Posted under Conservatism & Politics & Republican Party & Taxes
National Review has some insider details.
It paints a picture of a very somber Republican caucus. I’m not sure why. The conservative members who killed it should be whooping it up. Even Justine Amash, the reputed successor to Ron Paul’s mantle, is pictured as somber, even though he was planning to vote against it. I’m not sure what is going on there. It really doesn’t paint a flattering picture of Amash, IMO, unless I’m missing something. I heard it suggested on another venue, that the people who were planning on voting against Plan B were voting against it for their own sake but were secretly hoping/expecting it to pass. This is the impression I get from Amash based on his comments. Again, am I missing something?
Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a conservative with libertarian leanings, was stunned. As he walked back to his office, he said the episode was unfortunate, even though he was planning to vote against the measure. For the past month, since House leaders booted him off the budget committee, he has been railing against Boehner for his management style. But even Amash wondered whether the House GOP was making the right move. “Too many people in there were arguing that this thing is a tax increase, and I don’t think that’s what Boehner was trying to do,” he said. As much as he disagrees with Boehner’s approach, even he regretted how the speaker’s plan was killed.
And RedState has some details.
I talked to two congressmen who were not involved in the purge or victims of it. They both said that seeing House leaders back “squishes” during the primaries including against some incumbents and then seeing them throw conservatives off committees was all they needed to strengthen their spines against the Speaker.
They said they’re happy to be team players, but they think conservatives in the conference are now treated as kids who are to be seen and not heard. They decided they needed to be heard.
Hawthorne on 21 Dec 2012 at 11:15 pm #
Did Amash ask to be kicked of the committee then? In exchange, he could publicly angle against Boehner, bu then sort of back Boehner in a general sense, if just for Speaker? And then the plan backfired?
This is interesting. It suggests going over the cliff is the populist feel.
JDP on 22 Dec 2012 at 5:46 am #
maybe they’re not “whooping it up” because given the specific circumstances taxes are going to go up one way or another.
i don’t get how something as situation-dependent as taxes is THE defining conservative principle as GOP consultants advise us to abandon practically everything else. of course, Obama’s broader argument that he can fund all his lovely programs by just a little uptick in the top rate should be criticized (and will eventually be proven false,) but people are acting like this specific tax increase will ruin the economy. it won’t. doesn’t mean it’s good either, but given that the GOP cannot govern from the House and will look dumb if it lets everything go up/Obama sweep in as The Great Tax-Cutter, i don’t see the point of all this, unless you just get your rocks off sticking it to The Establishment.
Sean Scallon on 24 Dec 2012 at 6:56 am #
That the nice thing about being history’s losers Red (as you as Southerner and I as an Irish-German certainly both know). We may lose the wars but we always fought well. Irish bards have written whole songbooks about brave lads dying in lost wars and no doubt those making Pickett’s Charge were very brave and resolute. They were also marched to their doom. But hey, it makes for great stories told afterward by those who survive and great folk songs.
I had not even offered an opinion on the whole “Fiscal Cliff” thing because just another Beltway “thing” that we’re supposed to be all worried about when of course it’s not even remotely true. I have more important things to worry about at this time of year than bickering politicians and so do you. But since you called me out as a “moderate” I guess I have to offer my thought for what they are worth.
The GOP position right now, to use a military example, is low ground above which is the enemy’s artilery, ground which can also be flanked on all sides and where retreat is cut-off (the French position at Dien Bien Phu comes to mind). Now I suppose one could fight it out to the last man standing but because the GOP has put themselves in this predicament, no sympathy is required for them. They don’t sing songs about the bravey of the French at Dien Bien Phu. They only remember how dumb they were to put themselves in such a horrible spot.
Obama and the Democrats hold all the cards and everyone, including Grover Norquist knows it which why he “caved” because he hoped the so-called “Plan B” could at least lead to a strategic retreat and fighting on better ground. Even Justin Amash, who as an elected official now and not just some activist, thought this might be the best course of action. Instead, Boehner lost control of his own caucus and saw the plan go down without even so much as a vote. He looks weak, the party leadership looks like fools and party itsef, as far as the House is concerned, looks like it can’t run a two-car funeral.
Here’s another “fighting” anaology to view this situation from: The Confederates tried to escape from Ft. Donelson, fought their way initially, and then, because of in-fighting from two of the worst incompetents ever to wear Rebel gray (not all Southerners were good generals), John B. Floyd and Gideon Pillow, the whole army turned around and went right back in the fort, trapped by Grant’s soldiers. This time not even beautiful losers as at Gettysburg, just loser’s period. And the loss of Donelson was incredibly damaging to the Confederate cause more so than Gettysburg.
The Republicans find themselves in a mess not just because they refuse to raise a millionare’s taxes. In fact, they probably could come up with a budget which didn’t raise taxes but instead, taking from ideas Ron Paul and Justin Amash have inroduced, slash spending in areas such as the military, the drug war, means test entitlements, end subsidies, reform the tax code, close loopholes and such. But they are not willing to do this. So they’re left looking like they support the same spending wth no means to pay for it. Terrific. And these are deficit hawks? No, they’re more like finches.
I know what’s being said, let the “fiscal cliff” happen, let Obama and the Democrats take the blame, then we’ll really get them on the debt celing. That’s will show ‘em! Having caved once before on the matter a year ago, why do they think they’re going to stand firm when the same moneybags from Wall Street will tell them to quit this nonsense otherwise no more money. Not to mention the fact the President has the means Constitutionally of raising the debt celing whether dubious or not and John Roberts will no doubt back him up on it (remember, it’s what’s considered legal under the Constitution that’s the problem.)
So what Red is proposing is the GOP engage in suicidal charge knowing full well the outcome long before the battle is fought and doing so only because posterity may reward the brave long after they’ve been buried. Yes, well maybe in Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas they may sing songs on Tax Day of the glorious charge to prevent the federal tax rate to rise to 39 percent like the Light Brigade, but I have my doubts. There are better ways, creative ways and potentially more successful ways out of this predicament but that would require a lot of change for Republicans to swallow, almost a New Model Army. Unfortunately the party isn’t at that point and so long as they control of the House (which they may very well for the next decade thanks to redistricting), they won’t change a thing. Because forces outside the party are in control of it and the members are basically being reduced to puppets for a bunch of talkshow hosts and the shysters of Conservative Inc. Amash, I believe, is trying to avoid such a fate and I salute him for it. It’s too bad people on his own “team” are shooting at him for actually thinking about doing something better than taking the plunge off the ciff in a suicide pact. But, as has been said in well-known and regarded film “We’d rather lose the war than admit to the mistake.”
RedPhillips on 25 Dec 2012 at 12:42 am #
Sean, you expressed your opposition to Norquist and “the pledge” both here and at TAC.
My point, as you point out, is more about principle than practical politics, although I don’t see how it helps the GOP in the long run to sacrifice their one advantage as the party that holds the line on taxes.
But in reality, the House Republicans “hold all the cards” because they control the House and all revenue bills must originate in the House. Boehner should have made absolutely clear from the beginning of the negotiations that any tax increase was off the table. That he would be glad to negotiate on spending cuts, but that tax increases were a non-starter. Then the GOP could look resolute and like they were standing up for principle. As it is, Obama gets to wag his finger and look resolute and the Republicans look like a bunch of wusses. (Did you see Obama’s finger wagging press conference. It made my blood boil.) Instead, Boehner was preemptively caving and kicking conservatives off committees because they might mess up his deal, and Norquist was providing him cover.
Now of course we both agree that spending needs to be cut, and we both agree that the GOP is not serious about doing it. This is what I don’t understand. Why expend emotional energy and influence capital lobbying for a cave on taxes when you could be beating the drum for spending cuts? This is what so bugged me about TAC. They were practically begging for a tax increase. Why waste all that capital? Why not beg for spending cuts instead?
That’s the nice thing about being someone on the outside complaining on the internet. We don’t actually have to govern or get elected. We have the option of standing up for principle. Aren’t there enough forces out there already calling for moderation and compromise? Why be another one? Be one of the voices for principle crying in the wilderness.
Sean Scallon on 25 Dec 2012 at 3:12 pm #
“It made my blood boil”
That’s your problem right there. I would never let anything Obama says make me so much as twitch.
I’m sure it’s nice to see oneself crying out in the wilderness but there’s only one John the Baptist and most time when one cries out in the wilderness nobody hears you. As I someone who is actually governing as you well know, I understand perfectly what Amash is going through and it ain’t easy. It’s almost as though the activists want the politicans never to take their seats less the purity of their victory never becomes tainted.
The problem TAC and myself has with the pledge is that ideological and that’s something conservatism should never be. The reason conservatives are so myopically focused on tax rates than on spending is simple: politics. It’s easier to be against increasing taxes than cutting someone’s spending. This is why Republicans won in 1980. Unfortunatley this is why they’re losing now. It has nothing to do with principals at all. Having pretty much ruled out cutting spending unless its piddling things like NPR, they backed themselves into a bad spot when it comes to taxes. Deficits will rise unless taxes rise or thing really do get cut. And as we both know, the serious stuff GOP politicans protect whether its their military bases or its the TVA or their cotton subsidies, they will fight tooth and nail for. So there you are. No tax increase and more spending. That’s a deficit in my book.
There’s no point in getting mad at Obama, we did it to ourselves.
C Bowen on 27 Dec 2012 at 11:45 pm #
Norquist (and the GOP) aren’t doing a thing to stop the hike in payroll taxes (which Obama reduced.) The pledge is not ideological–it’s partisan and most of the drama is to distract from the hiking of payroll taxes–thank you Milton Friedman, founder of payroll taxes before morphing into a “free market” sort as seen on PBS.
RedPhillips on 28 Dec 2012 at 1:55 am #
Sean, I came to the conclusion a while back that we really are doomed as Savrola mockingly says. We are doomed politically, culturally and spiritually. I believe the writers at Chronicles have come to this same conclusion. Their solution is to try to live the good life in spite of it all and do what they can to nurture their own families, communities, Churches, etc. While I agree with that, I’ve also decide to go out with my head high kicking and screaming as I go. I may go, but I ain’t going without a fight. It really is kind of liberating.
I’ll address the ideology issue separately because I think you make a critical mistake.