Patterico's Pontifications

10/1/2010

After the midterms: Divide and conquer?

Filed under: General — Karl @ 2:43 pm



[Posted by Karl]

Yesterday, House GOP leader — and Speaker wannabe — John Boehner gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, including a number of suggestions for cutting federal spending. I am particularly struck by this one:

Let’s do away with the concept of “comprehensive” spending bills. Let’s break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier.

Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit.

Members shouldn’t have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services.

Members shouldn’t have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each Department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own.

This approach is good as a matter of substance and strategy. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes, it would help a GOP-led House avoid a government shutdown showdown of the sort that would otherwise be inevitable. If House Republicans are committed to defunding parts of ObamaCare, they won’t be able to avoid a fight with the administration. While I could cynically make the argument that losing that fight would help frame the 2012 election, it would be bad policy and likely bad for any House GOP leader who wanted to remain House GOP leader. The divide-and-conquer approach would give the GOP much greater leeway in framing funding fights and much less opportunity for the establishment media to hype a budgetary “trainwreck,” as they did in the Clinton-Gingrich context.

If the House Republicans’ Pledge to America showed that the leaders have not yet figured out how to accomodate a likely bolder freshman class, Boehner’s speech shows that at least some thought is being given to the fight ahead. It is thus all the more irritating that Boehner — and the House GOP generally — refuse to commit the party to a ban on earmarks. The divide-and-conquer logic is the same, as earmarks grease the skids for larger and even more odious pieces of legislation. Boehner’s speech acknowledges that voters see the House as a compromised institution. Boehner himself says he is against earmarks. In this environment, it would be a mistake for the House GOP to think it can shy away from an earmark ban with claims that other reforms — e.g., the proposed weekly spending cut votes — are an adequate substitute.

–Karl

38 Responses to “After the midterms: Divide and conquer?”

  1. Speaking as one Reaganite conservative, I like that idea. 🙂

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  2. This is an excellent approach, for the reasons Karl outlined. It probably proves racism. Or xenophobia.

    JD (eb1dfe)

  3. It probably proves racism. Or xenophobia.

    Probably both.

    We’ll have to wait for one of the trolls to give us his/her/its expert opinion.

    Here, troll, troll, troll…

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  4. It’s just good common sense. Tying crap to something we need is basically the oldest trick in the book.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  5. Tying crap to something we need is basically the oldest trick in the book.

    To be brutally honest, the GOP has been known to do that as well… so I say both parties need to quit it!

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  6. That is a great idea and makes me think Boehner might be serious about cutting spending. The Democrats are hoping for a shutdown but Obama would have trouble vetoing all those individual bills and defending the vetoes.

    Mike K (568408)

  7. I’m down with earmark bans. Also, BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENTS. That would be responsible. Also, at some point, we are going to have to stop treating “tax” like a dirty word. Big spending cuts, yes, but we’re not gonna finagle our way out of debt without actually asking people to cough up some money for services which have benefited them for years.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  8. This is what I’ve longed to hear from a politician. I am really not kidding. I think “comprehensive” and “omnibus” bills should be banned.

    It really makes no sense to run a responsible government any other way. Same reason that the health care bill was an inbred monster abortion of a bill. It tried to do too much. The same reason that the immigration situation is insanely out of control because any solution is made to wait for “comprehensive” legislation.

    No more.

    Vivian Louise (c7cad6)

  9. Yep. It would be really nice to see a bill that was like two pages of honest, incisive reforms – these monstrously large bills are breeding grounds for bullshit, and a bad standard to set as a matter of principle.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  10. This may seem to be off-topic, but bear with me for a bit.

    To start with, I should point out that–as I point out on my own little blog every so often–I am a confirmed skeptic of polls. With that said, however, this report from HotAir kinda got my attention.

    The way I read it, people are fed up with the Obama Democrats (Obamacrats, as I call ’em), but they’re not completely sold on the GOP yet.

    Now, here’s where I connect that HotAir article to this one… a proposal like this, if followed through on faithfully could bring a lot of those people into voting Republican.

