Changing the debate with one half of one third of government is an accomplishment
One would really have to squint the eyes and strain the brain to figure out where I stand on talking heads, public officials, elected representatives, pundits, and the the like. Unless this is your first time here, you’ve probably realized that I tend to spend more time taking to task people I “agree with” than those I absolutely despise. Call it a flaw. Call it a shortcoming. That’s just my nature. I live by the notion that anyone who would “agree” with me 100% of the time is probably lying to me at least 50% of the time. I’d much prefer a modest 75% or so. I think that’s a “C” if were handing out grades for ridiculous achievements; and last I checked, that “passes.”
But here’s the admission. There are probably no two living political figures that I agree with (politically) more than the two men that share the headline here – Charles Krauthammer and Fred Thompson. So as I’ve been struggling with this never-ending story that is the debt crisis, I couldn’t help but notice that they seem to agree on the path forward for House Republicans.
Uh oh! So, is this part of the 75% where I agree with “my betters”; or do I once again find myself in that cozy-uncomfortable 25% where I think they’ve gone off the reservation and return to my default posture of disagreeing with everyone?
Fred Thompson – “An Open Letter to the House GOP“
We will never achieve entitlement or tax reform with a doctrinaire liberal in the White House. Any agreements to do so in “out years” would probably be unenforceable even if agreement were achieved. And we can only do so much while controlling one half of one branch of government. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House Republicans, you have laid some great groundwork to rectify both of those situations. Now it is the time to accept a well-won victory and move on.
The former Tennessee Senator appears to be playing the practicality card here. With Republicans holding but one House of Congress, the end result we’re looking for may ultimately be beyond the reach of a minority party in government handcuffed by Democrats in Senate and the White House. If there was an perfect deal to be had, they’d already have it. Anything they produce at this point is going to carry the stain of a Democrat-controlled Senate and White House. That’s just reality. The bigger picture goal must be maintaining momentum through next November’s elections where actual gains can be made.
On to Mr. Krauthammer…
In an interview with Bill O’Reilly’s on The Factor, Krauthammer weighs in on the reality that stands in the way of a Republican deb/deficit proposal emerging from this mess without the taint of unwanted compromise – quoting comments attributed to Abraham Lincoln for a sense of perspective.
“It was Lincoln who was said to have said, ‘I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.’ Conservatives don’t have Kentucky – they don’t have the Senate and they don’t have the (White) House. I respect what they want to do. I share what they want to do – shrink the government. You cannot do it at the point of a gun from half of the Congress. It cannot be done under our system. All of us respect the Constitution. It defines the new conservatism. If you believe in it; if that’s what you really want; then respect the Constitution. Understand its restraints; accept them; and win the election in November.”
What’s the takeaway here?
Like I said. I live in the world of 75% agreement with even those I respect and admire. In this case, I share the practical sense of reality echoed by both “my betters” here. House Republicans have fought a good fight and have changed the conversation in Washington to one of spending cuts from one of how much to spend. That is a fact. When this president and Harry Reid are willing to concede spending cuts are inevitable, an achievement beyond previous comprehension is the result.
That said, we are fast approaching a place where this debate/conversation will become a national issue realized by the American People. That end is what the President was attempting to serve with his campaign speech Monday night. Democrats will attempt to paint this standoff as a battle to protect “essential” government programs from the cutting frenzy of Congressional Republicans and the American People will buy it. The MSM will make every effort to make sure they have no choice but to buy it.
Republicans may be on the right side of history, but they will ultimately be on the wrong side of public sentiment. The American People want politicians to make “tough choices”; they just don’t want to re-elect those who are willing to do it.
So what’s the play here? Republicans have to decide if this is the battle to end all battles. If it is the fight of our generation – and the fight for the next – then have it. Elections-be-damned. Hold firm to wide-sweeping cuts and live with the consequences. But if it is not, then find a deal that reflects the bargaining power they’ve earned through the course of this debate and move on.
