If Obama wins, could he pull off a 'grand bargain', similar to the one almost reached in July 2011? No one can predict the future, but I think the possibility is too quickly discounted by a lot of people. If it was just Obama and the Senate, there would be no problem in such a scenario; if it was Obama and the Senate and John Boehner, there would be no problem. An agreement would have to be reached between Obama, the Senate, Boehner and a majority of his caucus, including some representatives influenced by the tea party. That is the only reason why a deal wasn't reached in 2011. However, there would be a few differences between such a scenario and 2011...
a) Politics. In late 2011, the two sides essentially broke off negotiations due to the upcoming 2012 campaign. The campaign was deterring both sides from alienating their bases by striking an agreement due to the need for base support during the campaign. Further, the House Republicans were under pressure not to grant Obama any legislative 'achievement' in the hopes that obstructionism would succeed in defeating him. If Obama were reelected, both factors would be muted. Obama wouldn't be constrained by the need to please liberal donors, and the House Republicans wouldn't feel that compromising with Obama was helping him win reelection. Hence, a much higher probability for a deal.
b) Obama. In 2011, as hinted above, I think Obama was under a lot of pressure from progressives. They didn't get the public option; however realistic that was, it left them dissatisfied. They thought they were getting 'hippie punched'. This was part of the reason I think, that Obama reached for a better deal after Bowles-Simpson came out that turned out to be too ambitious. If Obama were to win and try again, I think he would be humbled. He'd be more attuned to the risks of reaching too far and would try to follow the outlines of what Boehner had offered him in 2011.
Basically, the big difference between Obama and Romney on entitlements is that Romney would try to introduce reforms (such as vouchers or other private sector alternatives) that would undermine the programs in the long run, whereas Obama would not. If course if Obama loses, it's all a moot point. What do you guys think?
a) Politics. In late 2011, the two sides essentially broke off negotiations due to the upcoming 2012 campaign. The campaign was deterring both sides from alienating their bases by striking an agreement due to the need for base support during the campaign. Further, the House Republicans were under pressure not to grant Obama any legislative 'achievement' in the hopes that obstructionism would succeed in defeating him. If Obama were reelected, both factors would be muted. Obama wouldn't be constrained by the need to please liberal donors, and the House Republicans wouldn't feel that compromising with Obama was helping him win reelection. Hence, a much higher probability for a deal.
b) Obama. In 2011, as hinted above, I think Obama was under a lot of pressure from progressives. They didn't get the public option; however realistic that was, it left them dissatisfied. They thought they were getting 'hippie punched'. This was part of the reason I think, that Obama reached for a better deal after Bowles-Simpson came out that turned out to be too ambitious. If Obama were to win and try again, I think he would be humbled. He'd be more attuned to the risks of reaching too far and would try to follow the outlines of what Boehner had offered him in 2011.
Basically, the big difference between Obama and Romney on entitlements is that Romney would try to introduce reforms (such as vouchers or other private sector alternatives) that would undermine the programs in the long run, whereas Obama would not. If course if Obama loses, it's all a moot point. What do you guys think?