TODAY'S New York Times is chock-full of good stuff on or related to the negotiations over America's fiscal policy and debt ceiling. Three articles in particular caught my eye, acting as a fine summation of the situation. First is the Times's report that Barack Obama is offering billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as part of the negotiations. "The depth of the cuts," the paper reports, "depends on whether Republicans are willing to accept any increases in tax revenues." Regardless, this has not been all that popular with members of the president's party and hospital lobbyists have begun a campaign against the cuts.

Next on my reading list is David Brooks' superb column on the Republican Party. About four months ago, John Boehner touted a report put out by Republicans that called for closing the budget gap by enacting 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases. That may have seemed impossible at the time due to Democratic opposition, but the current negotiations have swung so far in the Republicans' favour that the deal on the table now involves a ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases that is about that and includes no change to marginal rates. In other words, Republicans are getting most of what they wanted. Over to Mr Brooks:

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases... But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That's because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no... The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

So, will the Republicans make a deal? Can they? That leads me to my last NYT recommendation, entitled: "Time in House Could Be Short for Republican Newcomers". The new Congress just turned seven months old and already "some of the 87 freshmen who helped the Republicans win back the House last year are bracing for a challenge from within the party." One tea-party official says her members are dissatisfied with freshman House members for agreeing to the short-term spending agreement that avoided a shutdown earlier in the year. That deal cut about $500 billion from the budget over the next decade. The deal under consideration now is much larger, but it is just as unpalatable to the wing of the Republican Party that is currently ascendant.

John Boehner, then, may be right when he says that no deal with revenue increases will pass the House—no Republican member wants to be seen as having cut two deals with that socialist in the White House. The irony is that this inflexible negotiating position has gotten Republicans "the deal of the century", as Mr Brooks says. It also means they are unable to take it.