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  11. the GOP has been known to do that as well

    Absolutely. Without a doubt, we can’t just trust someone to be reasonable on spending because they have an (R) or even a Palin endorsement or a Tea Party backing. We have to really hold their feet to the fire.

    Boehner had better adopt this policy, then.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. The Democrats instituted PayGo. I thought that was a good idea. What was wrong with that concept.

    Yeah, OK, nevermind, sorry I mentioned it.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  13. Daley, PayGo was basically an excuse to jack up taxes while raising spending, not a serious attempt to cut spending.

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  14. Tragedy – Cable television’s smartest news anchor fired.

    BREAKING: Rick Sanchez Fired From CNN

    daleyrocks (940075)

  15. CW – I was being sarcastic.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  16. I got that, Daley… I think we’ve collaborated on lefty-troll-smackin’ before, on another blog, perhaps… but I wanted to get it out there before some troll tried to provide its own explanation.

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  17. What was the point of PayGo? What was the penalty for ignoring the law?

    JD (6ed8b2)

  18. I hope the GOP can implement this because it might reduce spending, but I’m skeptical that Republican leaders are concerned about reducing spending.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  19. Team R should send a bill to the Senate to fund BarckyCare for $1, and make The One veto spending for his own program. Then when he does, leave it to fester on the trash heap.

    JD (6ed8b2)

  20. I’m down with earmark bans. Also, BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENTS

    Balanced budget amendments have been passed before, and have easily been manipulated and defanged for the usual cynical ends. I don’t know why on earth Boehner wouldn’t go for the earmark ban, unless he’s just posturing. Better not be.

    Dmac (84da91)

  21. I share DRJ’s skepticism.

    JD (6ed8b2)

  22. BTW, the GOP could start with defunding the NEA ASAP. Complete tool for the teacher’s unions.

    Dmac (84da91)

  23. I saw Boehner on Fox News Sunday last week (or perhaps the week before), and Chris Wallace really grilled him on his, and the GOP’s, refusal to commit to doing away with earmarks. He insisted that he personally is against them, and that the GOP collectively is willing to agree to a moratorium on them. But he was obviously trying to save himself some wiggle-room with his second-most important constituency — that is to say, with other GOP congressmen — who would like to return to business as usual, including earmarks, at some future date. (His first-most important constituency, the voters of his home district, are apparently sufficiently loyal to him personally that he’s not at risk of losing his own reelection campaign.)

    I mostly like Boehner. He and Mitch McConnell have mostly done good work in the trenches, leading the opposition to Obama/Pelosi/Reid, and I’m grateful for that. And I think they, and other members of the traditional Beltway GOP elites, are in fact paying attention to Tea Partiers and other constitutional conservatives who are rallying for a smaller and tightly limited federal government. But they are “of” the existing system, accustomed to and mostly comfortable with its perverse and corrupt ways. Don’t look to them to initiate or drive real systematic reform in either procedures or attitude.

    Beldar (220374)

  24. “I saw Boehner on Fox News Sunday last week (or perhaps the week before), and Chris Wallace really grilled him on his, and the GOP’s, refusal to commit to doing away with earmarks.”

    Congress doing away with earmarks gives up more of the spending power to agencies. Boehner doesn’t want to give the Obama admin MORE control over money.

    imdw (017d51)

  25. off topic, but rick sanchez has been fired, presumably for saying the jooooos control the media. heh.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  26. ConservativeWanderer (10),

    I would suggest that the ranks of indies swelled as conservatives became disenchanted with the Bush-era GOP label. It’s getting larger again as the Obama makes the Dem label unpopular. Getting serious about spending might bring some conservatives back to the GOP label, but I doubt there will be many conversions from the Dems that dare not speak their name. And as a practical matter (voting behavior), I’m not sure how much it matters, though sit-at-homers could be a factor.

    Karl (83846d)

  27. Big spending cuts, yes, but we’re not gonna finagle our way out of debt without actually asking people to cough up some money for services which have benefited them for years.

    Actually, it is possible to balance the budget, run a surplus and retire all of the debt in time without raising taxes. What it would take is holding all spending increases to less than the growth in GDP.

