Today's Congressional Republicans are a concern. They're faced with arguably the most difficult political challenge in the history of the republic: turning around our entrenched culture of tax-and-spend.
Are they up to it? Early signs are discouraging.
The first warning that Republicans may be satisfied to just have some power back was the re-election of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to the top leadership posts. These are two professionals who successfully negotiated the back rooms of caucus politics to get where they are. Neither is a change agent by any stretch of the imagination. Selecting stronger leaders like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan or Mike Pence in the House or Jon Kyl, Jim DeMint or even Tom Coburn in the Senate would have sent the message that this time Republicans mean business.
Judging by the results so far, such a decision would have also provided better leadership. The Republicans have been absolutely clueless since the election.
Empowered by an overwhelming popular mandate, facing a shellacked president and a repudiated lame duck Congress that shouldn't have even been meeting, how did they respond? Sadly, they participated in passing an orgy of legislation that had President Obama doing a victory lap while his recovered image as a conciliator burnished bright.
But it wasn't the politics, it was the substance that hurt. Anything worthwhile could have been done in the new Congress, retroactively if necessary. Instead of waiting, they got rushed into spending a few more hundred billion dollars, mostly on the same old, same old. If they're serious about balancing the budget and trimming the debt, they just made their task much harder.
They had plenty of principled arguments they could have relied on but didn't. For example, take that demonstration of cooperating bipartisanship at its best: the compensation package to the 9/11 victims. Its passage unleashed rounds of pompous self-congratulations, impressive even by Washington standards.
Yet there was no moral or legal justification for the payoffs. The victims weren't killed in the line of duty. The party at fault was Islamic terrorists, not the federal government. Americans sympathize with those who lost loved ones on 9/11, but they're no more entitled to compensation than victims of a murder or a mudslide.
Soldiers who die defending our country get $6,000 and, if there is a surviving spouse, $833 a month. The 9/11 victims, on the other hand, will receive compensation averaging over $1 million. As usual, this is money we don't have but spend anyway, with some Republicans going along like so many lemmings.
Even their big win - extending all the Bush tax cuts - provided further evidence that the Republicans may be overmatched. First, they gave away the store, agreeing to gobs of new spending just to maintain the status quo. For that, they got only a two-year extension, thus assuring that before long they will face more spending ultimatums to avoid ruinous tax increases. Score another one for Obama, already talking tough about the next round.
The biggest head-scratcher of all was the continuation of ethanol subsidies. Analysts of all persuasions, even environmental radicals, have concluded that our federal obsession with ethanol is wasteful and pointless. Yet once again farm state legislators dug in their heels and the leadership caved.
In the lame duck session, Republicans folded as if the election had never happened. So the prospects for real change now focus on the incoming freshman legislators. It's exciting to hear their principled, aggressive talk, but can they pull off the revolution?
An early test will be the authorization for raising the national debt. The newcomers are being asked to do the dirty work for the preceding Congress, which spent $3.2 trillion more than revenues. Now the administration has to have their votes to raise borrowing limits if it is to avoid total financial meltdown.
The pressure will be intense, but the freshmen are in a commanding position. If House Republicans are smart and strong, they could demand fiscal reforms that would virtually foreclose the budget debate before it even begins.
The people would love it. Now that would be real change and cause for real hope.
--
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator
wdgnas posted at 7:39 am on Sat, Jan 8, 2011.
Yet once again farm state legislators dug in their heels and the leadership caved.
not charles grassley, the one that constantly talked about death panels during the health care fiasco.
it will be interesting to see if the republicans will continue with their borrow and spend policies.
to parrot the republicans after obama was elected:
how's that change workin out for ya...
Dale Whiting posted at 8:59 am on Sat, Jan 8, 2011.
"Tax and Spend," you say, inferring that Republicans are not enamored with that philosophy. Actually, they believe in tax cutting, but not cutting spending. They spend "off budget" to "keep us safe and make the world safe for democracy" when much of the world is more worried about being kept safe from us.
And the way I heard it, at least the first $15 billion, and likely much of the rest of that $85 billion needed to get START ratified was pork served up by Jon Kyl. So how is electing Kyl going to help balance a budget?
If the D.C. motto were "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" not even the Tea Party founders, many themselves former elected officials and lobyists, could pick anything up.
So "What's up, Doc?" Where repeal of 2010 Healthcare reform will both kill newly created jobs, increase the deficit, and result in small businesses seeking tax breaks for taking up new benefits for previously uncovered employees, are you advocating repeal of that "Jobs killing healthcare bill, too?" My doctor hopes that no changes are made, or if any are to be made, they be improvements, not steps backward.
Otherwise, your points are well taken.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:22 am on Sat, Jan 8, 2011.
Meant to type "and stop dead in their tracks small businesses seeking tax breaks for taking up new benefits for previously uncovered employees."
Accuracy posted at 11:02 am on Sat, Jan 8, 2011.
ObamaCare CAN be repealed and it WILL be repealed – to fulfilling a campaign pledge of officials that were elected by the American People.
The new Republican-controlled House of Representatives want to repeal what they call "the job-killing" law as if it were never enacted, arguing that it will add to the national debt.
The demands to repeal the radical Obama agenda are beginning to pile up. And the final vote to repeal the ObamaCare is scheduled Wednesday, Jan. 12.
"Only in Washington, D.C., could a Congress vote to repeal a $2.7 trillion government takeover of health care, and the minority says it costs the American people money," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:41 pm on Sat, Jan 8, 2011.
Accuracy,
Your emotions and prejudices are showing again. Time again to fold your arms on your desk, put your head down and listen, not talk.
You wrote "ObamaCare CAN be repealed and it WILL be repealed," . . .
Now any piece of legislation can be re pealed. So the question is not "can the 2010 healthcare legislation be repealed," but "will it be repealed?"
Today's lesson in Constitutional Law.
In order to repeal legislation, the bill repealing it must be passed by both the House and the Senate. Let's assume that the vote on the 12th in the house is huge, that a majority of Congressmen vote to repeal. Does that vote on the 12th repeal the bill? No. Next it must go to the Senate.
Now is the Senate forced to take that repeal bill up for a vote? No. Harry Reid helps schedule legislation. But let's assume Harry schedules a vote and let's further assume that 51 Senators vote to repeal. Does that make the new bill law repealing the old bill? No. The President must sign it. He can either sign it or "veto" it.
Does anyone believe that President Obama will not veto such a bill? Apparently only Accuracy.
Now if the President vetoes the law, is that the end? No, the veto can be over-ridden by a 2/3rd majority vote. Does anyone believe that repeal can find 2/3rs opposing the 2010 legislation in either House or Senate?
Well Accuracy, apparently you do. But no one else does.
So why is Boehner going to all of this trouble? He's pandering to the Tea Party. Here is the problem. Boehner and others are not likely to fund those agencies who must act to make the Healthcare Reform work and they say they will not. Rather they say they will come up with their own healthcare reform ideas. [You should have read my list of ideas, ideas omitted by both parties - Have you given us your ideas? No.]
So if and when Boehner comes up with sufficient reforms to please the minority in the House and the majority in the Senate and the President, too, but not until then, will Healthcare reforms in 2010 be re pealed AND replaced with reforms in 2011. Do you call this repeal? I don't. I call it replacement.
Now who believes Boehner can make that boat float? Not I.
Accuracy, you may now look up from your desk. In fact, take out a pen and start writing your ideas for replacement healthcare legislation.