“In the short term, everyone suffers politically. In the long term, I think the Republicans have done terrible damage to their brand. Because now they’re thoroughly defined by their most strident voices,” – David Axelrod.
Translation: we were creamed because we were more responsible than the House GOP with respect to default. But the super-committee will put revenues back on the table and we can take that case to the public next year and win. I remain skeptical. For all of the support for a more balanced approach, it will be very hard to run for election, promising to raise taxes on the rich. It has never worked in America in modern times.
To my mind, the worst thing about this deal is that it does not tackle entitlements and does not address revenues. Those are the real fiscal issues. Even the threat of a total national default was unable to move the needle on either. Nicole Gelinas:
Are we going to slash discretionary spending such as transportation investment to make room for ever-growing entitlements as the population ages, even though we need better infrastructure to support the economic growth that we need to support the aging population? That’s what both the Boehner and the Reid plans imply, with 378-to-1 and 68-to-1 ratios respectively of cuts in discretionary spending to cuts in mandatory spending (which includes entitlements).
All in all, Obama played this terribly, in my opinion. Leading from behind can be a strategy when all the actors are responsible. When one isn't – and has no problem destroying the conomy in order to save it – you have to get out in front. Obama didn't have the courage to do that in January. He has paid the price.
The Dish 