Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Cantor: Obama ‘Overly Sensitive’

Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) tells National Review Online that President Obama’s negotiating style leaves much to be desired.

“He’s overly sensitive to someone differing with him on policy grounds,” Cantor says.

And he’s isn’t persuasive. “There’s never any sort of economic argument that he can make for his position. It always reverts to that social-justice end,” Cantor argues.

Not that Obama uses the phrase “social justice.” “It’s ‘fairness.’”

What’s more, Obama’s prickliness is “directly opposite” Cantor’s experience with Vice President Joe Biden: “I had almost seven weeks with the vice president, and those talks were substantive. He and I spoke weekly. Our staffs met daily. The agenda was set. Our staffs had done the initial ‘tolerance test’ as to probing how far either side could go on a particular issue. And if it was too far, we tried to stay away from it.”

By contrast, Cantor believes the president’s ideological mindset is impenetrable: “This guy just doesn’t get it.”

The majority leader also sees a change in the House GOP’s management style from the last time it held the majority. The night of the first scheduled vote on Speaker John Boehner’s debt-ceiling proposal, Cantor estimates that leadership was down about a dozen votes. In the past, leadership would hold a vote even when its position was more precarious — and keep it open until victory was secure.

“We didn’t want to do that, and I think it’s just the speaker’s style,” Cantor says. “He wanted to make sure that we were trying to address everybody’s concerns. And I think it proved to be a longer-term play, which is beneficial.”

Going forward, Cantor says the House GOP will follow a two-track approach to creating a growth agenda: tax reform and reducing regulations. “We’ve inventoried out of the various committees the top ten regulations that are impeding job growth. And each week in the ten weeks that we’re back, we’re going to focus on them and try to demonstrate why it is they don’t make sense.”

On tax reform, Cantor is less optimistic: “I just don’t believe you’re going to get tax reform the way we want tax reform with this president in the White House and the Democrats in control of the Senate.”

Still, he lists a few options: preventing the 3 percent withholding requirement for government contractors, allowing for repatriation of overseas profits, and passing some of the stalled free-trade deals.

Then there’s the select committee. Cantor hopes that it will focus on the task at hand: cutting spending. And he believes the almost $2.3 trillion in cuts discussed during the Biden talks could prove to be useful material.

But he warns, “With Harry Reid and the president insisting on ‘a big deal’ and tax reform, I’m worried. Because, going back to my experience in the Biden talks and at the White House, they will not go to entitlement reform — even their kind of entitlement reform — without tax-rate increases.”

Democrats’ kind of entitlement reform, Cantor contends, is the kind that doesn’t solve the problem: changing the eligibility age for Medicare, means-testing the program, and adjusting the inflation rate used to calculate increases in Social Security payments. Never will Democrats assent to a premium-support model for Medicare.

“If you know that they’re not going there,” Cantor says, “then they want these intermediate changes in entitlements, but won’t do that unless you raise taxes — to me, it’s a nonstarter.”

Yes, the committee sounds primed for deadlock. Because Cantor vows: “The House is not going to support tax increases. Period.”

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   35

EXPAND  

   08/03/11 16:24

Gee, the select committee is likely to deadlock. Who'd a thunk it?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Mr. Sandmich
   08/03/11 16:34

" allowing for repatriation of overseas profits"

This is why corporate taxes are a joke. Politicians like Cantor are happy to give their big multinational donors a break while crushing small to medium businesses that can't off-shore their profits with the full weight of the tax code.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 16:56

Mr. Sandmich, 'crushing small to medium businesses' is the intent. The larger corporations are largely already beholden to the government in multiple ways, so represent no serious threat. Small to medium businesses are operated by people who are less likely to have already cowed to the government. Also these small to medium sized businesses represent a threat to large ones, so the corporatist approach of rent-seeking is just another favor granted to the bigs, a marker the politicos can call at their convenience.

