A reader writes:
As I've commented before, one puzzling aspect of your blog recently is the seeming total lack of acknowledgement of the existence of the Democrat party, sans Obama. Do they play no role whatsoever in the machinations in D.C. ?
So, let's discusss them for a moment. How eagerly would they likely be to support the wholesale tax reform that we both want ? Has any Democrat ever offered a bill to reform the code in a substantive fashion ? If so, it was done when nobody was paying attention. Truth is, the Congressional Dems and their benefactors have no more interest in root and branch, tax reform than the GOP does. If resistance in Congress is a primary reason that Obama hasn't proposed it (which I highly doubt; he's never wanted it either), resistance 'within his own party and among its paymasters' is as big a hurdle as kneejerk, GOP intransigence.
I agree. Especially on the kind of deal Obama could actually get on tax reform with the Republicans: one that is revenue-neutral. The Dems and Obama have pinned their tax reform to revenue increases. Now I understand that logic as leverage in a Grand Bargain. And I understand that the GOP's insane resistance to any net revenue increase is the main reason this has not happened yet. But still: yes, of course Obama's failure to deliver except rhetorically has been constrained by his own party. He wasn't going to back severe cuts in entitlements without a chance to get something actually done on taxes and revenues. But, unlike my reader, I do think he'd favor serious tax reform if he were completely unconstrained.
Which means to say: it may take a re-election for Obama to trump Pelosi. But if he is re-elected there's a decent chance she will too.
