In response to:

Can a Grand Bargain Ever Work?

Kenneth L. Wrote: Dec 01, 2012 11:31 AM
incredulous2, para_dimz, and rreid are all correct, unfortunately. You may think this is an extreme, partisan thing to say. pastorial, I see, questions the term "cabal." But I offer as evidence the remarkable fact that the Democrats *literally* LOCKED the doors on committee rooms during the writing of the Affordable Health Care Act. They refused to consider the most obvious reform measures that would have benefited their constituents. In other words, I understand that tort reform is a tough political issue and should probably be left for another day. But why not purchase across state lines? The chiropractor lobby that strong?
Kenneth L. Wrote: Dec 01, 2012 11:35 AM
The Democrats don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, here. The only rational strategy for Republicans in this "negotiation" is to stand pat (perhaps abstain from the vote) and let the Dems run off the cliff. They need to own the tax increases and deal with the sequestration cuts they passed and Obama signed. Or else they need to come to the table with something rational that will benefit the people. McConnell was right to laugh. Read Kim Strassel's column in yesterday's WSJ.

The idea behind a grand bargain to get the federal budget deficit under control is a simple one. Republicans agree to tax increases and Democrats agree to spending cuts.

In a previous post I warned that this could be a trap for Republicans, just like similar budget deals have been in the past.

There are two problems. First, the tax increases will hit immediately, while the spending cuts will be mainly in the future. That means future Congress's will have an opportunity to renege on the agreement before any serious spending reduction takes place. Second, all the serious spending increases...