Republican Rationalizations: When Up Is Down

Is the Republican Party schizophrenic? Are its members and supporters bipolar? The fight over sequestration, the party’s efforts to remake itself and the recent embrace of Obamacare by several Republican governors seem to answer both questions in the affirmative.

In the 2011 debt ceiling deal, Republicans and Democrats agreed to place a sword of Damocles over their heads. At the time, House Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders hailed the sequester as a “Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.” Now that the across-the-board budget cuts loom large on March 1, Republicans claim that it is all the President‘s fault. In addition, Republicans, who for months decried the cuts as ominous, now argue that maybe the cuts aren’t so bad after all. Yes, the sequester could lead to 700,000 people losing their jobs and major cuts to state aid, but that is a small price to pay for shrinking the size of the federal government, they now argue.

“The sequester is something of a political phenomenon,” Ed Rogers, a Republican political consultant who worked in the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, wrote in The Washington Post in declaring that the sequester may not be a disaster. “When it goes into effect, it will be one of the most significant things to occur in Washington in the last four years and oddly, none of the Congressional leadership nor the president is for it. Again, something big is about to happen that no one in power supports. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here. Perhaps we should write more laws that declare if the president and Congress don’t act then spending cuts will ensue. We have never been particularly successful in slowing spending any other way.”

Boehner, who once embraced the sequester as a hammer that could be used to force spending cuts, now argues that the bipartisan agreement is actually “Obama’s sequester.” Instead of negotiating a deal to eliminate the sequester or even to delay it, Boehner and other Republicans have spent the last few weeks blaming the President.

“It’s pretty clear to me that the sequester’s going to go into effect,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said recently. “I have seen no evidence that the House plans to act on this matter before the end of the month.”

Faced with the sudden Republican shift on the sequester – remember Republicans and Democrats said the sequester should never, ever, ever happen – the party’s sycophants have been forced to engage in mental gymnastics in an effort to shift the blame to the President.

In a recent column in The New York Times, David Brooks argued that neither the Republican Party nor President Obama has a plan to avoid the sequester. That such a statement is patently false – the President and Senate Democrats have come up with a plan that calls for new revenue and budget cuts – does not matter to Brooks.

To Brooks, the sequester allows Democrats and Republicans to “dance the moves they enjoy the most:” the Permanent Campaign Shimmy for Democrats and the Suicide Stage Dive for Republicans.

“The conservative press is filling up with essays with titles like ‘Learning to Love Sequestration,’” Brooks wrote. “Of course, Republican legislators are screwing up their courage to embrace it. Of course, after the cuts hit and the furor rises, they are going to come crawling back with concessions as they do after every Suicide Stage Dive.”

Ron Fournier, of the National Journal, was even more schizophrenic is his recent column. Fournier, unlike Brooks, acknowledges that Obama has “reached farther toward compromise than House Republicans.” But Fournier says that while seeking compromise makes the President right, it does not negate his failure to reach a deal with a party that refuses to compromise.

“Is this fiscal standoff (the fifth since Republicans took control of the House in 2011) just about scoring political points, or is it about governing? If it’s all about politics, bully for Obama,” he wrote. “A majority of voters will likely side with the President over Republicans in a budget dispute because of his popularity and the GOP’s pathetic approval ratings.

“If it’s about governing, the story changes: In any enterprise, the chief executive is ultimately accountable for success and failure. Sure, blame Congress – castigate all 535 lawmakers, or the roughly half you hate. But there is only one President. Even if he’s right on the merits, Obama may be on the wrong side of history.”

Such thinking is why so many are urging the Republicans to remake themselves, not just repackage their ideas.

In making his argument, Fournier quoted an op-ed in the Green Bay Post-Gazette by Rep. Reid Ribble, a Wisconsin Republican. Ribble argued that Republicans must accept that new revenues must be considered if we are to deal with the nation’s debt. “Neither party is without fault,” Ribble wrote. “Republicans must confront their own conventional wisdom that says ‘The only way to shrink government is to starve it of resources.’”

Ribble is not the only Republican advocating that Republicans rethink their party and its ideas. In an article for Commentary magazine, Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner argue that GOP leaders must recognize that that they cannot lash out at middle-class Americans as an undeserving 47 percent as Mitt Romney did. Instead, they must come up with ideas that help the bulk of Americans.

