Friday, January 29, 2010
The Obama-GOP Smackdown...
...that wasn't.
|
On the contrary, today's exchange between the president and the House Republican conference was one of the best bits of live American political theater I've seen in sometime. Lots of folks on Twitter want more -- because it was so good. Republicans showed the president and the country that they have counter-ideas to what Democrats and the White House is proposing; the GOP is not the "Party of No." The president showed that, yeah, he may use a Teleprompter a lot, but when you ask him specific policy-oriented questions, he knows his stuff -- whether you agree with him or not. Paul Ryan, in particular, stood out.
Read more ยปLabels: Barack Obama, House Republicans, President Obama
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Say Good Night, Ronnie
So, in the end, the Reagan Revolution ended Thursday with a whimper and not a bang. For nearly three decades, the only thing that unified Republicans in all circumstances was an aggressive anti-tax stance.
|
The revolution began with Reagan's 25 percent cut in personal income taxes passed in 1981. While disagreements over foreign policy (Kosovo) and social issues (immigration) would arise in the GOP over the years, tax-reduction and anti-tax philosophy was the glue keeping the coalition together. The one time that there was a split -- when George H.W. Bush's lips moved in 1990 -- was the exception that proved the rule. The future leaders of the party -- Republican Whip Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and others -- staged a rebellion among the House GOP on behalf of the Reaganite tax policy. After Bush I lost in 1992 (which the base of the party blamed on his violating his tax pledge), those rebellious House leaders went on to formulate the Contract With America, which included no less than nine tax limitation or cutting measures.
That background is important to understand the significance of Thursday's House vote to impose a 90 percent tax on individuals who got bonuses from A.I.G. and other firms who received more than $5 billion in federal bailout money. The vote was 328-93. That's significant because it was brought to the floor under terms called "suspension of the rules." That means a bill can be considered without going through the usual process of being debated and voted out of committees.
Bills considered under "suspension" are usually uncontroversial, ceremonial bits of legislation -- like honoring a recently deceased beloved entertainer or naming a bridge after a favorite Kennedy (hmmm...poor choice of words). They require a two-thirds support for passage. In fact, they usually pass by voice vote. In any event, regardless of the "crisis of the moment," any bill that contains a 90 percent tax levy (no matter how narrowly tailored) could hardly be considered "uncontroversial." Even with the large majority that Democrats have, a two-thirds vote requires Republican support.
Which is why I assumed there would be no way that this bill could get out of the House under these circumstances.
But, one could see something was "up" when Grover Norquist, the high-priest of anti-tax theology -- who demands that candidates sign a no-tax-raising pledge -- declared that voting for a tax on bonuses was defensible-- with a pseudo-caveat:
"If your goal is to recoup the resources that you've given people that you hadn't thought would be spent this way, you can make it not a tax increase simply by having an offsetting tax cut on honest taxpayers," Norquist explained. "Or you could do the same thing by cutting the amount of money that you were going to give AIG in the next tranche that they'll demand, so you can have the withdrawal of the resources done in less spending."Ah, right. I really can't imagine any other circumstance where Grover would give Republicans a pass to raise taxes today -- with a promise of cutting them later! Who is this -- Wimpy? "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
Come to think of it, "wimpy" is a pretty good description.
Geez, Grover, glad to see that Benedict isn't the only Pope offering indulgences.
Now, Grover can justify this all he wants, but it's clear that he's allowed his populist instinct to overwhelm his anti-tax foundation (pun intended).
With Grover's dispensation out of the way, the eventual vote couldn't be seen as too much of a surprise. Unlike 1990 when the future leaders of the House and the conservative movement voted against a tax hike, GOP Whip Eric Cantor (who models himself after a young Newt Gingrich) ended up voting for the bill, bringing 84 other Republicans with him.
You know how bad this bill is? It's so bad that even liberal writer Josh Marshall -- who has been doing yeoman work in mining this A.I.G. story and everything connected to it --calls it an "ill-advised..Frankenstein."
Yet, Cantor & Co. couldn't see that. They especially couldn't see what precedent was being set. Sure, they might say that this was a special circumstance and won't be replicated. But, they are now on record as voting for a 90-percent rate confiscatory tax -- and as the old joke goes, "Madam, we've already determined what you are; we're now just haggling over the price."
