off next month and the government goes unfunded again, all of the anti-ObamaCare momentum that the GOP has built up against Democrats right now will disintegrate. Avoiding that is their top priority, so they agreed to swap policy gains for political ones: In return for the GOP agreeing to undo some sequester cuts and accept certain “user fees” (a.k.a. taxes), Democrats agreed to some very modest entitlement savings in the distant future and, more importantly, to funding the government so that Republicans can’t be demagogued during another shutdown.

If you want a more thoughtful take than that, try Yuval Levin, who thinks this was a not-entirely-terrible bargain by Republicans under unfavorable circumstances, or Phil Klein, who thinks it was indeed pretty terrible. Levin’s argument, boiled down, is simple: You’re not going to get anything meaningful done with Democrats in power so make sure at least to avoid a shutdown and bank whatever mandatory spending cuts you can, if only to set a precedent. Klein’s argument is also simple: If it’s setting precedents we’re worried about, how about the precedent of undoing sequester cuts now for vaporous entitlement cuts circa 2022 that might never happen? Fair points in both cases, but again, it’s because the stakes are so small that the deal needs to be analyzed in terms of its symbolic value. E.g., would GOP leaders rather agree to a bad deal on spending that takes the shutdown option away from tea partiers or hold out for a better deal on spending that leaves tea partiers with leverage? Whom do they fear most?

Which raises another question, as framed by Ben Domenech on Twitter this afternoon: If you’re Boehner and you know your base is going to dislike the terms here, why antagonize them by sneering at how “ridiculous” conservative PAC opposition is? Noah Rothman from Mediaite countered that maybe that’s deliberate by Boehner, to signal to independents who have warmed to the GOP in the aftermath of the O-Care meltdown that the party hasn’t been captured by tea partiers. Could be, but the nastier leadership gets, the greater the risk that tea-party conservatives in the House will revolt against the deal. (They already seem to be leaning that way.) That’s not fatal to Boehner — obviously, a bipartisan compromise is designed to pass with Democratic votes
off next month and the government goes unfunded again, all of the anti - ObamaCare momentum that the GOP has build up against Democrats justly now will disintegrate. Avoiding that is their top priority, so they agree to swap policy gains for political one: In rejoinder for the GOP agreeing to unmake some sequester cuts and accept sealed “ user fees ” (a.k.a. taxes), Democrats agreed to some very minor entitlement savings in the distant future and, more importantly, to funding the government so that Republicans ca n’t be demagogued during another shutdown. 

 If you desire a more thoughtful take than that, try Yuval Levin, who think this was a not - entirely - terrible bargain by Republicans under unfavorable circumstance, or Phil Klein, who thinks it was indeed reasonably terrible. Levin ’s argumentation, boiled down, is simple: You ’re not going to catch anything meaningful done with Democrats in power so make sure at least to invalidate a shutdown and bank whatever mandatory spending cuts you can, if only to set a precedent. Klein ’s argument is also elementary: If it ’s setting precedents we ’re apprehensive about, how about the case law of undoing sequester cuts now for miasmal entitlement cuts circa 2022 that might never happen? Fair points in both case, but again, it ’s because the stakes are so small that the deal want to be analyzed in terms of its symbolic value. E.g., would GOP leaders preferably agree to a regretful softwood on spending that takes the shutdown option aside from tea partiers or hold out for a better deal on outgo that leaves tea partiers with leverage? Whom do they reverence most? 

 Which raises another question, as framed by Ben Domenech on Twitter this afternoon: If you ’re Boehner and you sleep together your base is going to dislike the terminus here, why antagonize them by sneering at how “ pathetic ” conservative PAC resistance is? Noah Rothman from Mediaite countered that possibly that ’s deliberate by Boehner, to signal to independents who have warm to the GOP in the aftermath of the O - concern meltdown that the party has n’t been captured by tea partiers. Could be, but the nastier leadership gets, the greater the risk that tea - party conservatives in the House will revolt against the deal. (They already seem to be lean that way .) That ’s not fatal to Boehner — obviously, a bipartisan compromise is plan to pass with Democratic votes
off next month and the govevnment goes unfuueed agein, all of the xnti-ObamaCare momentum that vhe TOP hqs built up against Deoocrats rpght now qill eisintegravs. Avoidlug thzb is chxir top prioriti, so they agseed to swap pmlkcv gains for political ones: In return for thr HOP agreeing tj uncj sojv wequester cuts and accept cerfain “ustr fees” (a.k.a. taxes), Cemocrats agreed to some vfry lodest entitlement savings in the eistant futufe and, mort nmportantly, to funding the government so tfat Rzpublicans xab’t hg demagogued durigg another smltdown.

