I argued as much yesterday-not for the first time. The trouble is that the GOP has been desperately searching for leverage since the election. What this leverage is apparently supposed to do for them is enable them to achieve the kinds of deep entitlement cuts that they weren't able to achieve through the normal political process.
The Sunday after the November 6 debacle-a debacle that Rush Limbaugh admits is worse for the Republican party than Watergate; on this he's right by a mile as Watergate didn't hurt the GOP at all long term http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/02/rush-limgaugh-is-right-its-worse-than.html - Bill Kristol admitted on Fox News that the GOP would have to compromise and cave to Obama a lot more than they might have been thinking as elections have consequences. The endless search for leverage is the GOP fervent wish that somehow elections don't have consequences and that they can somehow get everything they want anyway.
First they thought the fiscal cliff would give them leverage. This, however, quickly became obviously wrong. It was the President's leverage. Next they talked a big game on the debt ceiling and how the President would have to "get serious" about spending cuts. However, that didn't go on too long either and they had to admit that it really wasn't much leverage either.
Next they seized on the sequester cuts-here is their real leverage. Of course for leverage to be real it has to be a credible threat. Yet the more Republicans talk about it, the less credible it all sounds. It just doesn't add up. They have to convince us that they hate the military cuts, but love the discretionary cuts more than they hate the military cuts. That's what Tom Cole tried to do.
"There’s no way in the world House Republicans would agree to raise any new
revenue in order to avoid the upcoming automatic spending cuts known as the
sequester, a senior GOP lawmaker said Tuesday afternoon."
“I’m all
against raising any additional revenue on this. Look, these are written into
law,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), a deputy majority whip, told TPM between votes. Cole
said there are other, preferable ways to make the sequester cuts that he is open
to, but new revenue will not be part of the equation.
“We just had
additional revenue for the federal government, so I don’t see any way in the
world the sequester won’t happen either as written or renegotiated or
reallocated cuts. But I don’t see any revenue coming in the
picture.”
"His comments, which echo the hardline position
articulated by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) recently,
came shortly after President Obama’s televised remarks Tuesday afternoon calling
on Congress to “delay the economically damaging effects of the sequester for a
few more months” if it cannot agree to a comprehensive solution by the March 1
deadline.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/02/gop-is-fine-with-sequester-or-is-it.html
For their threat to work we have to believe that they also would rather have the military cuts than some new tax increases-vs. loopholes on the rich. So we have to believe that they hate the sequester cuts for the military but not so much that they won't let them happen.
However, politically they have to not seem to relish the cuts or, indeed, see them as leverage. Indeed, while you often hear that the House GOP is full of people from very conservative districts that will agree with their hard lines, the fact is that many of them are from military districts where these Pentagon cuts are very unpopular. The GOP base has always been against all welfare-except those that they depend on. With the party more and more a party of the elderly, this is only exacerbated.
Listening to the apocalyptic terms some other GOP Congressmen have been discussing the military cuts the threat seems less credible. If you really believe all this can you really tell me that you're going to let them happen so Chevron can keep it's tax credits?!!
"Armed Service committee Republicans in both the House and Senate scheduled a Capitol press conference Wednesday to promote legislation to pay down the sequester — deep, across the board cuts to defense and domestic spending — through September without raising any tax revenue. But the assembled members unintentionally revealed a tension just beneath the surface of GOP unity that might ultimately crack the party’s anti-tax absolutism once again."
"Several of the members — all party principles on defense issues — described the consequences of sequestration in apocalyptic terms."
“If it’s implemented it’ll cut every ship, aircraft, tank, truck program, research and development across the board,” said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who until recently was the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee. “According to one economic analysis the cost — would cause the loss of 350,000 full time direct jobs, and 650,000 indirect job losses."
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) depicted sequestration as a gift to U.S. foes. “Our enemies would love this to happen,” he said. “I’m sure Iran is very supportive of sequestration. I’m sure Al Qaeda training camps all over the world would be pleased with the fact that sequestration will gut the CIA.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/armed-service-republicans-reveal-unsustainable-gop-position-on-sequestration.php?ref=fpa
Yet they would have us believe that 'emboldening Iran and Al Qaeda" and driving up the training camp registration is a very bad thing, but not as bad as ending Chevron's tax credits:
"Here’s how Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the top armed services Republican, responded. The terrible consequences of sequestration, he said, are “not desperate enough that you can start raising taxes when you can do it without raising taxes.”
No comments:
Post a Comment