The Debt Deal and Obama's Preferences

What does the fact that Barack Obama was willing to cut this deal tell us about his own, true preferences? Well, here we start with the observation that, as best I can tell, this is about as good as anything calling itself a deal was going to be. Republicans were never going to accept revenue increases in this deal, so any deal wouldn't include revenue increases. The total number here is on the small end of the numbers that had been mentioned and the cuts are relatively backloaded, the debt limit will be raised through the next election, etc. Moreover, the cuts include a whole frickin' lot of defense spending cuts, which is kind of a win-win. So conditional on there being a deal, this one is not bad.

So, if we accept that basic position about the substance of the deal, what are we left with? Obama prefers getting some deal to getting no deal. That's it. And what happens if we don't get a deal? Either economic catastrophe if the executive branch takes its least active/creative approach or constitutional crisis if the Administration decided to use some unilateral executive power. I happen to think that preferring a reasonably not-bad deal to the "economic catastrophe" option is a little more than completely reasonable. As for the constitutional crisis, while I myself would've found such a spectacle kind of fun and I reckon Obama would have won it, I don't think the President is crazy to not be thrilled at the prospects. If down the road Obama agrees to lots more spending cuts to sundry domestic programs and the big social security trio and then winds up getting all of the Bush tax cuts extended permanently, well yeah, that would suck. But that would suck in the absence of this deal, which I think you can plausibly argue was the best possible outcome once this whole debacle got started, and if Obama manages to fight hard during those future battles and then we win the 2012 elections then the whole thing won't be so bad. That's my take.

UPDATE: Re: this Paul Krugman blog post, I think I more or less agree with Krugman about what I would have done. But that's mainly because I would kind of enjoy the constitutional crisis that would ensue if, let's say, Obama minted a couple of $1 trillion platinum coins and Republicans then impeached him over it, which oh boy would they ever. Or if he just said, screw the debt limit, I have executive power. Or something. He'd get his ass impeached, and while I think there's a pretty good chance that he would win the PR battle over said impeachment I also think that I understand his desire not to put his name on a list that currently reads: Andrew Johnson, (Richard Nixon), Bill Clinton. Clinton won the PR battle over his impeachment, too, but when people discuss his Presidency they don't put the fact that he got impeached in the "pro" column. I don't blame Obama for not wanting that, even if Paul Krugman or I might've been less averse to it.