Back Channels: Obama should have embraced Toomey compromise

Barack Obama could've done his reelection efforts a world of good if a certain U.S. senator from Pennsylvania had been by his side Wednesday in Scranton.

No, I don't mean Democrat Bob Casey. I'm talking about Pat Toomey. An unlikely pairing, I know, but consider:

What if the supercommittee hadn't come up empty on a plan to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion? What if the panel had embraced the pro-growth compromise offered by Toomey, who balanced about $750 billion in spending cuts with roughly $500 billion in new revenue - while still cutting marginal tax rates and avoiding a tax increase? And what if that embracing had been led by Obama?

Then the president, who shot to national prominence with that rousing call for unity at the 2004 convention, could've stood with Toomey last week and said:

"Look what we got done for you. We, a Democratic president and a GOP senator, backed by a bipartisan coalition of members of Congress.

"It's not perfect. It's not what I would've proposed. But it's a balanced approach, just as I have asked for. In fact, it exceeds the spending-vs.-revenue ratio of my own deficit-reduction commission.

"Committee members could have just glared across the table at each other, refused to budge, while our debt and deficits edged our economy closer to the cliff.

"That would have made the ideologues happy. It would have made for entertaining cable TV. It might have ensured some reelections.

"But the solutions to our problems require more than rigid ideologies. And we're not here to entertain, but to lead. And the national interest must take precedence over personal or partisan interests."

Such a deal would have had its critics. And, granted, $1.2 trillion is just a start when it comes to dealing with the nation's mountain of debt. But what a step forward it would have been. It would have benefited the country - and the president. Independents and moderates, who have been turning away from Obama in droves, would've had to take a second look at a guy who delivered on his promise to change how Washington does business. Win them back and reelection becomes so much easier.

Of course, he hasn't delivered. And no such speech could have been downloaded into the presidential teleprompter. Any bipartisan outreach or actual leadership by Obama would've run counter to his reelection strategy, which was on full display in Scranton.

It goes like this:

Distract voters from the jobless rate, the stagnant economy, the looming debt crisis - all of which have worsened since Obama took office. Instead, dangle a payroll-tax cut before voters' eyes.

Tax cuts are fine, but be clear: This one won't create any jobs or stimulate the economy, as the last year with the cut in place has demonstrated. And it won't ease the debt and deficit. It will worsen them.

Distracting voters also means chastising what Obama calls a do-nothing Congress. Not the do-nothing Democrats in the Senate, who, in violation of the law, haven't passed a budget in almost three years and who, like the president, talk about reforming entitlements or the tax code but refuse to deliver.

No, Obama's target is House Republicans, who actually passed a budget that cut spending, simplified the tax code, and offered a plan to save entitlements for the long haul. Did the president counteroffer? No, even though his own budget - which actually increased spending - was rejected 97-0 in the Senate, Obama shamelessly demagogued House GOP efforts as harmful to seniors and children. These same House Republicans have also passed about 20 jobs bills, only to watch them die in the do-nothing, Democratic-led Senate.

I don't know if this spineless-sounding reelection theme of "They won't let me" will catch on like "Yes, we can" did. But I do know that the only real leadership shown in regards to the supercommittee came from the Republican senator from Pennsylvania, not the White House.

Toomey, you might recall, was once thought too conservative to win statewide election by members of his own party, let alone be the voice of reason and compromise in the U.S. Senate. He's been thought too radical by some, because of his ties to the Club for Growth and his support among fiscally responsible tea-party members.

Yet here's what one local "radical," Teri Adams, said by e-mail about Toomey's compromise: "Independence Hall Tea Party was concerned, but believed Senator Toomey made some good arguments for his recommendations. Also, we were pleased he wanted to lower individual and business tax rates and extend the Bush tax cuts."

Chris Chicola, Toomey's successor at the Club for Growth, said in an interview: "We certainly oppose increased tax rates, but are willing to look at a package that would result in economic growth. Lowering marginal rates could certainly lead to economic growth."

Toomey's proposal had its critics, but for the most part conservatives backed him, contrary to the misinformed view that they are the holdup in addressing the nation's fiscal and budget problems.

Leaders step up in a time of crisis. They put their credibility on the line. They leave their comfort zone and bring supporters along. All for the greater good. In this case, Toomey led. It's too bad that last week's visitor to Scranton missed his opportunity to do the same.