“The Party Of Ideas, From 20 Years Ago”: Which 1990s Era Bad Idea Will The GOP Pull Out Of Its Policy Posterior Next?
I wrote in my column a few weeks back that conservatives seem stuck in the 1990s. The NRA swaggers like the organization that could claim credit for taking down so many Democratic members of Congress … nearly two decades ago; House Republicans—including some from the class of 1994, apparently trying to relive their, uh, inglory years—are openly aching for a government shutdown; some even want an impeachment. It almost begs the question: What hoary policy proposal will they summon out of the Gingrich years next? The answer is apparently the Balanced Budget Amendment.
My old bloleague Scott Galupo, now at The American Conservative, flags the news that the GOP is going to try to write a balanced budget into the Constitution, including a supermajority requirement for raising taxes and raising the debt ceiling. Scott writes:
Just as problematic is the institutional folly that the BBA represents. Instead of reasserting democratic control over fiscal policy, as had been the plan until five minutes ago, a BBA regime would take us in the opposite direction – toward newly empowered judges. The literature on how a BBA would invite judicial interference into fiscal policy is vast — for a taste, see Ed Meese, Walter Dellinger , and Peter H. Schuck – and, to my lights, dispositive. But that’s not all. The executive branch, too, would potentially gain new authority over spending — which the Goldwater Institute, strangely, sees as a feature rather than a bug.
And David Frum points out perhaps the biggest problem with the scheme:
A cap on spending, especially one at 18 percent, also means recessions will be turning into depressions. The automatic stabilizers that have induced such deep deficits since 2008, especially unemployment insurance, would be capped under such a plan. Without that spending to prop up demand, expect the boom and bust cycle to get worse.
Even former U.S. News-er Jim Pethokoukis questions the realism of this idea. And you know something extraordinary is going on if I’m approvingly citing Jimmy P.
So which 1990s era bad idea will the GOP pull out of its policy posterior next? I suppose they have to wait until the Defense of Marriage Act has actually been overturned or repealed before they try to revive it. Maybe a flag burning amendment?
By: Robert Schlesinger, U. S. News and World Report, February 11, 2013
“Genuinely Crazy Or Brain Dead”: Republican Congressman Steve Stockman Invites Ted Nugent To State Of The Union
Ted Nugent, the unhinged former rock star who’s now best known for his repeated threats against President Obama, will be in attendance at the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Nugent’s invitation comes from genuinely crazy congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX), whom Mother Jones’ Tim Murphy has aptly described as “the closest his state ever came to electing a gun.” Stockman — who is supported by every major “gun rights” organization, has sponsored legislation banning all background checks, waiting periods, and registration of firearms, and threatened to impeach the president over his gun safety executive orders — presumably invited Nugent as a counterweight to the more than 20 gun violence survivors who will be in attendance.
“I am excited to have a patriot like Ted Nugent joining me in the House Chamber to hear from President Obama,” Representative Stockman said in a statement Monday. “After the address, I’m sure Ted will have plenty to say.”
Nugent has had plenty to say leading up to the address. An NRA board member, Nugent has repeatedly threatened Obama over the president’s support for gun safety measures. In January Nugent referred to Obama as “an evil, dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom” and warned “if you want another Concord Bridge, I got some buddies.” In April, 2012, Nugent’s claim that he “will either be dead or in jail by this time next year” if Obama won re-election drew Secret Service attention.
Stockman’s decision to invite Nugent is almost certain to backfire on the Republican Party politically, given the contrast it creates with Republican leaders such as Eric Cantor’s attempts to moderate the GOP’s tone. If Republicans really want to stop being the “stupid party,” then step one should be staying far, far away from the likes of Nugent.
By: Henry Decker, The National Memo, February 11, 2013
“A Never-Ending Gravy Train”: The GOP Civil War Is Going To Make Both Sides Rich
If you haven’t been paying attention to rubbernecking reports on the most recent “GOP civil war,” because you’ve been paying attention to more important stories like the DoJ targeted-killing white paper or the disastrous retooling of once-promising NBC sitcom “Up All Night,” here’s what you’ve missed: A couple of well-funded conservative groups made a big deal about being mad at a new well-funded conservative group, giving all the groups involved a wonderful new sales pitch for their fundraising efforts.
Most stories are presenting the fight as a war for the soul of the Republican Party, with sellout pragmatist Karl Rove and his “Conservative Victory Project” on one side and the purist conservative groups like the Club for Growth on the other. In a radio interview, a CVP spokesperson referred to venerable conservative huckster Brent Bozell as a “hater,” which led to a very overwrought open letter signed by two dozen huge conservative movement players, from Frank Gaffney to Ginni Thomas, demanding the spokesperson’s firing.