Short term goals regarding a deal that could emerge… Republicans cannot accept new revenue tax increases…period. They’ve come too far to make that concession at this point. They can get a deal without swallowing that poison pill. I think it’s clear that they can arrive at a “compromise” that includes substantial spending cuts. Both sides have conceded as much. The only sticking point will be the length and size of the debt ceiling extension. The White House wants a post-election window and Boehner and House Republicans will most likely have to concede that timeline if they want a deal of their own making. While a pre-election deal would force this issue back into the spotlight in the run-up to the presidential election, even the thought of having it in the distant future will force the elections to be a referendum on the basic underlying premise.
Bigger picture… If we really want to be “real” about this conversation, it would be a stretch to argue that the what Republicans are holding out for here are matters of supreme import to the greater cause; as NONE of this conversation has even touched on four areas that this conservative believes are far more important than anything being debated behind closed doors in Washington – 1)Real reform of the tax code through a fair tax, a flat tax, or something equally comprehensive with the end goal being simplification and a broader tax base; 2) Genuine entitlement reform; 3) Making permanent the “Bush Tax Cuts” if the current model is to remain; and 4) The repeal of ObamaCare.
Without numbers 3 and 4 there, Republicans are omitting from the deal the two issues they’ve taken the hardest positions on since last November’s elections. I find it rather peculiar that neither is on the table in this debate if it is truly the standoff to decide the future of politics in Washington. Unless my memory deceives me, number 3 there was the biggest talking point last November, no?
Is there any justifiable reason they’re off the table? Of course there is – because there would be no deal if they were in the mix. That’s why the inevitable pushback on Krauthammer and Thompson remarks is somewhat disingenuous. If “practicality” and “reality” were not mitigating factors here, the real issues threatening our economy would be on the table.
In a nutshell, here’s my point. I too would love nothing more than this debate to end with a deal that cuts trillions from the books over the next ten years. I’ve just don’t buy “ten year estimates” from these elected Bernie Madoff’s any longer; and I’ve lost all hope that a deal that cutting “trillions” will ever actually cut anything at all.
Accordingly, a Constitutional balanced budget Amendment is the only end currently on the table worth driving this debate off the cliff for. Cuts will never come to fruition, but chaining these spineless sycophants to a mechanism that would force them to balance the budget will produce actual and recognizable results. Anything short of that will be but window dressing designed to look like a “win” for both parties.
Republicans should hold firm in these negotiations, but they cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. A big figure in the spending cuts column may make for good headlines, but an amendment to require fiscal restraint is the only end that will produce legitimate results -and that is the only end worth risking the 2012 elections for. It is post-2012 where the real fight for America’s future will be waged.
I applaud House Republicans for their efforts, but I must agree with Senator Thompson and Mr. Krauthammer; practicality and reality must rule the day.
—
UPDATE:
Representative Paul Ryan “Agrees”
I should probably clarify because his piece up over at The Corner is anything but an endorsement of Thompson or Krauthammer’s remarks. In fact, he references neither; but he does appear to agree with the greater point I was trying to make here – the real battles are still down the road for Republicans – repealing ObamaCare and reforming entitlement spending. The “real drivers” of our debt are not being debated in any of these proposals. Without their inclusion, I fail to see how any of this is truly game-changing; and Rep. Ryan seems to agree.
This bill is far from perfect. We still have a long way to go toward getting the key drivers of our debt — especially federal health-care spending — under control. But considering that House Republicans control only one-half of one-third of the federal government, I support this reasonable, responsible effort to cut government spending, avoid a default, and help create a better environment for job creation.
Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate have rejected the president’s effort to chase ever-higher spending with job-destroying tax hikes. Now is the time to secure a bipartisan step forward in the effort to put Washington’s fiscal house in order. The Budget Control Act achieves this goal. But much hard work still lies ahead.
