Tag Archives: political parties

Compromise

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal also wondered a bit ago why it’s so hard for the two parties in DC to get along—”the two parties have a hard time even agreeing to disagree,” is the way they put it.

I think they’ve missed a key factor.  Here’s the basis for the WSJ‘s conjecture [emphasis in the original]:

Even when the differences between the two sides seem relatively small—whether, for example, to raise the top tax rate four percentage points for families earning more than $250,000, or whether to make that income level $450,000—compromise is difficult because both sides think important precedents would be set.  Today’s decisions will set the backdrop for broader debates on tax reform and spending later in the year.

When Republicans agreed to raise any tax rates at all, for example, they knew that they had opened the door for a new set of arguments about which rates and at what level.  The question had shifted from whether to raise rates to how—and that’s a significant shift.

It’s more than a significant shift.  It’s a complete surrender of a fundamental conservative principle: lower taxes, which benefits the economy and American citizens; don’t raise them, which achieves the opposite.

For the Democrats’ part, the WSJ says

Similarly, when Mr. Obama said he could accept the idea of reducing entitlement costs by embracing a formula for lowering cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, he was setting a precedent as well—a precedent saying that Democrats were willing to consider policies that reduced entitlement spending not just by holding down costs but also by reducing benefits to recipients.

But there is no precedent at all here.  The bit about Social Security was just idle chit-chat—bad faith negotiating.  There is no such thing in the actual deal; Obama accepted nothing related to entitlements, and he set no precedent at all.

Compromise requires a number of factors in order to be possible; among these are a need-driven interest in compromise.  The Republican Party has that interest—indeed, they beg for compromise, any compromise, so they can have a fig leaf of having accomplished something, and they’ve shown they’ll give away the store for the smallest trivium.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have no need of compromise, and so they have no interest in one.  They know that they can get whatever they want out of the Republicans—to the extent they need deal with them at all—because they know the Republicans will fold even on their most fundamental principles.

This is why it’s so hard for the two parties to get along—it’s a strictly one-way affair, with the dominant party having no need of it.

What Are They Prepared to Do?

Posted on by
Reply

Kimberly Strassel asked this, and three specific questions, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week.

Her questions:

Question one: Do they mean it?  In the abstract, the debt ceiling is a powerful tool for forcing the president to give in to spending cuts. …

In the non-abstract, failure to raise government borrowing limits means US default—and with it potential credit downgrades, market panic and resulting economic distress.  Is the GOP willing to inflict that on the economy?  If Republican members instead run for cover, as they did with the cliff, the GOP will have been exposed as bluffers, and the administration will never again have to fear the debt ceiling.

Then,

Question two: What do they want?  Throughout the fiscal-cliff negotiations…the GOP shrunk from laying out its specific demands on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

Do House Republicans have the courage to lay out big demands (say, premium support for Medicare or block grants for Medicaid), send a bill to the Senate, and sell entitlement reform to the public?  If they can’t face the demagoguery that Democrats will use against them for making substantive proposals on entitlements….

Finally,

Question three: What other hostages are Republicans willing to see shot?  Knowing he has lost his tax trump card, Mr Obama seamlessly moved on this week to the defense budget.  …Mr Obama intends to make further tax hikes the price….

Are the GOP’s defense hawks willing to stomach those cuts as a price for entitlement reform?  Having publicly campaigned against this slashing of the military, can the party stare down the president with a unified position?  Mr Obama is betting they can’t….

It’s pretty clear from the Republicans’ past performances in showdowns with Obama that all they’ll do is run for cover—too much of the party consists only of bluffers.  During the just concluded tax cliff matter, hey could have put up big demands concerning tax structure and tax rate reductions—just putting forward the Romney tax plan would have sufficed—but they quailed at the thought and shrank from their duty.  They also could have put up big demands concerning spending cuts—just putting forward the Ryan plan would have sufficed on entitlements—and big demands concerning so-called discretionary spending (so-called because all government spending is at the discretion of the Congress).  After all, Obama was publicly willing to conclude such a “grand bargain;” the Republicans should have held him to his word.  But they failed here, also.