And, that's how the Reagan era died in the Republican Party.
With a wimp-er.
Labels: A.I.G., AIG, Eric Cantor, House Republicans, Newt Gingrich, Republicans, Ronald Reagan
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Honeymoon? Over.
Barack Obama had a dream -- to create a bipartisan paradise which would cut through the divisions of the last two decades.
So much for that. Consider the so-called post-inaugural honeymoon over.
The $819 billion economic stimulus package sure created bipartisanship in the House on Wednesday -- in opposition. Not one single Republican voted for this bill.
Zippo. Nada. A GOP donut.
Actually, Republicans picked up 11 Democratic votes. Not quite the bipartisanship we came to believe in.
Honeymoon? This is the political version of a bride coming down with a migraine on the wedding night and rebuffing her husband's romantic overtures. Sure, the stimulus package is still on track to become law eventually. The nature of the Senate is that the minority GOP has greater influence in getting more GOP-friendly changes into the legislation. After the Senate votes, the "conference" version of the two bills might entice some House Republicans to get on board for final passage -- but don't bet on it.
The opposition voting overwhelming against a new president's economic plan is is hardly unusual -- and a shutout isn't unprecedented. In 1993, minority Republicans unanimously opposed Bill Clinton's first budget. But Clinton had won the presidency with only 43 percent of the vote -- and he had "reverse coattails": Republicans picked up seats in the 1992 election. Furthermore, the animosity between Clinton and Republicans then was already personal.
Today's House Republicans have warm things to say about President Obama personally (though that might be a just a wise political gambit). But that's not going anywhere. Today's House Republicans are now more viscerally and uniformly conservative than they has been in -- perhaps forever. The Northeastern moderates are extinct in the party on the House side (indeed, there is not one House GOPer Republican in New England). While there might be a handful of pro-choice Republicans in the House, on the core issue of the moment, all of these Republicans have reverted to their fiscal conservative roots. Why not? They don't have to support a profligate spending Republican president anymore.
Obama's honeymoon with the public -- and the media -- is not over. But one of his principal campaign goals has failed in its initial test: A more bipartisan Washington? Sure doesn't look like it.
An $819 billion wedding present is just too much for House Republicans to accept.
|
So much for that. Consider the so-called post-inaugural honeymoon over.
The $819 billion economic stimulus package sure created bipartisanship in the House on Wednesday -- in opposition. Not one single Republican voted for this bill.
Zippo. Nada. A GOP donut.
Actually, Republicans picked up 11 Democratic votes. Not quite the bipartisanship we came to believe in.
Honeymoon? This is the political version of a bride coming down with a migraine on the wedding night and rebuffing her husband's romantic overtures. Sure, the stimulus package is still on track to become law eventually. The nature of the Senate is that the minority GOP has greater influence in getting more GOP-friendly changes into the legislation. After the Senate votes, the "conference" version of the two bills might entice some House Republicans to get on board for final passage -- but don't bet on it.
The opposition voting overwhelming against a new president's economic plan is is hardly unusual -- and a shutout isn't unprecedented. In 1993, minority Republicans unanimously opposed Bill Clinton's first budget. But Clinton had won the presidency with only 43 percent of the vote -- and he had "reverse coattails": Republicans picked up seats in the 1992 election. Furthermore, the animosity between Clinton and Republicans then was already personal.
Today's House Republicans have warm things to say about President Obama personally (though that might be a just a wise political gambit). But that's not going anywhere. Today's House Republicans are now more viscerally and uniformly conservative than they has been in -- perhaps forever. The Northeastern moderates are extinct in the party on the House side (indeed, there is not one House GOPer Republican in New England). While there might be a handful of pro-choice Republicans in the House, on the core issue of the moment, all of these Republicans have reverted to their fiscal conservative roots. Why not? They don't have to support a profligate spending Republican president anymore.
Obama's honeymoon with the public -- and the media -- is not over. But one of his principal campaign goals has failed in its initial test: A more bipartisan Washington? Sure doesn't look like it.
An $819 billion wedding present is just too much for House Republicans to accept.
Labels: Barack Obama, House Republicans
