The response by some Republicans, talking heads, and Beltway sophisticates to those frustrated and angry about the phony and meager cuts in the budget deal is more than just condescending. It reminds of the attitude and approach of many Republicans in the congressional minority during the Seventies: playing not to lose. They claimed their timidity was a function of their strategic wisdom and an understanding of what was politically possible at the moment.
That attitude was one of the reasons they remained in the minority for 40 years.
As I noted in an earlier post, we’re asked to swallow this insulting deal on the representation that it’s politically/tactically smart — the best we could get at the moment — and that bigger cuts would come in the FY 2012 deal. After all, this is the way things are done in Washington. You rubes from flyover country don’t understand the long game.
That long game has gotten us a $14,500,000,000,000 debt and a $1,700,000,000,000 deficit. But hey, it’s just the way things are done. If you don’t like it, you don’t appreciate how thing operate on the Potomac.
When I was first appointed to the National Labor Relations Board, I’d sometimes ask people who had been around for a while (very good people, by the way) why certain expenditures were necessary or why something I thought was wasteful or incomprehensible was done in that way. Very often I’d get a blank stare in return, followed by, “Well, it’s always been done that way.” As Mark Steyn says, never underestimate the seductive power of inertia.
Republicans had an opportunity to shift the status quo much more radically than they’re crowing about right now. That’s not merely a minor, temporary setback in a much longer game. As anyone who negotiates for a living knows (even from out here in the sticks), that’s sets the framework for every subsequent showdown.
The window opens only so often. You never know how long it will remain open.
Amen, Peter.
As someone very active in the Tea Party and who spent countless hours trying to get people to vote on Election Day 2010, I have now lost all confidence in the Congress we helped elect.
I have in the past tried to discourage Tea Partiers who felt the way to power & influence is outside the GOP. No more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the best we could get at the moment" ...
obviously you think they could have gotten a better deal ...
Could any of you explain how that is or was supposed to happen in the real world ?
What strategy would you have employed ? What would you have done ?
Shutting the government down is not the end game, getting a CR done is the end game ...
So please show the GOP leadership the error of their strategy with one of your own ...
Otherwise you are just stomping your feet complaining ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse$38 billion is less than 1% of annual spending.
Getting a real 1% cut (or even a 2% cut) instead of a phony 1% cut in annual spending would "radically" "shift the status quo"?
When you change the "b" to "tr" in the amounts we're cutting, then we can take seriously rhetoric about "radically shifting the status quo."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIOW, was this all that was possible because of the constraints of the way money is allocated and spent by the bureaucracy?
If implementing cutting halfway through the fiscal year is constrained, then how would shutting down the government help?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWere Peter Kirsanow Speaker of the House, the Senate and the President would lay down at his feet and make massive cuts to the budget. Unfortunately, the people in the house are not quite as supernatural as Mr. Kirsanow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOops. In my prior post, I meant 2011 budget, not 2010.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis piece gets it exactly right as regards the Beltway elitists who still put an "R" after their names. But, as so many of their defenders here and elsewhere trumpet (is that you Karl Rove?), it was the best Boehner could do in the face of "overwhelming" odds produced by CBS, WAPO, NY Times, etc. Truth be told, it was a disaster and frittered away much of the capital the Republians gained last November.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf there is "no daylight" of opinion in the Conservatgive camp and it appears we are prepared to go MONTHS and not raise the debt ceiling, do you not think the choking off Democrat dollars for votes would be like drowning liberals in a pool of water?
Oh they will flail around at first, but a point in time will come when they suddenly realize THEY had better cut a deal and accept REAL fiscal change lest they pass away.
During this time life will go on, the sun will rise, businesses will continue, and Government will have to re-learn how to operate on the funds it takes in in a given month.
Finally, if not raising the debt ceiling means it becomes harder or less likely for government to borrow, how exactly is that a bad thing?
Dems need to know that a block of Conservatives in the House are fully prepared to do this or they will NEVER come close to accepting the Ryan plan or any other real fiscal sanity. Find their pressure point and put your foot on it Congress!
Nothing less than the survival of our Republic hangs in the balance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDorsai:
That is the same GOP response we've heard now for 40 years. You either are too young to remember that you parrot failed thinking, or you're so well-versed in party hackishness, that you've got it down cold and forget to think of the primary implication of its logic:
The GOP ALWAYS negotiates on the terms dictated by its opponents, and always backs down with little if anything gained.
If we follow your logic ad infinitum, the debt will just keep on growing.
Oh, say hey! That's what's happened every time a GOP majority magically sprouted from the deep seeds of conservatism's supposed "unpopularity".