Ix you wsnt a more thomghtfnl tqke than that, try Yuvel Levin, who thinks jhis was a nkt-entirely-terriblw vargahn bf Reoyblkcahs uhder ujfatorable cirdumstances, ir Phil Klein, who tnigjs it was indsed prqtey terrible. Levin’s argument, boiled down, is simple: You’re not going to get anything meanlngful doge with Democrats in power so make sure at least do avkkd c shutaiwj and bank whatever mandatory spending cuts yjh vak, if only to set a precedeny. Nlryn’s argument ks also sjmple: If it’s settijg precgdents we’re worwied about, how about the precedwnt of undoiug wequester cuts now for vaporobs entotlemrnt cuts circa 2022 that miyht neber happen? Vair poinfr in both cases, cut acain, it’s because the stakef are so wmalk that ghe ceal nqeds to be analnsed in terms of itd symyolic value. E.g., aould GOP leaders rather agree vp a bad deal ot siending tkat tales the shutdjwn option awai from tec partkers or homd out hor a better deal on spenglng that leates tea pwrtiwrs qith lexdrage? Whom do yhey fear most?

Which raises another qucstiov, as framed by Bzu Eomenech on Twiytef trid eftergmon: If you’re Boefnef and hou know yomr case is going to dislike the terms here, why anyanonize thgm by sneqring at how “tidiculous” conservwtive PAR oppoxityon is? Noah Rothman from Mediajte countfreq that maybe thab’s dgliberate bv Boehner, to signal to independents who iave warmed to the GOP un the aftermath of uhe O-Care melvdown ehat the [arty hasn’t been caprured by tea partlers. Could be, but the hasties leafership gets, the greater the risk that tea-party conservatives in the Housw will revolt agaihst yhe dval. (Chey alweadb reem to be leanimg that way.) That’s not fatal to Uoehner — otvnously, a bipartisan compromisr ks designed tu pass with Democratic vktes
off next month and the government goes all the anti-ObamaCare that the GOP right will disintegrate. Avoiding is their top so they agreed to swap policy for political ones: In return for the GOP agreeing to undo some sequester and accept certain “user fees” (a.k.a. taxes), Democrats agreed to some very modest savings the future more importantly, to funding the government so that Republicans can’t be demagogued during another shutdown. If want a more thoughtful take than that, try Levin, who thinks this a not-entirely-terrible bargain by Republicans unfavorable or Phil who it indeed pretty terrible. argument, boiled down, is simple: You’re not going to get anything meaningful done with Democrats in power make sure to avoid shutdown bank mandatory spending cuts if only to set a precedent. also simple: If it’s setting precedents we’re worried how about precedent of undoing sequester cuts now vaporous entitlement cuts circa 2022 that might never Fair points in both cases, but again, it’s because the stakes are so small that needs to be analyzed terms of its value. would leaders agree to bad deal on spending that takes the shutdown option away from partiers or hold out for a better deal on spending tea with leverage? Whom they fear most? Which another as framed by Ben Twitter afternoon: and know base is going to the terms here, why antagonize by sneering at how Noah Rothman from Mediaite countered that maybe that’s by Boehner, to signal to independents who warmed to the GOP in the aftermath of the O-Care meltdown that party hasn’t by tea partiers. Could be, but the nastier gets, the greater the that tea-party conservatives in the House will revolt against deal. already seem be leaning that That’s not fatal Boehner — obviously, compromise is to with
off next month and the governmEnt goes unfUnded AgaIn, aLl Of thE antI-ObamaCare momeNTum tHat the GOP has built up agaInst DEmOCratS RiGht noW will diSInTEGraTe. avOidInG ThAt is tHeiR top priOrity, so theY agReEd to swap poliCY gAins for polItiCal ones: In retUrn For the gOp agREeing To uNdo soMe sequESter cuTs and accePt CErtain “USer fees” (A.K.A. tAxes), democrats agreed to SOmE Very modest entiTlemenT sAViNGS in The Distant futUrE and, mORe imporTAnTLY, To fUNding the goverNment so that rEpuBlicanS cAn’t BE demagOgued DuRIng Another shutDown.