One way would be to seek policies that help “individuals attain the skills and values – the social capital – that allow them to succeed in a free economy,” the two wrote. “The Republican goal is equal opportunity, not equal results. But equality of opportunity is not a natural state; it is a social achievement, for which government shares a responsibility. The proper reaction to egalitarianism is not indifference. It is the promotion of a fluid society in which aspiration is honored and rewarded.“

They later added: “Instead of signaling that America is a closed society, which it is not and never has been, Republicans would do better to stress the assimilating power of American ideas – the power whereby strangers become neighbors and fellow citizens. In this connection, they would also do better, for themselves and for the country, to call for increasing the number of visas issued to seasonal and permanent farm workers; to champion a greater stress on merit and skill in admitting legal immigrants; and, for the 12 million or so undocumented workers in the United States, to provide an attainable if duly arduous path to legal status and eventually citizenship.”

Mostly, they argue that Republicans must begin to see themselves as champions of the collective, which may have been what drove some Republican governors to accept Obamacare after spending several years fighting it.

“This country is the greatest in the world, and it’s the greatest largely because of how we value the weakest among us,” Florida Gov. Rick Scott said in announcing that his state will expand Medicaid under Obamacare. “It shouldn’t depend on your Zip Code or on your tax bracket. No mother or father should despair over whether they have access to high-quality health care for their sick child.”

“I cannot in good conscience deny Floridians that needed access to health care,” he said.

Apparently Scott wasn’t the only Republican governor to grow a conscience. Ohio’s Republican governor, John Kasich, urged his fellow lawmakers there to “examine your conscience” before opposing his plan to embrace the Medicaid expansion.

“I can’t look at the disabled, I can’t look at the poor, I can’t look at the mentally ill, I can’t look at the addicted and think we ought to ignore them,” Kasich said. “For those that live in the shadows of life, those who are the least among us, I will not accept the fact that the most vulnerable in our state should be ignored. We can help them.”

Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan and Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona also joined the chorus of Republicans singing the praises of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion

Yet even as they do, the party of Lincoln and its apologists continue to suffer from a personality disorder, unable to determine which way is up.

On the Redolence of Washington

There is a repugnancy that permeates our political system, a malodor that wafts from Capitol Hill across this vast nation. It hovers not only in the air around us, but also reaches deep into our social consciousness, and leaves a stench that overwhelms ours and the nation’s souls. Occasionally, though, a strong wind comes through providing us with a cleansing or a reprieve.

The deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff was such a moment. For a short time, it seemed that Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill smelled what the rest of us had smelled for the last four years. Our lawmakers in Washington came together, albeit at a late hour, to keep us from plunging in what many had described as an economic abyss. Although the deal was less than perfect, it gave many a moment of hope, a sense that the best way to pass meaningful legislation is to begin in the U.S. Senate.

Of course, it was a fleeting moment. Before the fiscal cliff bill could reach President Barack Obama’s desk for signature Republicans had already returned to their recalcitrant ways.

House Speaker John Boehner, who had thrown the fiscal cliff debacle to the President and Senate, announced to the nation that his party would again use the debt ceiling in seeking to wrest spending cuts from the President and Democrats.

His statement was reinforced by Sen. John Cronyn of Texas, who declared that the GOP is willing to shut down the government in order to extract concessions from Obama.

“The coming deadlines will be the next flashpoints in our ongoing fight to bring fiscal sanity to Washington,” Cornyn wrote in an op-ed for the Houston Chronicle not long after a fiscal cliff deal was reached. “It may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal wellbeing of our country, rather than plod along the path of Greece, Italy and Spain. President Obama needs to take note of this reality and put forward a plan to avoid it immediately.”

Cornyn, like many of his GOP colleagues, has decided that the only way to go is to slash the safety net that helps to support as many people in the red states as it does those in the blue states.

“Republicans are more determined than ever to implement the spending cuts and structural entitlement reforms that are needed to secure the long-term fiscal integrity of our country,” Cornyn wrote days after Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, said Republicans should be ready to tolerate a partial government shutdown in the battle over the debt limit.

The declarations by Boehner, Cornyn, Toomey, and other Republicans of course sent the pundit class into a tizzy. Within hours of the fiscal cliff deal and the Republican announcements, pundits began debating, pontificating on, and dissecting the winners and losers of that deal as if the obstinate players were the only ones that mattered.

But while the talking heads search for new ways to describe the game they help promote the rest of us should look deeper for answers and connections. The problem is we may not find many.

The Jan. 1 deal does bring much needed revenue – granted not as much as desired – to the federal coffers. It also preserves unemployment insurance – while not a substitute for employment – for 2 million people without incomes. It will keep the cost of milk – already high – from rising through the roof. And it will allow poor, working, and middle-class people to continue using the child and tuition tax credits to lower their tax bills.

But what price will we have to pay?

