If you refuse to fight, you’ll lose

WASHINGTON — It’s supremely galling. It’s unbalanced, unfair and mostly unwise. For President Obama and the Democratic Party, it’s a comprehensive defeat. But it’s not the end of the world.

The deal struck Sunday to free the U.S. economy from its Republican hostage-takers is impossible for p

rogressives to love. It gets all the big things wrong, starting with the most fundamental: Obama never should have acquiesced in linking a routine hike in the debt ceiling — necessary to pay bills Congress has already incurred — with all the difficult spending questions that should be dealt with in the budget process.

Obama’s starting point was a demand for a “clean,” unencumbered bill to raise the ceiling; House Speaker John Boehner said no. What would have happened if Obama refused to budge? We don’t know because that’s not his style. It would be nice, someday, to find out.

Once this became a debate about debt reduction and national priorities, it was obvious that budget cuts needed to be matched by new revenue. After all, if you look at historical norms, spending is too high and tax receipts are too low by about the same amount. Obama commandeered the bully pulpit and demanded a “balanced approach” that included revenue. He inveighed against undertaxed “millionaires and billionaires” who fly around in corporate jets. Polls showed that by a considerable margin, the public agreed.

Republicans insisted on budget cuts only, with not a cent of new revenue — and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what they got. There’s no way to spin it: Boehner and the GOP won. Obama and the Democrats lost.

This isn’t a rout, however. It’s a retreat, in relatively good order, that leaves Democrats provisioned for the battles to come.

The White House agreed to $900 billion in budget cuts over 10 years — in the absence of new tax revenue, a galling surrender. But the deal is structured so the slicing and dicing does not really begin until the 2013 fiscal year, which gives the struggling economy some time to find its feet — not as much time as most economists would recommend, but better than nothing.

The cuts exempt Medicaid and other programs for the poor — although there is no provision for extending unemployment benefits, a serious defect. And the cuts do not touch Medicare benefits, which preserves a key Democratic campaign issue: the Republican plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program that would leave seniors at the mercy of the private health insurance market.

Even more significant is that $350 billion of the 10-year cuts — about 40 percent — are in defense spending. Bringing the gargantuan Pentagon budget under control would be a major step toward putting the nation on sounder financial footing. This is the one big conceptual breakthrough that the deal represents: Republicans abandoned the position that defense spending must not be considered “discretionary.” Just like the money we spend on education or infrastructure, it reflects choices.

Through absurdly complicated procedures, the agreement ensures that Obama will not face another fight over the debt ceiling before next year’s election. For this, we can all be grateful.

That’s pretty much it, in terms of not-so-bad news.

Obama tried, and failed, to shake Republicans out of their fevered dream that the $14.3 trillion national debt can be brought under control with budget cuts only. Indeed, the tea party zealots who cowed the party into rejecting all proposals for new revenue will only feel emboldened, not just in their anti-tax fantasy but in their technique of threatening to wreck the economy if they don’t get their way.

The agreement creates a 12-member bipartisan “super committee” of Congress that is supposed to tackle debt reduction broadly, looking not just at further cuts but at increased tax revenue as well — despite Boehner’s specious claim that taxes are off the table. No one knows whether this new body will be able to function. If it can’t, a “trigger” mechanism starts slashing through the budget like Genghis Khan in a bad mood. This is supposed to be so unthinkable that it frightens everyone into sober rectitude. But I’ll go out on a limb and say that nothing is unthinkable anymore.

Overall, this is a bad deal that is made considerably less bad by the way its details are engineered. That’s still a long way from good.

Progressives lost this battle. They retain the capacity to win the next one, if they are smarter and tougher. If they fight.

Eugene Robinson is a Washington Post columnist. His email address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

Glacier Peak, elevation 10,541 feet, in the Glacier Peak Wilderness of Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest in Snohomish County, Washington. (Caleb Hutton / The Herald) 2019
Editorial: Sell-off of public lands a ruinous budget solution

The proposal in the Senate won’t aid affordable housing and would limit recreational opportunities.

Comment: Juneteenth holiday struggles to build on promise

The young federal holiday — and the racial equity it seeks — face unfamiliarity and anti-DEI efforts.

What’s state’s role in county funding for stadium

Is the state of Washington jamming money down the county’s throat to… Continue reading

Comment: RFK Jr.’s remake of vaccine panel puts nation at risk

Clearing out the committee and appointing those critical of vaccines will result in more outbreaks.

Comment: Immigration debacle shows failure as nation of laws

No fix will be possible until both parties stop using the crisis for their own political purposes.

Comment: Padilla right to challenge Noem’s right-wing attacks

The senator broke protocol for a news conference, but identified himself and didn’t lunge at the secretary.

In a gathering similar to many others across the nation on Presidents Day, hundreds lined Broadway with their signs and chants to protest the Trump administration Monday evening in Everett. (Aaron Kennedy / Daily Herald)
Editorial: Let’s remember the ‘peaceably’ part of First Amendment

Most of us understand the responsibilities of free speech; here’s how we remind President Trump.

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer testifies during a budget hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Capitol Hill in Washington on Thursday, May 15, 2025. (Al Drago/The New York Times)
Editorial: Ending Job Corps a short-sighted move by White House

If it’s jobs the Trump administration hopes to bring back to the U.S., it will need workers to fill them.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, June 18

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Burke: Like a typhoon, confront the tycoon head on

As we saw this weekend, it’s best to confront storms like Trump directly and with determination.

How could anyone trust Democrats?

We expect our elected officials to be trustworthy. We grant our vote… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.