It’s important to start with the obvious: Yesterday marked the end of the hyper-activist phase of the Obama administration, and that’s no small matter. Republicans picked up an astounding 60+ seats in the House and now enjoy their largest working majority in decades. Moreover, the House will be quite conservative, with scores of new members elected on an explicit promise to limit the size and reach of the federal government. Come January, don’t look for the new House to go along with any of the ambitious and expensive federal programs, tax increases, and burdensome regulatory requirements that have marked the first two years of the Obama era.
Republicans also made impressive gains in the Senate, making it even less likely that any type of legislation will get enacted without at least some Senate Republican support. And with 24 Democratic senators up for reelection in 2012 — many of them in states much less friendly than the ones in which their colleagues competed this year — there will be opportunities for Republican senators to effectively control the fate of legislation if they are smart about building bipartisan coalitions.
Still, Republicans must understand that they are still the opposition party, without the ability to effectively govern the country. That has important implications.
For starters, it means that the health care war is really only just beginning. By all means, the House should press for full repeal. But it has always been the case that the decisive health care election was always going to be in 2012, at the presidential level. The only way the fight for repeal-and-replace can be won decisively is if a Republican presidential candidate runs on an explicit replacement platform, and wins. Then there will be a clear mandate to overturn Obamacare and move the nation’s health-care system toward consumer control and market competition. Republicans in the House and Senate should recognize this, and lay the foundation for the ultimate victory by highlighting the most unpopular and damaging aspects of what was passed.
On budget matters, Republicans in both chambers would be wise to take the long view. The greatest challenge Republicans face is making good on their commitment to actually implement real cuts in government spending. The politics always get much, much tougher when the conversation moves from the abstract of the campaign trail to the specifics of legislative language. Republicans must understand that real progress on fiscal matters in coming years will require building a durable center-right coalition that is strong enough to take the intense heat that always comes whenever real cuts are on the table for consideration. Consequently, House and Senate Republican leaders should resist the temptation to go it alone after last night’s victories. Instead, they should reach out immediately to those remaining conservative Democrats in the House and Senate who have expressed a desire to downsize government too, and work with them to implement serious budget discipline. That was the Reagan model for his 1981 agenda, and it worked. Of course, it will require some compromises, but those compromises (on details, not principles) will be worth it if the result is a bipartisan budget framework that can be contrasted with what will surely be a far more liberal tax-and-spend agenda coming out of the White House.
— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He served as associate director of the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
"That was the Reagan model for his 1981 agenda, and it worked."
Oh, right "the Reagan model". If I might quote the Cato Institute: "Indeed, during the first three years of the Reagan administration, federal spending as a percentage of GNP increased to historically high peacetime levels" (External Link
).
Republicans have been admirably forthright about their lack of credibility on restraining spending (see: Bush administration, 2001-2009, history of), and I suppose it's possible (color me extremely skeptical) that lessons have been truly learned. But citing Reagan, under whose watch deficits exploded, as the model here, doesn't give me a lot of confidence.
I'd love to see a little more realism from Republicans about the role that (GASP SHUDDER VOMIT) taxes play in deficit reduction-- a role recognized by the last Republican who actually reduced the deficit instead of just flapping his gums about it (Bush the elder)-- and then maybe I'd be prepared to take them seriously. Otherwise it's just noise...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does everyone assume that deep budget cuts are going to be difficult or even impossible? Sure, a lot of programs are "popular", but much like a consumer shopping for a new car, I think everyone realizes that there are things we simply can't afford.
The federal government is really nothing more than overhead, in business terms (and more akin to a board of directors than even senior management). Virtually all of their domestic programs can be done better and more eficiently by states or even the people (i.e. the working staff). How does it make sense for the federal government to take $1 from the states for education, run it through the bureaucracy, and return what - 7o cents or so back to the states? The same could be said for housing, transportation, agriculture, etc. The bottom line is that when looked at this way, it is very obvious that we really do not get much value from the federal government when it strays outside its enumurated powers - other than tens of trillions of dollars in debt, economic inefficiency and decay, and special interest favortism.
Our basic economic problem is simple. As a whole, our nation is consuming (i.e. squandering) more than we produce, and virtually every federal policy, law, regulation, or program we have encourages this state of affairs. Tax policy, fiscal policy (all the wasteful spending the government itself does), monetary policy, regulations, etc. all discourage or punish production and encourage spending, debt, waste and inefficiency. Maybe we should just de-authorize everything and start over.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Republicans must understand that real progress on fiscal matters in coming years will require building a durable center-right coalition that is strong enough to take the intense heat that always comes whenever real cuts are on the table for consideration.”