On the matter of selling their position to the public, it’s pretty clear the Republicans have no capability for that, even if they had an actual position to sell.  They’re still not talking to us.

Vernon Pinkley, on walking the Republican halls of the House (or of the Senate), might ask, “Very pretty, Speaker/Minority Leader. Very pretty.  But, can they fight?”  The answer is, “No.”

I pointed out nearby the necessary and encouraging words of a rookie Republican Senator from Texas.  Unfortunately, there’s no reason to believe there are enough more Republicans like him to accomplish much of anything.

What He Said

Posted on by
1

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) has some thoughts in a Washington Post op-ed on the needed direction of the Republican Party, if it’s to recover its roots, and the mechanics of achieving that new direction.

Herewith, some excerpts.  RTWT.

Free-market policies expand opportunity, produce prosperity and improve lives, especially for those working to climb the economic ladder.

And

On the flip side, widespread economic redistribution places enormous burdens on small businesses, kills jobs and rarely helps the recipients of government largess.

Dependency is corrosive. Ask any abuela if she wants her grandchildren dependent on government. Dependency saps spirit and diminishes self-respect.

And

Americans want to stand on their own feet, and Republicans need to champion policies that enable us to do so: ownership, choice and individual responsibility.

And some mechanics for achieving that:

Republicans shouldn’t just assail excessive financial and environmental regulations; we should explain how those regulations kill jobs and restrict Americans’ ability to buy their first home.

Don’t just say no to new taxes—fundamentally reform the tax code so that every American can file his taxes on a postcard.  Eliminate the corporate welfare and complexity that enrich only accountants and lawyers.

Don’t just criticize union bosses; explain how closed shops confiscate wages and make it harder for low-skilled workers to get jobs.

Don’t talk generically about education; advocate school choice to empower parents and expand opportunity for children struggling to get ahead.

Don’t just dwell on the long-term solvency of Social Security; promote personal accounts to allow low-income Americans to accumulate wealth and pass it on to future generations.

Republicans ought to view, and explain, every policy through the lens of economic mobility.  Conservative policies help those struggling to climb the economic ladder, and liberal policies hurt them.

What he said.

Whining

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) on leadership in the context of the coming debt ceiling fiasco.

Now, the question is, will the president lead?  Why should we have to be bringing him to the table?  Why isn’t he leading us in the direction of beginning to solve our long-term debt and deficit problem?  It’s perplexing to me that the president of the United States, elected to lead the country, is so reluctant to engage on the most important issue confronting our future.

In McConnell’s defense, this is a typical Republican whine.

When are you guys going to stop whining about the President being mean and supply your own leadership?  When are you guys going to stop surrendering the field to the Progressives, put up your own plans, push for them, talk to us Americans in your constituencies and your neighboring Democratic constituencies, and be leaders yourselves?

Quit worrying about bringing the guy who sits in the President’s chair to the table—move on without him.  Pass the relevant bills in the House, and call out the Progressives in the Senate and the White House over their intransigence in refusing to be part of the solution.  Show some responsibility—and take the initiative from the Progressives.

Or are you really so used to your status that none of you can conceive of actual Republican leadership?

Harry Reid’s Filibuster

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote here about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D, NV) move to eliminate the filibuster so his Progressives could run riot in the Senate, or Conservatives in their turn, eliminating any and all rights of the minority.

This, of course, would reduce a once proud institution to a shabby Parliament.

Now, though, Politico reports that Reid will delay his move until the middle of the month, since he doesn’t appear to have the Democratic votes needed to violate the Senate’s Rules.  This is indicated by the existence of a bipartisan coalition of Senators—four each Democrats and Republicans—who demur from his assault.  It’s those four Democrats objecting that are giving him pause.

However, Reid is attempting to effect this delay by technically

keep[ing] the Senate in its first legislative day by sending the chamber into recess—rather than adjourning.  That move would keep the Senate in session, preserving his option of pushing forward with the so-called nuclear option at a later date.

He’s filibustering the protect-the-filibuster move.