    For instance, if the GDP grows by X% one year, then the total government expenditures for the next year cannot grow by more than X/2%.

    Since taxes tend to be a fixed percentage of the GDP, in time, the taxes collected would exceed expenditures.

    But I doubt very much that anyone in Congress has the courage to enact and adhere to such a plan.

    As far as benefiting from services, then everyone should have to pay income tax, since everyone benefits from these services.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  28. Boehner, AFAIK, has never submitted an earmark for his district.
    But, the lions on Appropriations, starting with Jerry Lewis (R-Ca) within his own caucus are dead set against ending them, for that is where their fund-raising power resides. The Freshmen, and others being supported by the TEA Party, will have to really stir up some crap in the home districts of the recalcitrant ones if they want it to change.
    The first thing Boehner needs to do, which melds quite well with his suggestion to segregate out the appropriations into individual bills for individual agencies/depts/etc, is get rid of Baseline Budgeting, which assumes an increase each year to stay even (or ahead of) inflation.

    Message to the new Speaker:
    The Baseline should be ZERO!

    And, all programs (and perhaps some agencies/etc) should have sunset provisions of between five, and (no more than) ten years.

    AD-RtR/OS! (406bfe)

  29. I’ll just cosign AD’s comment.

    We’ve got a lot of ruts in the way congress works that need to be obliterated. The window to start is limited. A few very powerful Republicans can completely derail the entire effort.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  30. “But I doubt very much that anyone in Congress has the courage to enact and adhere to such a plan.”

    If you look at graphs of debt as a percent of GDP, you’ll see its gone down in the past.

    imdw (150cd7)

  31. Correct, imdw, debt as a percentage of GDP has declined in the past.

    However, you haven’t proven that it was due to Congress limiting spending. In fact, you haven’t provided any evidence at all that the two are connected.

    ConservativeWanderer (b8d454)

  32. “If you look at graphs of debt as a percent of GDP, you’ll see its gone down in the past.”

    imdw – Yes, also if you look at prior year, November tends to come after August. Do you have a relevant point you would like to actually explain?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  33. Oh, and imdw, why don’t you look at your little graphs about debt as a percentage of GDP since your Obamamessiah took the reins of government?

    ConservativeWanderer (b8d454)

  34. Clue to IMaDickWad…
    If you hold debt constant, but put in place policies that encourage economic development and growth, the GDP will increase, and the ratio will decrease.
    The secret is to stop deficit spending and get out of the way of economic growth (Hint: Government Spending is not, rpt, NOT economic growth); or, at worst, reduce the deficit to a point that it, as a % of GDP, is less than the % growth of GDP.

    AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd)

  35. The secret is to stop deficit spending and get out of the way of economic growth

    But… but… but… if you do that, imdw won’t get his “free” goodies, paid for by those of us that actually work for a living!

    ConservativeWanderer (b8d454)

  36. I’ve got a bumper sticker for the likes of IMaDickWad left over from the stimulus debate:

    “HONK! if you’re paying my mortgage”

    AD-RtR/OS! (96ebfd)

  37. “However, you haven’t proven that it was due to Congress limiting spending”

    I would imagine when it went down after WWII it was because of lower spending. But why would it matter whether it was because of lowered spending or not?

    “Oh, and imdw, why don’t you look at your little graphs about debt as a percentage of GDP since your Obamamessiah took the reins of government?”

    It’s like the 90’s never happened!

    imdw (8a8ced)

  38. ================================================================
    IS THERE ANYTHING THERE ABOUT REQUIRING THE GOV’T TO USE **GAAP**?

    Until that happens, there’s no friggin’ way – anything – is going to get fixed.

    Period.

    Until then the funny accounting tricks will continue to hide, obfuscate, and
    otherwise enable every manner of chicanery there could possibly be.

    How it is we don’t *absolutely* require of our governments the most basic
    modicum of sensible business practice expected of any company that gets
    external funding I cannot begin to fathom.

    ================================================================

    IgotBupkis (9eeb86)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0825 secs.