This isn’t actually an ideological battle. It’s mainly an argument about strategy. Karl Rove is savvier than most of the people he’s warring with. He’s in many respects the best friend the conservative movement could have, if they actually listened to him: Rove’s “pragmatism” means electing as many Republicans as possible, so that the conservative movement can implement its conservative agenda. Rove knows that moderate Republican elected officials give true conservatives power. Rove’s CVP is going to attempt to aid electable Republican Senate candidates in party primaries, to avoid Todd Akin situations. The Club for Growth exists to push already-elected Republicans to the right, by threatening to fund primaries against them. The groups don’t necessarily have to be at odds: The Club for Growth’s model has effectively kept the Senate in the hands of the Democrats. It’s also, in its defense, pushed the party, and Congress, closer to a purer conservatism.
Karl Rove is smarter and more accomplished than most of the people who signed this letter, if we’re talking electoral politics. If we’re talking list-building and fundraising, though, you can’t do much better than these signatories, most of whom belong to think tanks or publications or “activist groups” of very questionable influence. These are people who’ve spent years perfecting a scheme in which conservative people send them money, for accomplishing next to nothing to advance conservatism.
The conservative movement is a massive and elaborate moneymaking venture. Numerous nonprofits exist almost solely to raise money, which they spend on their own salaries and, obviously, more fundraising. A conservative civil war is great for business. Karl Rove throwing money at “electable” Republicans is a wonderful opportunity for people to raise money for groups that promise to elect crazies. More primary campaigns means more jobs for consultants. More third-party groups fighting for the soul of the party means more desperate pitches to gullible millionaires and billionaires. Plus more crappy books sold in bulk to conservative book clubs!
Rove’s super PAC and dark money nonprofit spent more than $300 million losing the last election. He obviously intends to raise even more money over the next two cycles. And the more his ostensible competitors will raise, which is why they all sound suspiciously like cartoon Tex Avery wolves audibly salivating in their quotes for this Politico story:
[FreedomWorks] CEO Matt Kibbe welcomed the prospect of squaring off against the Conservative Victory Project, asserting, “The guys who fund groups like Rove’s want to re-establish that they’re in charge, but they just don’t understand the inevitable decentralization and democratization of politics.”
And Club for Growth President Chris Chocola added that Rove and Law have gotten CFG donors’ attention and “may energize the groups that they view as ‘the problem.’”
He said, “When you think about a Republican primary, and you think about a principled conservative versus a moderate Republican — well, our model wins more often.”
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said his group will focus on a few races — primarily in the Senate. He said it’s just as well that “the moderate Republicans who have been involved in these primaries behind the scenes [are] making it clear that they intend to engage in primaries and defeat conservatives.”
“Donate to us or Karl Rove will defeat true conservatives” is a great pitch. Maybe even better than “donate to us if you actually want Republicans to win elections.” While only an idiot would send any money to FreedomWorks, an organization that currently pays Dick Armey a six-figure salary to not work there, the last cycle showed how many well-heeled idiots are out there asking to be fleeced.
It was hilarious last week watching respectable right-wing commentators like Peggy Noonan and Rich Lowry slobber over the inane Super Bowl ad featuring the disembodied voice of the late Paul Harvey, a right-wing huckster par excellence. Harvey was a broadcasting legend not just for his longevity, but also — maybe primarily — because of the apparent sincerity with which he hawked completely useless crap to the Social Security-collecting set. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, neither of whom have qualms about ripping off their audiences, are his spiritual heirs despite their narrower appeals.
The entire modern conservative movement these days seems like a successful experiment in getting rich people (and lots and lots of non-rich people, whose donations are less coveted but accepted nonetheless) to pay an ever-growing number of pundits, think tank “fellows” and “scholars,” failed campaign hacks and people like Ginni Thomas who seem to serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Like Paul Harvey, the super PACs and nonprofits know it doesn’t matter if your products — in this case, ideas and candidates and electoral strategies — are worthless, as long as you push the crap convincingly. Whether Rove succeeds or fails in helping the Republican Party, his campaign will be great for the movement.
By: Alex Pareene, Salon, February 11, 2013
“Willfull Ignorance”: Short-term Memory Loss Grips Republicans In Washington
ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos devoted a good chuck of “This Week” to discussed automatic sequestration cuts yesterday, and asked Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) for his prediction. The Republican congressman said President Obama came up with the sequester — a claim that simply isn’t true — before saying his caucus is “prepared to negotiate on redistributing the cuts.”
It led to this exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’re saying all cuts. Republicans are accepting absolutely no revenues?
COLE: No. Look, absolutely none. The president’s accepted no spending cuts back in the fiscal cliff deal 45 days ago, so you get all — no spending cuts back then. Then you’re going to get no revenue now.
Around the same time, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who appears to spend more time on Sunday shows than in the Senate, said he’s open to some revenues as a way to replace the sequester, but added, “[W]e have raised taxes. Why do we have to raise taxes again?”