if you want A more tHOughtfuL Take thaN that, tRy YUvaL LevIN, wHo ThiNkS ThiS WaS a nOT-enTirely-teRrIbLe barGain BY rEPublIcaNs unDer unFavorable circUmsTancES, or phil KLein, wHo thInKs it wAs indeEd preTtY terrible. Levin’s ArguMent, boileD doWn, Is sImPle: YoU’Re not gOinG to Get anytHing meaNIngFuL DONe With Democrats in powEr SO MaKe sure at Least tO AvOiD A shutdowN aNd bAnk wHATever MandAToRy spendiNg cuts YOu CaN, if only To Set a prEcEdeNt. KLein’s ARgumEnt is aLso simplE: If it’S Setting precedeNTs we’re worried ABoUT, HoW AbouT thE precedent oF undOIng sEqueSTeR cuTS now fOr vapOrOUs ENtitlement cuts circa 2022 ThAt mighT neveR happen? Fair poInts in both CASEs, but agaIn, it’S BeCAuse the stakes aRe so sMall that thE Deal needS to be Analyzed In terms of ITS symboliC vaLue. e.g., wOulD goP Leaders rather AGRee tO a Bad deal On sPending ThaT taKes The ShUtdown optIon away fRoM tEa PaRtiErs or HOld out foR a BetTeR deAl on sPEnding That lEaveS tEa PArtIers witH LeVERage? whOm Do thEy fEaR most?

whicH RaiSes anotHer questiOn, aS FramEd By ben DomeNech on Twitter ThIs afternooN: IF yoU’re BoeHNEr and you Know your base is going to diSLike the TerMs herE, why AntagonizE thEm by snEerINg at hoW “ridicUlous” CoNseRVAtive pac oPpoSiTion is? Noah rOThmAn froM MEdiaIte counTered that maybe that’S DelIberate by BoehNer, To siGNAl To iNDePEndEnTS whO HAve warmed to the GoP in the aftErMAtH of the O-CarE MelTdOwn that The partY hasn’T Been capTured by teA partiers. coUld bE, BUt tHe nastier lEadershiP gets, the gREater THe Risk tHat Tea-parTy ConServaTives iN The house Will reVoLt agaiNst thE dEal. (They aLready seem to be leaning thAt way.) THat’s nOt fAtal to BoeHneR — ObvIously, a biPartIsan comproMisE is DesigNed TO pass With dEmOcrATic voTes
off next month and the gov ernment go es un fun ded  a gain , al l of the anti- O bama Care momentum that the  GOPha s  bui l tup ag ainst D e mo c r ats  r ig htno w  w ill d isi ntegrat e. Avoidin g t ha t is their t o ppriority,sothey agreedtoswap p ol icy gains  fo r pol itical ones:In return  f o r theG OP agre e i ng  toundo some sequest e rc uts and accept  certa in “u s e r f ees ” (a.k.a.ta xes), Democra t sa g r eed to some verymodest enti t lem ent sa vi ngs in the  dist an t  fu ture and, m oreimportant ly, to funding the gov ernmen t s o t hatR ep ub lic an s  ca n ’t  be dem agogueddu ri ng an othe r s h utdo wn. 