Are you saying you think a short-term extension will have to be taken off the table to get any type of deal done? If we really want to take back the presidency, do we not need to force the debate again right before the election? We’ve already seen how poorly Obama polls for his leadership during “crisis” (Obamacare, Debt-ceiling, etc). I think that a short-term extension is a must. My fear is that with too much time left before next November, Obama will be able to bring his approval back to “winnable”.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clearer Andy. My point is this. The only thing worth holding out for is a balanced budget amendment. Without that, “cuts” are arbitrary and promised cuts are even worse. It seems to me that Boehner has put getting big figure ahead of actual gains. I understand it in that big numbers are the red meat so many want. My problem is that without ObamaCare, legitimate tax reform, entitlement reform, or even making Bush tax cuts permanent the political cost is simply not worth the end result.
As to long or short term extension. Of course I’d much prefer a short one. Historically, they are not two-year extensions. I think the President has made that case for us by pointing out that it was raised almost 20 times during Reagan’s term. history and common sense would be on our side. That said, Boehner seems determined to get major cuts. Add that to the fact that he wants to tie them to the rate of increase and you have situation where the President will give him more hypothetical cuts… just so long as he gets more time.
My only point in referencing a deal that would take us beyond 2012 was to point out both that I believe that is the trajetory we are on and that if that is the case, it’s not an entirely untenable position. It’s not the most favored choice, but it would still be an issue for November. If you want my real prediction here. I think Boehner and Reid are going to craft a proposal that the president won’t veto and House Republicans won’t have to sign off on. House GOP will make one more run at passing legislation tomorrow; it will die in the Senate; and they will be back to the drawing board. Boehner will say it had to be done. House Dems will sign on because the President will support it and House GOP will be pissed but empowered to seize new seats/more power in November. Expect primary challenges to say the least.
Do I hope they find another path? Absolutely. I’ve just begun to believe that gridlock is the only predictable element here. Boehner’s an institutionalist – not an ideologue. He will find a way to pass something. The only reason he has not of yet is because he’s playing the number’s game to appease the ideologues within his own party and to throw red meat to the base.
Will this debate be remembered in November? Without a balanced budget amendment – of course not. Would a re-run just before November be beneficial? I think it would do volumes for house and senate races, but I’m inclined to believe it gives President Obama two cards he wouldn’t have witout them. 1) He gets another year to play the Republicans share this economy narrative because they wouldn’t pass a longterm increase; and 2) He gets another opportunity to play the role of “moderate” moderator just before the election. With indies likely to determine the course of this election, I’m not sure another run at this serves our party best – at least in terms of capturing the White House. Considering the fact that I’d much prefer we take both Houses than not and win the White House – I could live with that. Most won’t.
I have to strongly disagree with your suggestions of the cards Obama would play. He’s gonna spend the next year blaming the Republicans regardless. It’s naive to think otherwise. And on the issue of the Independent vote, his approval numbers continue to drop throughout this entire debate.
No doubt it’s a tricky situation, and it’s impossible to predict the outcomes of any of the proposals.
You are correct in that he will no doubt spend the next year blaming Republicans for the economy regardless, but this will give him something specific to point to. Does that matter to you or I? Of course not. We know the truth. The problem is that “we” are not the average American voter. Most go to the polls regurgitating what they heard on their news channel of choice. Another vote- even if it would be historically consistent – would be painted as a partisan political maneuver aimed at forcing a debate in a campaign season.
Another hypothetical worth thinking about. Consider who our candidate may be at that time. If it’s a “no way no how” Congresswoman or former Governor, would we really be any better off politically should a downgrade result and have negative effects with our candidate having stood firm on the no-raise position?
As to the independent vote. I believe they will ultimately vote their bank accounts. There is a substantial portion of this country that “cares” about the national debt and deficit spending only as far as it impacts their bottom line. That said, there is no part of me that will underestimate this president’s ability to get elected. How we got here in the first place is beyond my comprehension.
[...] election… as this is a place where I’d also like to clarify a few things. I said in a piece yesterday that I loosely agreed with the assertions made by Fred Thompson and Charles Krauthammer that [...]
[...] what they could potentially do after next November’s elections. I echoed that inquiry with this post yesterday sharing my thoughts on the matter and pointing out that both Charles Krauthammer and Former [...]
[...] Charles Krauthammer and Fred Thompson Talk Reason, Practicality with House GOP; Paul Ryan Agrees [...]