Of course, by that logic, there’s no reason not to ask, “We have cut spending. Why do we have to cut spending again?”
It’s troubling that Republican policymakers have such short memories, and seem to have no idea what policies they voted for as recently as 2011. It’s one of the more breathtaking examples of willful ignorance in recent memory.
But if we assume that lawmakers like Cole and McCain are sincere, and they literally can’t remember the basics of recent budget policy, then it’s probably worthwhile to set the record straight.
In 2011, Democrats and Republicans agreed to between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, depending on how one tallies the numbers. The cuts included no new revenue.
In 2012, Democrats and Republicans agreed to a deal that raised revenue by about $650 billion. The new revenue included no new cuts.
In 2013, Republicans are saying they remember what happened in 2012, but the 2011 policy has been blocked from memory.
This is crazy. Folks like Cole and McCain keep saying the 2012 deal didn’t include spending cuts, so the sequester has to be 100% in the GOP’s favor now, without exception. Why? Because Republicans haven’t gotten spending cuts.
Except they already did get spending cuts. Indeed, the cuts from 2011 were twice as big as the revenue from 2012.
Even if the parties agreed to an entirely balanced agreement this month to replace the sequester — roughly $600 billion in revenue and $600 billion in cuts — Republicans would still be getting the much better end of the deal. The total for the entire package, negotiated in parts over the course of two years, would be over $4 trillion in debt reduction — with a cuts-to-revenue ration of about six to one.
For that matter, Obama isn’t calling for “tax increases”; he’s calling for new revenue through closed tax loopholes and ending certain tax deductions. As recently as last month, Republican leaders said such a policy doesn’t count as a “tax increase,” though it’s suddenly become outrageous now that the president agrees.
This really isn’t that complicated. Either Republicans have a child’s understanding of fiscal policy, the memory capacity of a goldfish, or they think Americans are fools. At this point, I’m no longer sure which, though I’m open to suggestion.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, February 11, 2013
“A Straightforward Factual Description”: Only One Party Is Willing To Compromise And It Isn’t The GOP
The difference between the Republican and Democratic positions on the sequester is simple: Democrats believe reaching a compromise is preferable to letting the sequester happen, since it could devastate the military and scuttle the recovery. Republicans believe letting the sequester happen is preferable to reaching a compromise, even though it could devastate the military and scuttle the recovery.
This is not a partisan observation. It is a straightforward factual description of the two sides’ positions and public statements. The Democratic position is that we must avert the sequester with a mix of new revenues and spending cuts — which is to say, a mix of what both sides want. The Republican position is that we must avert the deal only with spending cuts — which is to say, only with what Republicans want. Some Republicans are openly declaring that they will sooner allow the sequester to kick in than accept a compromise that includes revenue hikes. In other words, the sequester is preferable to any compromise that includes a mix of concessions by both sides. That’s their explicit position.
Indeed, Politico details this morning that many Republicans are holding to this position because they believe that they can blame Obama for the sequester. Roll Call adds that Mitch McConnell is urging Republicans to draw a hard line on the issue.
But given that polls show the public is already convinced Republicans are not doing enough to compromise with Obama, this position is not without risk to their side. So Republicans have tried to obscure the true nature of their stance in two ways.
One is to pretend they are the party that has made all the concessions to deficit reduction thus far. For instance, Charles Krauthammer argues today that Republicans should not give an inch on new revenues, because they already agreed to tax hikes as part of the fiscal cliff deal. Krauthammer doesn’t mention that Democrats agreed to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts — significantly more than the $700 billion in revenues Republicans agreed to — in 2011. Indeed, even if the parties agreed to a roughly one-to-one split between revenues and cuts to avert the sequester, the overall ledger would still be tilted towards Republicans.
The second way Republicans try to obscure the true nature of their position is by pretending Democrats aren’t willing to cut spending. But there’s that aforementioned $1.5 trillion that must not ever be discussed. What’s more, there is simply no question that if Republicans agreed to new revenues, Democrats would give Republicans at least as much, and likely more, in spending cuts. Yes, some liberals want Dems to refuse to offer any cuts. But the position of Democratic leaders, and even the President himself, is that spending cuts must be part of any deal. By contrast, the position held by the Tea Party wing of the GOP — no new revenues no matter what — is the position held by GOP leaders.
The problem for Republicans remains that they are on record saying that the sequester would devastate our military and are even on record saying it would scuttle the recovery. And so the current political situation is this: One side is willing to reach a compromise to avert disaster for the country; the other is not only unwilling to reach a compromise to avert disaster, it views the impending disaster as an opportunity to get what it wants and even sees it as preferable to compromise. This is an objectively true description of the two sides’ positions. If Republicans believe this is a political winner for them, then hey, go for it.
By: Greg Sargent, The Washington Post The Plum Line, February 8, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 