Real cuts in ALL of the unconstitutional federal agencies and entitlement programs designed and implemented by the progressive socialists should be abolished…period!
Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the ONLY man who has ‘The Republican Plan’ to balance the budget, stop spending, reduce the deficit and the national debt to take our country back to sanity and solvency!
For the Republicans to compromise on anything that may cross Obama’s desk for veto or signing will be demanded by “We the People…” to be within our Constitutional guidelines of governance that benefits the country!
Violating their oath of office to protect and defend our Constitution will be a deadly mistake for ANY of the politicians!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr Capretta, I'm sure that many senior Republicans will agree with your view:-
"Republicans must understand that real progress on fiscal matters in coming years will require building a durable center-right coalition that is strong enough to take the intense heat that always comes whenever real cuts are on the table for consideration."
The trouble is, if they follow that course of action, they may find themselves in the same position as the British Conservative Party. Under Cameron, the Conservative Party shifted steadily to the left. Unfortunately for them, their core voters, like the Tea Parties in the US, did not see it as bipartisan, but as a betrayal of the principles which the party supposedly espoused.
Some commentators, like Jim Geraghty, have damned the Tea Parties for costing the GOP some seats which they might otherwise have won:-
"When you’re voting in a race that is neck-and-neck between Bad and Less Bad and your preferred candidate, Ideal, is in single digits, you’re not going to see Ideal suddenly leap ahead in a three-way race on the last day. If you want to beat Bad, you may have to hold your nose and vote for Less Bad."
Oddly enough, that mirrors the advice of many before the last British General Election, when many Conservative supporters said that conservative voters should "hold their noses, and vote for Cameron." Well, many conservative voters, despite their doubts, did just that - and were subsequently appalled when, far from reverting to conservative policies, Cameron took his party even FURTHER to the left - and very quickly, at that.
As another mirror image, a tiny fringe party in Britain, the United Kingdom Independence Party, suffered the same sort of post-election accusations as the Tea Parties. "You robbed the Conservatives of seats!" Well, it might appear that way. Certainly, the votes gained by UKIP in many marginal seats prevented the Conservative candidate from winning. But, in my view, the long term benefits outweigh the short term loss - and I think the same applies to the Tea Parties and the GOP.
Suppose UKIP voters had "held their noses and voted for Cameron"? What would be the long term result? First, it would have given Cameron a clear working majority, and enabled him to tell his party, "See? I was correct in taking this party to the left!", and it would have encouraged him to do it even more. It would also have left conservative voters even more disillusioned than before - as it would have left them with no hopes of their views being represented.
As it is, even though UKIP candidates did not win a single seat in parliament, they sent a shock wave right through the Conservative Party - as did the Tea Parties. Basically, the message was;
"You do not have any right to our votes. If you persist in betraying our political principles, we will vote against you - and it will hurt. If, on the other hand, you take our concerns seriously, we will swing our votes behind you - and you can see that our votes can make a significant difference. Your call."
As in Britain, Less Bad government isn't good. Less Bad, as Cameron is already proving, is still taking us into national bankruptcy. That he is taking us there more slowly than a Labour government would have done is little consolation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRifleman, I understand your comment, but in the parlimentary system in England 3rd parties can command real power. Not so in the US. I appreciate that there is a point where it makes no sense to vote just so a GOP guy can attain a committee chairmanship.
In the end the Castle vote was probably fortuitous because if he won while we were in the minority, he would be a peel off target for bipartisianship for Obama. But O'Donnell was a bad candidate with too much baggage - that seat was lost because of the tea party, and Palin and partiers really screwed up with Miller in Alaska who turned out to be a not ready for prime time player and allowed a corrupt senator back into congress. If Geraghty notes this, because its true, so what. The tea party did some great things, will learn from its setbacks and continue to set some spine for the GOP. It helped Rubio and Toomey and a bunch of House spots.
Remember too, the shot was also at the Libertarians who split votes and saved some democrats who should have lost. The lesson there is that you need to find a green party or socialist candidate in every state that has a legitimate libertarian candidate - much like the dems did with phony Tea Partiers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse