize that they have some responsibility for governing - and they are refusing take on that responsibility properly.

Meanwhile, all the American People are hearing about are parts of the liberal agenda which they do not want - and NOTHING about improving the ECONOMY.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 2, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

As for this guy Assange, I don't know why Obama hasnt gone after him and arrested him over the past six months - the idea that there were other people who may have released this information, and that stopped Obama doesnt really hold water -

The info has been released anyway - and if they arrested Assange, that may have been a deterrant to the others. Clearly- if this guy was in Gitmo wondering if he was going to be executed, that would have been the best way to prevent all this.


Which leads me to wonder if Obama - in his sick mind - really wanted these documents released.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 2, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Rubin -- I hope you realize that this column is a wet dream come true for the likes of RFR. He has no life so expect dozens of comments from him on each and every post you make.

Posted by: Observer691 | December 2, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Oops, Jennifer you forgot one thing. Far more important than anything you've written about is the Fed. Bernanke has committed to jump starting the economy. Whether or not you agree with his goals, or even his policies, the man is brilliant and is blessed with a set of big ones.

That's why all this commission stuff is just so much humbug. A significant drop in unemployment to 7-8% range is lethal to the Republicans.

If Bernanke succeeds, even though that is against the odds, Obama gets re-elected no matter who runs against him.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 2, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse


"Obama in his sick mind"

Want to revisit those comments you made in yesterday's civility post, or will you try to spin this that you were saying something else somehow? LOL

Posted by: 54465446 | December 2, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I do agree if unemployment drops under 8, he'll probably be reelected. But brother I would not want to bet that is going to happen by summer 2012.

Posted by: jmpickett | December 2, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Out of curiosity which state of society is the reactionary leftist trying to get society back to? It seems to me Ms. Rubin et al already believe the left holds sway over society and wishes to push it even further left to socialism. Therefore how can Ms. Schakowsky be a reactionary? Guess it's too much for Ms. Rubin to bother knowing the definition of the words she uses. Unless of course she knows the only reactionary in the room is her and is turning words around to deflect such labels from herself. She, et al wish to drag society back to the halcion days around the turn of the 20th century. That btw is a reactionary by definition.

Posted by: kchses1 | December 2, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"Oh, and if it could sucker punch the administration into only a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts (this is a 'throw me into the briar patch' moment, says a senior House Republican aide), that would be almost too much to hope for."

If you think extending the Bush tax cuts has anything to do with reducing the deficit, you're not "hoping," you are delusional.

Posted by: fzdybel | December 2, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse


Are you saying that there is only one definition for the word reactionary?

If so, can you state the definition you used here?


Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 2, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Strange how you endorse both the Bush Tax Cuts and the recommendations of the deficit commission in the same post. You do realize that if the commissions recommendations were passed that would eliminate the Bush tax cuts. Of course I wouldn't expect even rudimentary logic from your column.

Posted by: bsherman1 | December 3, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

A few things don't make sense about this column. First, Paul Ryan has said he won't vote for the deficit reduction plan. So how, exactly, will Republicans like Ryan turn it against Obama, who started the commission in the first place? The fact is that the plan has bi-partisan support and bi-partisan subtractors, making it tough for any side to claim all of the credit or blame. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, the idea that there will be a "battle" pitting sensible Republicans vs. Jan Schakowsky is laughable.

Secondly, I don't understand why Obamacare has to be brought into every single debate in which we engage. Shouldn't our deficit be more important than re-engaging in this highly partisan and apparently irreconcilable debate?

Posted by: TyrantofReason | December 3, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company