The incremental approach is working and embarrassing Democrats. Why should the GOP risk a government shutdown?
By FRED BARNES
Some of the most disgruntled folks in Washington these days are conservative Republicans in Congress. They believe their party has abandoned the cause of deep spending cuts that spurred the Republican landslide in the 2010 midterm election. They say their leaders are needlessly settling for small, incremental cuts.
Moreover, this demand for bigger cuts and defunding of liberal programs—immediately—comes from prominent members of the House, not just excitable freshmen. "This is our mice or men moment," according to Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Allowing Democrats more time to negotiate "will only delay a confrontation that must come," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the House Study Committee, added: "We've made some solid first downs. Now it's time to look to the end zone."
The end zone is far away, however, and impatience won't get Republicans there. Impatience is not a strategy. It may lead to a government shutdown with unknown results. To enact the sweeping cuts they desire, Republicans must hold the House and capture the Senate and White House in the 2012 election. Then they'll control Washington. Now they don't.
In the meantime, the incremental strategy is working. Republicans have passed two short-term measures to keep the government in operation since early March while slashing $10 billion in spending. At this rate, they would achieve the target of GOP congressional leaders of lopping off $61 billion from President Obama's proposed budget in the final seven months of the 2011 fiscal year.
Martin Kozlowski
There's every reason to believe the incremental strategy would continue to succeed. Democrats are flummoxed by it. They'd like to block more cuts, but they've been unable to explain why spending reductions of a few billion dollars at a clip are unacceptable. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried, only to embarrass himself by saying Nevada's cowboy poetry festival might be jeopardized. Mr. Obama has prudently declined to wade in.
Democrats have themselves to blame for their predicament. They failed to pass a 2011 budget last year, and this year Republicans are taking revenge. By sticking together at the lame duck session in December, Senate Republicans managed to keep spending at last year's levels. Now the GOP is cutting from that baseline.
The latest extension expires on April 8, around the time Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, releases the Republican budget for 2012—giving the GOP another opportunity for a serious whack at spending. And in May or June, Mr. Obama will ask for a hike in the debt limit, one more juncture at which Republicans can press for spending cuts and budget reforms.
Nevertheless, Republican dissidents fear jumbling proposed budgets with the debt issue will confuse voters and allow Democrats to block cuts. It might. At the same time, Republicans would be looking at a target-rich environment for cuts that reduce the size and reach of Washington. This is all the more reason for the GOP not to provoke a government shutdown. Yet dissatisfied Republicans are willing to risk one by opposing further short-term extensions of spending. Fifty-four House Republicans voted against the three-week extension passed on March 15. "Nobody wants a government shutdown, but unless we take a stand, we will shut down the future of our children and grandchildren," Mr. Pence said.
Would a shutdown give Republicans more muscle in negotiating for cuts? Some Republicans speculate it would "clarify" the sharp differences between what Republicans are seeking and what Democrats want, prompting most Americans to side with Republicans. Maybe it would. But it might not.
One thing Republicans know for sure is how to cause a shutdown: Demand more than Democrats will ever agree to. So long as they control the Senate and White House, Democrats will reject massive cuts. Republicans also want to bar spending for Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Mr. Obama's health-care program. Attach any of these prohibitions to a spending measure and Democratic opposition is certain. Should Republicans insist, we'll get a government shutdown.
This is a big gamble. While some Democrats are leery of the political reaction in the country at large, others see it as their best hope. Indeed it might discredit Republicans and boost Mr. Obama in the same way the shutdown in 1995 hurt Republicans and lifted President Bill Clinton out of the doldrums. It could alienate independent voters so critical to the Republican triumph in 2010.
True enough, the political atmosphere is more favorable to serious spending reductions than it was 16 years ago. And though Mr. Obama has the biggest megaphone, he's often unpersuasive. So a shutdown might be easier for the public to swallow today. But why take a chance?
One answer: A good chunk of the conservative movement is egging Republicans on. The House speaker has been accused of playing a weak hand. "I think John Boehner has basically climbed into the Bob Dole suit," columnist Mark Steyn told talk radio host Hugh Hewitt. "Arguing over itsy-bitsy, half a billion here and half a billion there . . . is preposterous."
But it may not be if it's the most you can get under current circumstances. What's unsatisfying to many conservatives is most likely the best Republicans can achieve in 2011. "Public opinion seems to support Republican efforts to cut spending without shutting down the government," notes Keith Hennessey, former domestic policy adviser to President George W. Bush, and some recent polls back him up. Mr. Hennessey supports a gradualist strategy. "Don't change tactics," he says. "Just ratchet up your demands a little."
That makes sense. What doesn't is sacrificing spending cuts you can get on the altar of those you can't.
No comments:
Post a Comment