Shouldn't the GOP be required to detail the spending cuts it wants?

[Bugsy McGurk]

The Pugs say they will default the nation if they don't get the spending cuts they want, but they won't even tell Americans what those cuts are.

It's like extorting someone through a threat of kidnapping, and then refusing to tell anybody what the ransom demands are.

Can ANYBODY defend that GOP's refusal to say what spending cuts they demand?

 

[fxstc]

The Pugs say they will default the nation if they don't get the spending cuts they want, but they won't even tell Americans what those cuts are.

It's like extorting someone through a threat of kidnapping, and then refusing to tell anybody what the ransom demands are.

Can ANYBODY defend that GOP's refusal to say what spending cuts they demand?

Their spending cuts are well known
Look it up.
Wait. I will tell you.
They REALLY arent asking for cuts.
They want lower percentile adjustments on the BLB.
It would work if they actually did it.

 

[Arkady]

The Pugs say they will default the nation if they don't get the spending cuts they want, but they won't even tell Americans what those cuts are.

It's like extorting someone through a threat of kidnapping, and then refusing to tell anybody what the ransom demands are.

Can ANYBODY defend that GOP's refusal to say what spending cuts they demand?

I can defend it, sadly.

I negotiate large, complex agreements for a living. I've been doing it for about thirteen years now. In that time, I have seen things similar to this on rare occasions: petulant or cagey parties who insist the deal isn't sweet enough, and that we have to make it better, without being willing to make a specific counter-offer. When we identify their kind, we walk away, and sometimes we insist on a new team if they want to come back to the table, after a stunt like that.

However, I don't ENTIRELY blame the Republicans for this. What someone is hoping for, with that kind of stunt, is that you'll negotiate against yourself. If you fall for it, they can identify what stuff you don't really care about that much (since you offered it up without even being asked specifically) and then they can take that and add to it the stuff they really do care about, in their counter-offer. They know you'll have no credibility if you then try to reel back some of your initial offer, in exchange for their new demands, because they already know that crap doesn't matter much to you, or you wouldn't have offered it. Maybe you'll even have offered something they thought was non-negotiable. You end up losing the little stuff and much of the big stuff, too.

It doesn't work against a skilled negotiating team, but the Republicans know from experience that it has worked against Obama in the past. Repeatedly. He regularly offers up concessions out of the blue, just like this. He offered up a higher Medicare retirement age and moving SS to chained CPI. He took single-payer and the public option off the table, for healthcare, in exchange for absolutely nothing. Why WOULDN'T they try this tactic again?

As long as Obama keeps falling for it, they should keep doing it. That's the defense: They're doing what has worked for them... forcing a truly horrible negotiator to try to anticipate what they'll like and come up with the first offer.

What Obama needs to do is to use his bully pulpit to call them out for it, demand they identify specific cuts if they'd like to see them, and stick to his guns. He desperately wants to negotiate with himself. Its in his character. Until he shows the Republicans he's mastered that bad instinct, they'll keep playing this game. They may be a pack of scoundrels, but they've got people on their team who know how to exploit Obama's weaknesses.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Their spending cuts are well known
Look it up.
Wait. I will tell you.
They REALLY arent asking for cuts.
They want lower percentile adjustments on the BLB.
It would work if they actually did it.

Amazing. Within one post you admit that they have not provided a list of spending cuts, and also contend that they have done so.

Wow.

As you know, they have not done so. There can be no rational debate over proposed cuts without knowing what they are. What do you have against rational debate?

 

[Arkady]

Their spending cuts are well known
Look it up.
Wait. I will tell you.
They REALLY arent asking for cuts.
They want lower percentile adjustments on the BLB.
It would work if they actually did it.

What's a BLB when it's at home?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I can defend it, sadly.

I negotiate large, complex agreements for a living. I've been doing it for about thirteen years now. In that time, I have seen things similar to this on rare occasions: petulant or cagey parties who insist the deal isn't sweet enough, and that we have to make it better, without being willing to make a specific counter-offer. When we identify their kind, we walk away, and sometimes we insist on a new team if they want to come back to the table, after a stunt like that.

