Ezra writes:

Yesterday, I asked Reihan Salam to give some evidence for his claim that there is “a broad consensus” among conservatives and “large numbers of Republican lawmakers” that Congress should pass further state and local aid measures. According to Reihan, the only holdup was that Republicans wanted the aid to be contingent on states developing fiscally sound long-term budgets. As soon as Democrats endorsed that, it would be all systems go.
But when asked to name some legislation, Reihan didn’t come up with much. “That is the basic idea behind Sen. Scott Brown’s Fiscally Responsible Relief for Our States Act,” Reihan said. But Brown’s proposal — a proposal from one of the most moderate Republicans who is representing one of the most liberal states in the union — doesn’t have any co-sponsors, so it’s hard to see how it represents a consensus.

I can see why Ezra doesn’t share my perspective on this, but here it is: the fact that congressional Democrats in 2005 didn’t offer alternative legislative language for Social Security reform does not mean that all congressional Democrats opposed some kind of reform for Social Security. Many congressional Democrats accepted the idea of some kind of Social Security reform — lifting the earnings cap, adjusting the retirement age, etc. — yet offering a legislative alternative was a move fraught with political downsides and no imaginable political upside.

I also think “the only holdup” line is something Ezra is attributing to me — there are many holdups, including intense mutual distrust that goes beyond partisan gamesmanship.

I’ll also note that I used a number of “escape hatches” in my original post, e.g., what constitutes a “large number”? And what does it mean to support the idea in principle? I never would have made the claim that congressional Republicans have actually proposed legislation along these lines — which Ezra considers the relevant test — as that’s not the hallmark of the Republican congressional minority, with the exception of Reps. Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes and, in the Senate, Tom Coburn and perhaps Scott Brown.

Do I believe that a large number of Republican lawmakers would endorse “cash-for-cuts” as an alternative to unconditional grants to the states? Yes. I also think it would have to be part of a broader proposal that didn’t increase overall spending and that reduced the tax burden. I do not consider this a realistic approach, which is why Republican Hill staffers aren’t rushing to draft legislation along these lines. Yet my conversations with staffers and other policymakers suggest that a large number of Republican lawmakers are open to the idea of countercyclical aid to the states in theory. They just can’t imagine congressional Democrats crafting a workable compromise.

It’s hard for me to imagine a universe in which a majority congressional Democrats would endorse both a tough “cash-for-cuts” proposal and back ARRA and PPACA.

I will happily acknowledge, however, that I can’t read the minds of Republican lawmakers, which is why I focus on policy rather than legislative strategy.