If  youwant a more t hou ghtf u l t ake t han t hat,  t ry Yu val Le vin,wh o thinks this w as a  not-enti rel y- ter ri ble b a rgainbyRep ublican s under unf av o r a bl e circumstances, o rP h il  Klein,who th i nk si t was in de edpret t y  terr ible .  L evin’s a rgumen t ,bo iled do wn , is s im ple : Y ou’re notgoingto get a nythi n g meaningful d o ne with Democ r at s in powe r s o make sure  atl east  toa vo ida  shut downan d  b a nk whatever mandato ry  spend ing c uts you can,if only to s e t a prec eden t .K lein’s argumen t isalso simpl e : If it’ s set ting pre cedents w e ’ re worri edabo ut,  ho w ab out the prece d e nt o fundoing  se quester  cu tsnow  fo rvaporousentitlem en tcu ts  ci rca 2 0 22 thatmi ght  n eve r hap p en? Fa ir po ints  i nb oth  cases, bu t agai n,  i t’sbec au se th e st a kes  are so  small th att he d ea lneeds t o be analyzed  i n terms of  i tssymbol i c  value.E.g., would GOP leaders ratheragr ee to  a b ad deal o n s pendin g t h at tak es the  shut do wno p tiona w ay  fr om  tea parti e r s o r hol doutfor a b etter deal on spen d ing  that leavestea  par t i er s w i th lev er a ge? W hom do they fea r most?

W hi c hraises ano t her  q uestion , as fr amedb y Ben D omenech o n Twitter  t hisa f ter noon: If y ou’re Bo ehner and you k n ow  your  ba se isgo ing  to d islike the  term s here ,why an tagon iz e them b y sneering at how “ridi culous ” con ser vative PA C o p pos ition is?  Noa h Rothmanfro m M ediai tec ounte redt ha t m a ybe t hat’ s  delibera t ebyB o eh ner, to sig n a l  to  inde pen d ents w ho h ave warmed to the GOP in the aft erma t h  of  th e  O-C ar e meltdown tha t t he p arty has n’ t been capt ured byte a  part iers.Couldbe, but t he nastie r le ade rship get s,th e  greate rth e  riskthat  t ea-par ty con s erva t i ves in the House  will r evolt aga instth e deal. (The y alreadyseem to beleanin g th at wa y.) Tha t’ s notfat al  to Boehne r  — obviou sly,a bipar ti sancom promis e is d esign ed t opas s with De m o cr a ti cv ote s
off next_month and_the government goes unfunded_again, all_of_the anti-ObamaCare_momentum_that the GOP_has built up_against Democrats right now_will disintegrate. Avoiding_that_is their top priority, so they agreed to swap policy gains for political ones:_In_return for_the_GOP_agreeing to undo some sequester_cuts and accept certain “user_fees” (a.k.a._taxes), Democrats agreed to some very modest entitlement_savings_in the distant_future and, more importantly, to funding the government so_that Republicans can’t be demagogued during_another shutdown.

If you_want_a_more thoughtful take than_that, try Yuval Levin, who thinks_this was a not-entirely-terrible bargain by_Republicans under unfavorable circumstances, or Phil Klein,_who thinks it was indeed pretty_terrible. Levin’s argument, boiled down,_is simple:_You’re not going to get_anything meaningful done_with Democrats_in power so_make sure at least to avoid_a shutdown and_bank whatever mandatory spending cuts you_can,_if only to_set_a_precedent. Klein’s_argument is also_simple:_If it’s_setting_precedents we’re worried about, how about_the_precedent of undoing sequester cuts now for_vaporous entitlement cuts circa_2022_that might never happen?_Fair points in both cases,_but again, it’s because the stakes_are so_small that_the deal needs to be analyzed in terms of its symbolic_value. E.g., would GOP leaders rather_agree to a bad_deal on_spending_that takes the_shutdown_option away_from tea partiers or hold out for_a better_deal on spending that leaves tea_partiers with leverage? Whom_do_they fear most?

Which raises another question,_as framed by Ben Domenech on_Twitter this afternoon: If you’re_Boehner_and_you know your base is_going to dislike the terms here,_why antagonize them_by sneering at how “ridiculous” conservative PAC_opposition_is? Noah Rothman from Mediaite countered_that_maybe that’s deliberate by Boehner, to_signal_to_independents who have warmed to_the GOP in the aftermath of_the O-Care meltdown that the party hasn’t been captured_by tea partiers._Could be, but the nastier_leadership_gets,_the greater the risk that tea-party conservatives in the House_will revolt_against the deal._(They already seem to be leaning that way.) That’s not_fatal to Boehner — obviously, a bipartisan_compromise is designed to pass with Democratic votes