The most honest comment on this topic was offered by V.I. Lenin, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

The only reason he didn't include "regulation" on the list was that he had no need to bother with any administrative fig leaves to conceal the tyranny.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jabb
   08/03/11 16:43

Mr. Cantor, a quick question, if I may:

In your "substantive" talks with Vice President Biden, how many times did he call you a terrorist?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 16:54

Cantor: 'Obama 'Overly Sensitive'

LOL. Cantor just called Obama a sissy.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Q.
   08/03/11 17:10

"Repatriation of overseas profits" didn't create jobs before and it won't create jobs now.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 18:24

"Repatriation of overseas profits" didn't create jobs before and it won't create jobs now.

That's because these idiots don't understand the difference between "profits" and cash. None of them could explain a cash flow statement if their life depended on it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/04/11 07:56

So you think that keeping all of that money overseas benefits the US economy?

Just how pray tell?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/04/11 15:16

Why do we need an explanation? The invisible hand of the free market fixes everything!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 17:10

"Yes, the committee sounds primed for deadlock."

Quite. It is not a bug, it is a feature. This committee, the "Dododecumvirate", has one purpose: provide a vehicle to raise taxes and protect domestic spending programs, while shielding most congress-critters from accountability.

The denizens of DC should comprehend that we plebes aren't stupid. We've been to this melodrama before, and we know how the act three concludes. The difference this time is that our esteemed elected officials are playing with matches near a volatile mixture of oppressive debt, tyrannical regulation, and citizen outrage.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
erformc1
   08/03/11 17:31

Even if we take back the WH and the Senate, how does Cantor think we're going to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster on tax reform?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Mark Phillips
   08/03/11 18:40

"By contrast, Cantor believes the president’s ideological mindset is impenetrable."

Because Cantor vows: “The House is not going to support tax increases. Period.”

Anyone notice a mental disconnect here?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Reilly
   08/03/11 19:13

We have a spending problem and that beast will not be slayed by feeding it more. That is a basic fact and the basis on which Cantor rightly states that tax hikes are a non-starter.

For the street organizer- facts, figures, and soaring deficits are of no concern. His ivory tower ideology will not allow reality to enter the equation.

The only disconnect here is one of reality vs delusion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Mark Phillips
   08/03/11 20:24

Actually, we have a deficit problem. It can be solved by reducing spending, increasing income or some combination. Since the deficit snowballed in the early 2000's when income was reduced and spending was increased, it is entirely credible to propose the last as the solution.

The view that reducing spending is the best solution is your (and presumably Cantor's) opinion. For Cantor to refuse to acknowledge any other possibility is to commit the same mistake of which he accuses Obama.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kakarot
   08/03/11 22:56

"the deficit snowballed in the early 2000's when income was reduced and spending was increased"

I'm not sure 2009 counts as "early 2000's".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kakarot
   08/03/11 23:06

"...deficit snowballed in the early 2000's when income was reduced and spending was increased"

I'm not sure 2009 counts as "early 2000's", but never mind.

But I will agree that spending went up a whole lot in 2009, especially with the Stimulus (irony alert) Bill. But hey, it kept unemployment under 8% like it was supposed to.

snicker....

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/04/11 07:57

We tried your solution 3 times during the 80's. Raise taxes in order to cut the deficit.

Did the deficit fall? Of course not, congress took the extra money and spent it.

Anyone who thinks that won't happen again is either delusional or lying.

Which category do you fall into?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 19:55

@Mark Philips: Nope. I think Cantor is saying that he can provide an economic argument for his position as well as an ideological and moral one. Whereas Obama cannot do so for his positions.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Mark Phillips
   08/03/11 20:27

It is unambiguous that he is committing the same sin he says that Obama commits.

As to the justification for his opinion, certainly Obama has his as well. Just stating that he cannot do so only indicates that you haven't paid attention to the reams of news and opinion that have been written in the last few weeks.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kakarot
   08/03/11 22:45

I love it.

Phillips states that Cantor "is committing the same sin he says that Obama commits".

Not "the same sin that Obama commits". After all, it can't possibly be that Obama commits a sin, any sin.

When you remember that Obama was demanding higher taxes when even Harry Reid had abandoned that ship, "impenetrable" is one of the kinder things The One could be called.

I'm also intrigued why the reams of "opinion that have been written in the last few weeks" is expected to sway anyone, but never mind that for now.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact