Weak Tea?
Is the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party becoming irrelevant?
It's hard to draw any other conclusion to the news that the House Republicans have apparently agreed to extend the payroll tax holiday for the rest of the year -- without paying for it. The only open question is why the Republican leadership chose to throw in the towel without a fight. Perhaps the dismal single-digit approval ratings the American people have been consistently bestowing on Congress are beginning to be noticed. Perhaps, because it is an election year, Republicans in the House made a political decision that keeping their jobs was more important than grandstanding on the not-so-popular issue of raising everyone's taxes. Perhaps President Obama's call, in his State Of The Union speech, to move the bill through Congress with "no drama" sunk in (OK, well, probably not).
Whatever the reason, though, the Tea Party Republicans come out looking a lot weaker than they previously did. Tea Partiers, after all, are supposed to be all about the deficit and the debt. Yet here are the Republicans about to consent to adding $100 billion to this year's deficit, without even attempting to offset it with budget cuts. They're not even giving lip service to the idea any more. One wonders what the Tea Party rank-and-file voters are going to think about this deal, or whether a few Tea Party Republicans in the House will denounce it with fury in the conservative media.
But will any of that matter? Tea Party politicians swept into Washington swearing that they did not care about getting re-elected -- they were going to stick to their guns no matter what the fallout politically for them would be. That was when getting re-elected was two long years in the future, and when they were all enjoying their newly-won power. Now? Well, you know, it's kind of nice to be a politician... gee, it'd be really nice to get re-elected and return to Washington next year, wouldn't it?
Perhaps that's a mite too snarky. Perhaps there are committed Tea Party Republicans in Congress who will not vote for the deal, and who will continue to try to get their way no matter what the political outcome. But, if this deal is any indication, they may be doing so from the back benches from now on, instead of setting the Republican Party's agenda themselves. They may, to put it another way, be relegated to "voices crying in the wilderness" status.
Up until now, Speaker John Boehner and the Republican leadership have been the dog wagged by the Tea Party tail. Boehner would try to hammer out a deal, and then bring the deal back to his caucus only to have them scream "Hell, no!" in his face. This has happened multiple times, most notably during the debt ceiling hike talks last summer. The Tea Party faction forced the rest of the Republican Party to adopt the position of digging their heels in and refusing to budge unless they got everything they demanded, and not one inch less.
By doing so, the Tea Party Republicans shut down Washington -- either figuratively, or quite literally, on the budget deals -- again and again. The Tea Party voting base cheered them on while they did so.
Times are changing on Capitol Hill, though. With the new deal on the payroll tax extension, the Republicans have signaled that they're tired of such shenanigans. Many Washington-watchers were fully expecting another knock-down, dragged-out fight over the extension -- complete with threats, hysterics in the media, and last-minute votes taken in the dead of night. Using Obama's terminology, the expectation was for lots of "drama."
But now the drama has seemingly been averted. Boehner, by waving the white flag of complete and unconditional surrender, has signaled that the Republican Party is not going to stage yet another epic legislative battle. He's apparently agreed to exactly the opposite of what the Tea Party's core belief is centered on, by borrowing money to provide a stimulus to the economy. By putting the Republican Party in full retreat over this issue, Boehner may be signaling that the Republican Party establishment has had enough of the Tea Party running the show. All doing so has gained them, after all, has been an endless series of gigantic bickering matches which has driven Congress' approval numbers lower and lower. The more they fight, the worse the public thinks of them. Which is decidedly not the way to get re-elected.
The Tea Party freshmen may be happy to go down in flames, fighting their good fight all the way to the end, polls be damned. But the Republicans who are only loosely associated with the Tea Party banner (those that opportunistically jumped on the bandwagon in 2010, because it seemed like a good idea at the time) may finally be realizing that there will be consequences in November for following the Tea Party mantra too far. Self-preservation seems to be more on their minds these days than railing about the deficit. The Tea Party hasn't been making all that much of a dent in the Republican presidential nominating contest, which may signal Republican voters are also getting weary of fighting all the time and never seeming to achieve their goals. Perhaps the Tea Party itself is on the wane.
Or, to end on a completely cynical note, perhaps the Republicans just didn't want to have one of their frequent week-long vacations affected by the payroll tax debate. After all, it's tough to take a vacation while millions of constituent paychecks are about to rise due to your inaction. Presidents' Day -- a day most private-sector American workers don't get off -- means a full week of relaxation for members of Congress. This break is due to take place next week, which would have left almost no time to get anything done afterwards. Which is why a deal had to be reached by this Friday.
How times change -- from Tea Partiers swarming into the halls of power in Washington swearing not to give an inch, to agreeing to a deal to hike the deficit by $100 billion for a Democratic proposal... just so you can have that full week of vacation back home. That's some pretty weak tea, at least from where I'm sitting.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
One other possibility, Chris: tea parties were never really a "new" thing at all, but simply a new brand-name for a very old movement -- and despite the electric jolt from Dr. Frankenstein (AKA FreedomWorks), conservatism is still a dead, fixed ideology.
Tea Partiers, after all, are supposed to be all about the deficit and the debt.
Except when they're about keeping your government hands off my Medicare.
The more they fight, the worse the public thinks of them. Which is decidedly not the way to get re-elected.
Really? I thought the way get re-elected was to not get caught with a dead girl or a live boy.
Anyone happen to know, when was the last time the win rate among incumbents running for re-election fell below two thirds?
The more they fight, the worse the public thinks of them. Which is decidedly not the way to get re-elected.
I don't think the public is hungering for more of the status quo. So I don't think, at the end of the day, Tea Partiers are gonna be hated for trying to cut that massive debt, with O and Harry — and Boehner! — fighting them all the way. What is O proposing to add to the debt in the next two years? Another $4T, or so?
The problem here is (for the most part) ya'all are viewing the Tea Party thru the political eyes of Democrats..
It doesn't matter what you or I think of the Tea Party. It only matters what the electorate or, to be more specific, the Independents and NPAs think of the Tea Party..
And while there may be gripes and complaints about the individual tactics (the Independents & NPAs are notoriously fickle) it is undeniable that the goals of the Is&NPAs and the Tea Party are identical...
Preventing a government that will turn this country into the next Greece...
This will become all the more evident, the closer we get to election day..
What is O proposing to add to the debt in the next two years? Another $4T, or so?
Ironically enough, the Obama administration is touting this increase as a "draconian cut"...
Get that?? A $4T *INCREASE* is a huge cut in spending??
Their reasoning???
They WERE going to increase spending to **SEVEN** Trillion dollars. So, the $4T increase in spending is actually a $3T CUT in spending...
Gotta love that reasoning, eh?? :D
Michale.....
That's not even the best gimmick of all..
Say you are in college and you have a tuition of ten thousand dollars a year for four years...
Now, when you get OUT of college you don't have to pay that so, obviously, you have ten thousands dollars a year to play with, right???
WRONG...
You BORROWED that ten thousand dollars a year for four years....
So, while it's true that you don't have to pay that ten thousand a year anymore, you STILL have to get a job and make some money to live and survive.
On TOP of that, you have to make even MORE money so you can pay back the money you borrowed..
That's what Obama's new budget does... It assumes that we'll have all this extra money because we're not paying for the war in Iraq and (soon) won't be paying for the war in Afghanistan.. So Obama's budget claims THAT money is now extra and can be used for other things..
But, it's only "extra" money if we continue to borrow that amount...
Obama's budget is full of gimmicks such as this... Phantom savings that come from nowhere and make our budget doable...
It's like a family planning their budget on the "fact" that they will win the lottery....
To be fair to Obama, Bush's budget had a lot of the same kinds of phantoms and gimmicks...
Michale.....
Ironically enough, when it comes to actions, Bush and Obama are quite similar...
Bush increased government spending. Obama has been increasing government spending.
Bush adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies. Obama adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies.
Bush bailed out politically connected companies. Obama has been bailing out politically connected companies.
Bush supported the Fed’s easy-money policy. Obama has been supporting the Fed’s easy-money policy.
Bush created a new healthcare entitlement. Obama created a new healthcare entitlement.
Bush imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector. Obama imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector.
Really the only difference between Bush and Obama is Bush liked Tax Cuts and Obama likes Tax Increases...
Michale.....
Another big difference between Bush and Obama is that you never heard Bush whining, "Waaaa Waaaa It's all Clinton's fault!!" 2-3 years into his presidency...
I'm just sayin'... :D
Michale.....
Another big difference between Bush and Obama is that you never heard Bush whining, "Waaaa Waaaa It's all Clinton's fault!!" 2-3 years into his presidency...
if not Bush himself, the Right certainly whined enough on his behalf. just one of many, many examples of this was the 2006 ABC propaganda piece named "The Road To 9/11," which absolutely blamed Clinton for Bush's foreign policy failures.
if not Bush himself, the Right certainly whined enough on his behalf.
I can quote many times where Obama himself blamed the "actions of his predecessor" and the "situation he inherited".... etc etc etc...
I don't recall such words ever coming from Bush at all...
just one of many, many examples of this was the 2006 ABC propaganda piece named "The Road To 9/11," which absolutely blamed Clinton for Bush's foreign policy failures.
Actually, 'The Road To 9/11' seemed to blame the Bush and the Clinton administrations equally for their malfeasance with regards to the terrorist issue insofar as the lead-up to 9/11...
At least, that's what I took away from it...
However, NO ONE can take away the leadership that Bush exhibited during the 9/11 attacks and it's immediate aftermath...
Just as no one can take away the good sense and leadership that President Obama exhibited when he followed and expanded on Bush's CT policies...
Michale.....
Having said all the above, I was actually referring to the economic issues rather than the national security issues...
But you are correct... There were many on the Right who blamed Clinton for the National Security issues...
Some fair and accurate, some not...
However, it's undeniable that Bush himself NEVER tried to pass the buck....
Obama would do well to attempt to emulate such integrity...
Now, if I have to eat my words, please serve them up with garlic and butter... :D
Michale.....
Michale [9] -
Actually, Bush entered office blaming Clinton for the economy, and kept at it right up until other things occupied his mind.
As for your second-to-last paragraph, I think "during" is a pretty big stretch. Let's see... Bush is told attack is underway... continues reading to children for 7 or 8 minutes... then is whisked away by presidential motorcade.. which gets lost on its way to Air Force One... then Bush bravely follows Dick Cheney's orders....
Maybe you can make a case for the aftermath, but "during" is a pretty big stretch of the imagination. Here's a test for you: imagine Barack Obama did exactly the same thing Bush did. You would be screaming about those 7-8 minutes for years and years to come, wouldn't you? To say nothing of what you'd say about his motorcade getting lost... be honest.
-CW
Chris1962 and Michale -
This is just silliness. Both sides are equally culpable for the way Congressional budget rules operate. Quick question: how many trillions in debt did Ryan's budget plan last year add to the deficit? And how much did he "cut" the budget? See? Both sides do it.
As for the "savings" argument, again, both sides do it. This is why we have stupid yearly bandaids like the "doc fix" and the "AMT fix." The budget numbers look a LOT rosier without either one of these, but instead of voting for a permanent fix to a previously-passed-but-unworkable law, they do it every year. Why? Because that means you're still allowed to claim non-existent "savings" for nine out of ten of your budgetary years -- even though you know FULL WELL that these "savings" are never going to exist. The CBO has to use laws in place in their projections, not common sense, to put it another way.
It's gimmickry and smoke and mirrors, but that is our budget process. To claim one side is abusing it is just laughable, for anyone who really understands Washington budgeting. Both sides use the same tricks. The SAME TRICKS. Both sides complain about the other side using the SAME TRICKS they use. And, in BOTH cases, it is absolutely LAUGHABLE.
Specifically, the war costs are indeed disappearing from the budget. They will NOT return, as with the "fixes" just mentioned. That is a fact. Now, you can argue whether Obama should get any "credit" for this fact or not, but it will indeed reduce the amount of money the government's going to be paying out for years to come. You can say "that would have happened anyway" to wrest the credit from Obama, but you simply cannot say "that money is going to be spent for years to come" because it is not true.
Also, on a moral level, the people (excluding present company, for politeness' sake) who argue that Obama shouldn't get credit for "money that was never going to be spent" are usually the same exact ones who were arguing for keeping troops indefinitely in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and who berate any troop reduction Obama announces. Morally, you can't have it both ways -- if you're arguing to keep the troops there, then you are arguing to SPEND THAT MONEY. To put it another way, if you make the "keep the troops" argument, then you simply have no moral leg to stand on in the "that money was never going to be spent" argument, do you?
-CW
CW,
As for your second-to-last paragraph, I think "during" is a pretty big stretch. Let's see... Bush is told attack is underway... continues reading to children for 7 or 8 minutes... then is whisked away by presidential motorcade.. which gets lost on its way to Air Force One... then Bush bravely follows Dick Cheney's orders....
Hindsight is always 20/20....
Bush was told that a plane hit the WTC. It was characterized as an "attack", but NO ONE knew the extent of it at the time...
What was he supposed to do?? Have Secret Service break down the doors, guns drawn and cowering anyone in sight??
That looks good in a Tom Clancy novel or when shots are fired, but not for something like this..