Indeed, the fiscal cliff deal fell short on many fronts. It failed to include a stimulus package. It failed to avert another battle over the debt ceiling. It allowed the temporary payroll tax cut to expire. It did not raise taxes on capital gains and estates high enough. And it did not solve any long term fiscal problems.

More important, it put us back where we were 18 months ago, preparing to fight another battle with a political party that believes not only in taking hostages, but in executing them as well.

That is why we may not find those deeper answers and connections.

The fact that the deal was negotiated by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signals just how bad things have become in Washington in general and the House of Representatives in particular.

That so many urged the President to allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire in an effort to gain greater negotiating leverage over the Republicans shows that too many people in Washington fail to recognize the real consequences of such actions. Theirs are arguments steeped in politics not policy.

For the millions of people whose unemployment ran out a few days before the deal was struck, it was no game. Yes, Congress could have passed a bill after Jan. 1, resulting in retroactive benefits. But unless one has lived from paycheck to paycheck one does not understand how a delay, even of a few days or weeks, can create havoc. Allowing those benefits to expire would have caused real harm to real families, something lawmakers should avoid at all costs.

The problem of course is that Washington is unable to do anything – even the things on which all parties agree – until the last moment

“Debt-ceiling dilemma: In the short run, it enables Republicans in Congress to excite their base about entitlement reform that base doesn't really want. (After all, it's the over-65 Republican base that collects most entitlements.) In the long run, it hardens the image of the congressional GOP as a collection of desperadoes who can never safely be trusted with power," David Frum, a The Daily Beast writer and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, said after the fiscal cliff deal.

The debt-ceiling dilemma and the Republican response so far also remind us that the slightest shift in the wind can bring back that fetid aroma emanating from inside the Beltway.

Turn Right? Turn Left? What's the Destination?

As the House of Representatives heads home for a short Christmas break, I am reminded of a story about two men – one a leftist, the other a right winger – who live across the street from each other. Both men are driving to the same venue, but do not share a ride because of their disdain for each other. Before they leave for their destination each man seeks to convince the other that he alone has the best short cut.

“All you have to do is go left at the corner then turn left again, and so on,” the leftist says.

“Oh, BS,” says the right winger. “You go right at each corner. Everyone knows that.”

The men decided to bet on whose was the better short cut. Each took his own route only to end up back in front of their individual homes.

I offer that story because it seems to be where we are in Washington today. No matter what, those on the right want to continue going right, while those on the left want to continue going left – neither acknowledging that adhering to such directions just takes us back to where we started.

This past week, House Republicans showed us just how ignorant making the same right turn time and time again takes us nowhere but back to square one. After a lot of posturing, whining, and maneuvering, House Speaker John Boehner walked away from the negotiation table where efforts were underway to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. Instead of continuing talks with President Barack Obama to close the gap between each other’s deficit reduction proposals, Boehner offered up a “Plan B” that called for tax increases only on those making $1 million or more a year. “Plan B” never reached the House floor for a vote, with Boehner pulling it because he did not have enough support for it among his own caucus.

Meanwhile, those on the left argue that we continue on their route, refusing to acknowledge that while we must preserve the safety net, we cannot adhere blindly to all of its provisions. As the nation ages the cost of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security will keep rising. While we do not have to eviscerate those programs we must take prudent steps to safe guard them.

The same is true with gun control. We cannot continue with a mishmash of gun laws around the country, a poor mental health system, and a blind adherence to the Second Amendment if we want to save ourselves from the senseless whims of mass murderers. There is not one answer to the question we face on gun control laws, but there are some things that we can put into place to lessen the risks we face as a nation. Will we be able to completely remove guns from our society? No, but we can limit access to high-power weapons and multi-round clips.

Yet, neither the left nor the right seems ready and willing to act sensibly. For the right, any effort to regulate firearms is an attack on personal liberty. The Second Amendment, according to many of them, was intended so that Americans could protect themselves against a tyrannical Federal Government. That the Second Amendment calls for gun ownership as a way to maintain a “well-regulated militia” is lost on the right, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition, we cannot fix our fiscal house if we do not recognize some very basic tenets, including that while Federal spending must be brought down, we cannot continue to allow such people as Willard Mitt Romney to pay less than 15 percent in taxes on income above $20 million, while those making much, much less pay a higher rate. We cannot reduce the budget deficit if we do not add jobs to the nation through additional stimulus spending, which could result in greater demand for goods by both businesses and individuals. We cannot tackle the long-term systemic issues in our economy if we do not recognize that the current level of safety net spending cannot be maintained forever.