However, I don't ENTIRELY blame the Republicans for this. What someone is hoping for, with that kind of stunt, is that you'll negotiate against yourself. If you fall for it, they can identify what stuff you don't really care about that much (since you offered it up without even being asked specifically) and then they can take that and add to it the stuff they really do care about, in their counter-offer. They know you'll have no credibility if you then try to reel back some of your initial offer, in exchange for their new demands, because they already know that crap doesn't matter much to you, or you wouldn't have offered it. Maybe you'll even have offered something they thought was non-negotiable. You end up losing the little stuff and much of the big stuff, too.

It doesn't work against a skilled negotiating team, but the Republicans know from experience that it has worked against Obama in the past. Repeatedly. He regularly offers up concessions out of the blue, just like this. He offered up a higher Medicare retirement age and moving SS to chained CPI. He took single-payer and the public option off the table, for healthcare, in exchange for absolutely nothing. Why WOULDN'T they try this tactic again?

As long as Obama keeps falling for it, they should keep doing it. That's the defense: They're doing what has worked for them... forcing a truly horrible negotiator to try to anticipate what they'll like and come up with the first offer.

What Obama needs to do is to use his bully pulpit to call them out for it, demand they identify specific cuts if they'd like to see them, and stick to his guns. He desperately wants to negotiate with himself. Its in his character. Until he shows the Republicans he's mastered that bad instinct, they'll keep playing this game. They may be a pack of scoundrels, but they've got people on their team who know how to exploit Obama's weaknesses.

Huge difference between this and private business deals. In private business deals, no on else has any legit reason to know one's demands. In the public policy setting, the views of the public should dictate what happens, and the public cannot make their views known if someone hides their agenda, as the GOP is doing.

I agree as to your comments about Obama. Unless he and everyone else demands that the GOP reveal their agenda, and the GOP does so, their agenda should simply be ignored.

 

[Arkady]

Huge difference between this and private business deals. In private business deals, no on else has any legit reason to know one's demands. In the public policy setting, the views of the public should dictate what happens, and the public cannot make their views known if someone hides their agenda, as the GOP is doing.

I agree with that in principle. But, I just picture myself as some hired-gun strategist in charge of crafting the GOP's strategy on this. If that were my job, and I'd studied the last few stand-offs with Obama, I'd surely try the exact same thing they're trying. There's the risk of it blowing up very badly in their faces, if Obama has, at long last, outgrown his Bambi stage. But there's just not evidence, yet, that he has. He clearly has an instinctive desire to negotiate with himself, so my first priority would be to make sure my team doesn't do anything stupid, like put an actual demand on the table, that might discourage him from doing so. I'd print up little cards for everyone to carry around in their pocket that said simply "Make him name some cuts first."

It's horribly undemocratic, but if I were a hired gun getting paid based on how good an outcome the team got from it (from a Republican perspective), that would be my move.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I agree with that in principle. But, I just picture myself as some hired-gun strategist in charge of crafting the GOP's strategy on this. If that were my job, and I'd studied the last few stand-offs with Obama, I'd surely try the exact same thing they're trying. There's the risk of it blowing up very badly in their faces, if Obama has, at long last, outgrown his Bambi stage. But there's just not evidence, yet, that he has. He clearly has an instinctive desire to negotiate with himself, so my first priority would be to make sure my team doesn't do anything stupid, like put an actual demand on the table, that might discourage him from doing so. I'd print up little cards for everyone to carry around in their pocket that said simply "Make him name some cuts first."

It's horribly undemocratic, but if I were a hired gun getting paid based on how good an outcome the team got from it (from a Republican perspective), that would be my move.

The bottom line is that the Pugs know that their actual list of spending cuts is hugely unpopular so they wish to conceal them as long as possible, hoping to create the impression that there is "bipartisan support" for the draconian cuts they want to programs helping the old, the sick, and the poor.