EK: On that point, one theme in your column, and in a lot of columns these days, is this idea that the president should, on the one hand, be putting forward centrist policies, and on the other hand, that if hes putting forward policies that the Republican Party wont agree to, those policies dont count, as theyre nothing more than political ploys. But while I agree that some level of political realism should enter into any White Houses calculations, it seems a bit dangerous and strange to say the boundaries of the discussion should be set by the agenda that lost the last election.
DB: In my ideal world, the Obama administration would do something Clintonesque: Theyd govern from the center; theyd have a budget policy that looked a lot more like what Robert Rubin would describe, and if the Republicans rejected that, moderates like me would say thats awful, the White House really did come out with a centrist plan.
EK: But Ive read Robert Rubins tax plan. He wants $1.8 trillion in new revenues. The White House, these days, is down to $1.2 trillion. Im with Rubin on this one, but given our two political parties, the White Houses offer seems more centrist. And you see this a lot. People say the White House should do something centrist like Simpson-Bowles, even though their plan has less in tax hikes and less in defense cuts. So it often seems like a no-win for them.
DB: My first reaction is Im not a huge fan of Simpson-Bowles anymore; I used to be. Among others, you persuaded me the tax reform scheme in theirs is not the best. Simpson-Bowles just doesnt do enough on entitlements, For sensible reasons, they took health care more or less off the table. I dont know where Rubin is right now. I held him up as an exemplar of Democratic centrism, but if he had a big tax increase and entitlement reform, Id be for that.
There are times when I think the White House offered Republicans plans they were crazy not to take. I wrote that in 2011. And I hope Republicans look back on that as a gigantic missed opportunity. So I agree with you they shouldnt be given veto power over the debate, but I still think that if you look at what moderates want the administration to do, they have not gone far enough.