The same goes for our gun policies. We cannot address mass killings in America if we do not recognize that many of the shooters have been young men in that age range where mental illness becomes most pronounced. We cannot help those young men who are a threat to themselves, and more important, a threat to society if the mental health system is fragmented with few options for parents and others who detect the warning signs of a meltdown. We cannot provide the treatment those young men need if we do not have the facilities or if insurance companies are allowed to limit how much psychiatric care a person can receive.

And we cannot stem the flow of guns into the hands of those who would do the most harm if we continue to allow each state to have varying laws, to allow weapons to be sold at gun shows without background checks, to allow people to buy as many guns as they can carry without red flags going off, to allow people to continue purchasing large amounts of ammunition without some investigation.

The battle over gun control is not just about the mass killings that seem to be occurring more frequently in this nation. It is about the thousands of shootings that occur across the nation every week. It is about making it harder for abusive husbands – and in some cases wives – to grab a gun and kill their spouses. It is about taking guns out of the hands of people who would commit suicide. It is about recognizing that in the majority of murders in the United States the victim and the assailant knew each other. It is about accepting that more guns do not necessarily make the world safer. Mostly, it is about admitting that our love affair with guns as a symbol of freedom is an anachronism, a vestige of time that has long passed.

And the fiscal battle being waged is not about right-wing or left-wing doctrines. It is about the millions of people who remain underemployed or unemployed. It is about a deteriorating infrastructure. It is about investing in education to better prepare our students for tomorrow. It is about reducing long-term costs for safety net programs. It is about restoring a sense of confidence in the American economy and the nation's ability to tackle large issues.

More important, though, it is deciding that if we really want to get somewhere in this nation, if we really want to make that journey together, to reach our destination then we are going to have to make some right and some left turns. Otherwise we will end up back where we started.

The Summer of Our Disconnect, II

The dueling news briefings from President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner Friday night shows just how out of touch we have become in this country. Despite the widespread belief that the government must deal with the deficit, taxes, and the debt ceiling, Washington has again fallen short of what needs to be done. And the reasons have little to do with the economy, and more to do with the political stridency that engulfs our nation.

Indeed, when the Tea Party began its push to oust Democrats and moderate Republicans from Congress its members screamed about a new "revolution" sweeping across our nation. Now, it is time for the people who believe in this country, who want Washington to work toward the betterment of society to stand up and begin that revolution by declaring -- as the President did last week -- "enough is enough."

Since the debt talks began, the White House has offered several plans to cut the deficit. But Republicans, who ran on the promise that they would cut the deficit, have continued to walk away from the negotiating table. One must ask why? When we do, we have to realize that the efforts of the GOP are not to fix America, but to block Obama.

In doing so, they have shown that they are incapable of reaching a compromise, which they have made a dirty word in American politics. The arrogance of the GOP freshmen class has put the nation in danger. Even if one argues against raising the tax rate, it is hard for anyone seeking true deficit reduction to argue against changing a federal tax code that allows such corporations as GE to pay little or no taxes on multi-billion profits.

Indeed, The New York Times recently published an article in which it looked at subsidies contained in the federal budget. Based on government and private studies, $1.8 trillion could be saved by eliminating those subsidies, which about $1.6 million a year for farmers to store peanuts and cotton in Georgia while waiting for price increases. It also includes $200 million for small and rural airports around the country some of which have no more than three flights a day. Another $100 million in tax breaks is given to owners of Nascar race tracks.

When George W. Bush tried to remove the farm storage subsidy he met with opposition from Republicans and Democrats, some of whom also have not been willing to compromise. President Obama has also tried to get rid of the subsidy. He failed both times. What we see is a basic philosophy that says, "We must cut the budget as long as it does not mean cutting a program I pushed."

For instance, in an another recent article The Times noted that several freshmen Republican lawmakers have been pushing government sponsored projects that they campaigned against during the last election. Such hypocrisy is rampant in Washington, as if how we refer to a program changes its meaning. In the new Congress, earmarks are not earmarks because the terminology has been changed.

That is why it is time for moderates and independents to take over the revolution that the Tea Party claims it started. No longer can they sit on the sidelines shaking their heads in disgust. Compromise is not a dirty word, it is the foundation of democracy.

"We've shown ourselves willing to step up on something the Republicans ran on," President Obama said at his news briefing where he scolded Boehner for walking away from the negotiating table yet again.

And of course, Boehner, in his own briefing, placed blame on the President, saying he will no longer negotiate with the White House. As House Speaker he has that right. But failure to negotiate with the President on a national deficit shows a total disconnect on the part of the GOP, and a total disregard for what many Americans want -- a government that works.