A good leader NEVER panics....
One has to wonder what Obama would have done under the same circumstances...
As for the budget issues, I acknowledge that both sides do it...
But around here, it is scorned and ridiculed when the Right does it, but many treat it as manna from heaven when the Left does it..
That's all I am saying....
Michale.....
But around here, it is scorned and ridiculed when the Right does it, but many treat it as manna from heaven when the Left does it..
Present company, excepted... Of course... :D
Michale.....
Michale -
Honestly, if it had been Obama, you never would have given him grief for the fact the motorcade got lost?
I seriously doubt that. I'm just sayin'...
-CW
Democrats campaigned and won the majority of Congress and the Presidency (2006-2008) by telling you and I that 4.8% unemployment was unacceptable, $1.75 per gallon gasoline made Republican's oil buddies richer, and $4 trillion debt increase in 8 years was unpatriotic.
Now Democrats are saying 9% unemployment is the norm, $4.00 per gallon gasoline is good for the economy, and an $8 trillion debt increase in 4 years is not good enough...
You tell me....
Who is frak'ed up more???
Michale
Quick question: how many trillions in debt did Ryan's budget plan last year add to the deficit?
Error. You can't add debt to deficit. Debt is dollars, and deficit is dollars per year.
Quick question: how many trillions in debt did Ryan's budget plan last year add to the deficit?
Not sure..
But whatever it was, it got more support than Obama's budget plan...
Not ONE SINGLE Senator, Republican or Democrat, voted to support Obama's budget plan..
Honestly, if it had been Obama, you never would have given him grief for the fact the motorcade got lost?
Ya lost me on this one...????
Michale....
Michale: This will become all the more evident, the closer we get to election day..
O's own Treasury Secretary Geithner is already confirming it, himself, in his testimony to the Hill yesterday: http://freebeacon.com/geithner-admits-obamas-budget-unsustainable/
Chris: This is just silliness. Both sides are equally culpable for the way Congressional budget rules operate. Quick question: how many trillions in debt did Ryan's budget plan last year add to the deficit? And how much did he "cut" the budget? See? Both sides do it.
But the point is that Obama is supposed to lead. That's the bigger picture and what's missing from the equation here. He's the guy with the veto pen. He's the guy who gets to put out a budget that actually DOES address and deal with the gorilla in the room, namely the entitlements. Only his own Treasury Secretary was on the Hill yesterday, admitting that O's budget is not "a blueprint for an economy that is built to last," as O contends.
Chris1962 -
You disappoint me. I thought you had reverence for the Constitution.
Budget bills must originate in the House. The president, by the Constitution, has NO ROLE in the budget process AT ALL, other than to sign or veto what Congress sends him. That makes Ryan the leader on this issue.
And Ryan is adding trillions to the debt (via each year's deficit, to placate dsws... heh). Period. So much for Republicans walking the walk after talking so much talk. And so much for Republicans getting their panties in a bunch because Obama's budget also adds trillions in deficit/debt. If you're outraged over Obama's budget proposal -- for your stated reason -- then you should be just as outraged over Ryan's budget. Because you aren't, it is nothing more than partisan spin, sorry.
Seriously, presidential budgets are ALWAYS political documents -- they are nothing more than a marker for the upcoming wheeling and dealing. I dare you to find ANY budget that ANY president sent to Congress -- in like the last 40 years or so -- which passed intact through Congress. It just doesn't happen. Ever.
Obama IS leading. You just don't like the direction he's leading in. To be fair, neither does the Republican House, which wouldn't follow his budget even if he gave them everything they wanted AND renamed every federal building in America after Ronald Reagan.
And, as unemployment goes down, O's approval ratings go up...
:-)
-CW
Michale [18] -
What's the confusion? Bush's motorcade wasted like 15 minutes getting lost from the school to the airfield where Air Force One was parked. This is historical fact.
Now, I wouldn't give Bush much grief for that, because it was obviously a screwup somewhere in the Secret Service ranks, but seriously if the same thing had happened to Obama during a national crisis, you would have landed on him like a ton of bricks with "gang who can't shoot straight" comments, wouldn't you?
Be honest.
-CW
CW,
To be completely honest, I have never heard that story..
But yer right... I probably would have come down on Obama about it, but would also akcnowledged when it was pointed out that it was the USSS screw up, not the president's...
Michale.....
With regards to the budget...
Democrats have dropped the ball on the budget time and time again..
3+ years with Dems in control and no budget....
I'm just saying...
Michale