Go ahead, GOP stalwart. Make my day. Play McCain:
"Tax cuts for the wealthy! Tax cuts for the wealthy!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIts not a question of whether or not we could have gotten a better deal. Its more like what's the point of negotiating if all you're going to dicker over is the size of the pot we all boil in. If the 2011 budget matters, they should have forced a choice between shutting down the budget and making 100B in real, tangible cuts. If it doesn't matter (i.e. what if Reno_Dave is right) the leadership should have made a blunt statement that its was too late to do anything meaninfull with 2011, voted a status quo buget, and gotten to work on The Roadmap. As it is, both parties are just killing time until we have another election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose sophisticates! They're too sophisticated! Their understanding is too nuanced and complex!
Sorry, but who finds such drivel convincing?
PS: I *LOVE* Campbell's Soup (TM). Because I have to in order to post here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Kirsanow, are you really complaining about some being "condescending"?
Have you stepped back, and looked at some of the ugly emotive sophistry being thrown at the Republicans in Congress, after hearing some rumors provided by one AP report?
The nasty treatment of Mr. Boehner?
Please...
In Washington terms, the current Speaker of the House has admirably maintained a united caucus in opposition of the disastrous Democratic Party control, ever since he became the Republican Leader in the House. Boehner is no fool, and has shown some excellent political skills, as well as a serious embrace of conservative principles.
Most of the criticism has been far from principled, enlightening, constructive, attractive, moving, serious, etc. The Budget Deal became another quick excuse for many stuck on a fashion to vilify Republicans. It was the same fashion which actually suggested the two Parties are identical not so long ago. We even heard some recently say, "Boehner is the same as Pelosi"!
Utter nonsense, not even close to conservatism.
Do any of these voices remember the Reagan record of compromise as Governor or President? It is almost as if today's fashion would have rejected Ronald Reagan as merely being a RINO.
We all want more spending cuts, but we live in the real world. Much of the response to 'rumors' regarding the proposed Budget Deal, were incredibly reactionary and hostile. Some sounded like those obsessed about PORK spending, when the Bush Administration was wisely targeting Social Security. It was a vivid display of some not grasping the larger picture, and seeing the larger battles ahead.
I welcome any effort to encourage more fiscal responsibility, but have to reject this overt emotive hostility expressed towards Republicans on this deal. It is truly dysfunctional, completely self destructive.
Perhaps you might want to review your own expression offered in the prior posting about this subject, and see if you sense any 'condescending' elements. You might be surprised.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on point, Peter. People who've had to negotiate, and do it well to stay employed - like yourself, like Andy McCarthy in his prosecutor days, like Michelle Bachman facing down the IRS in tax court - knew the deal was bad out of the gate. The pundits on the right who support this deal are by and large folks who've done nothing but write for a living. Or, like Stiles and Foster, they're bright young puppies who haven't decades of direct experience with the reality that 'Republican leadership' is historically an oxymoron. (Those two get a pass - it's not sensible to expect old heads on young shoulders).
Oh, and you folks who are embarrassing yourselves with the 'walk a mile in their shoes' nonsense - its not Peter, or Andy McCarthy's job to come up with alternative strategies. We elected folks and are paying them good money to deliver on specifics. They had the power to achieve those goals. They simply didn't have the nerve.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDorsai-
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou asked "What strategy would you have employed ? What would you have done?"
Well, for starters, if I were Boehner (who I personally like very much), I would have asked for $100 billion from the get go, consistent with campaign promises and public opinion. Then settle on the $61 bln in real cuts.
Second, instead of responding to the incessant press inquiries that "The government will not be shutting down" he might have tried something like - "Unlike the Democrats in last year's congress, or the Democratic Senate, or this administration, we have passed an exceedingly reasonable, legally required actual budget for this fiscal year. We have yet to see any real, concrete budget proposals from the Senate or the administration. If the Senate continues to refuse to come with actual legislation, then they will sadly force a shutdown of the government".
Then, don't cheerlead for a shutdown, but don't be fearful of it either. This negotiation was lost from the beginning. The Dems clearly sensed a lack of will and behaved like sharks with blood in the water.
Excuse me, but just saying "I would have held out for more cuts!" is meaningless. Where is the assurance Reid and Obama would have agreed to them? It was widely predicted they were angling to trap us into a shutdown over what amounts to small change in the long run.
The 2012 FY budget battle and the proposed plans from Ryan and Bowles-Simpson deal with trillions and the out years. We might now get away with a shutdown to force the best deal out of that - we would certainly never have held the mushy swing voters for TWO shutdowns in six months - but we won't "win" that one either.
If Obama and the Democrats capitulate in a major way, they have no argument for reelection. They are all in on the spending, and their base is in no mood for cuts. Their only chance is to make us look bad - or to get us fighting amongst ourselves like a bunch of small spoiled children.
So far, it's working pretty well for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMuch as I dislike Democrat policies and politicians, you have to hand it to them. They get power and their leadership goes all-in.
The Dems had both houses of Congess, the White House, and major media outlets. They passed their signature legislation based on voodoo math and faulty logic and then lost badly to a group that is already starting to renege on the promises they made to voters just six months ago.
Give me Scott Walker. At least he sticks to his guns and is hanging in there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse