Moderate GOPers Are the Problem

Charlie Dent (R-PA) (Lehigh Valley Live) - part of the problem

Peter King (R-NY) (Huffington Post) - part of the problem

For all the Tea Partiers who have been complaining about RINOs the last several years, I have to admit I agree with them that the alleged "moderate" GOPers are part of the problem, but obviously not for the same reasons. And I don't just mean the alleged moderates in Congress. I'm also talking the moderate GOP voters.

Jonathan Chait wrote about a potential plan for moderates to depose John Boehner as Speaker of the House and create a real governing coalition between Democrats and moderate Republicans. Chait nails the problem with moderates in this passage:

Say you live in Pennsylvania and your representative is Charlie Dent. Representative Dent is fighting hard against the leadership to prevent a shutdown. If you’re following him in the news, you can read the hometown newspaper’s report explaining Charlie Dent’s opposition to his party’s tactics. But Charlie Dent is the one who is giving power to the very right-wing fanatics he is decrying, by supplying the decisive votes to the Republican majority. If you want to stop Ted Cruz from paralyzing the government, you need to vote against Charlie Dent. That is confusing.

The problem is this assumes "moderates" like Dent and Peter King aren't just posturing for the media to seem moderate to continue being re-elected in their more moderate districts, while continuing to vote with the most radical members of their party 95% of the time. So as Chait wrote if you are a moderate Republican who isn't happy with how Ted Cruz is operating, unfortunately for you the answer in 2014 is to vote Democratic, not to send a moderate Republican back to Congress. I think some Republican voters think and vote this way splitting their tickets in Presidential elections (possibly being horrified by the positions their eventual Presidential nominee is forced to take in order to win the primaries), but not in Congressional elections. And that needs to change.

You see daily polls showing that 50+ % of registered Republicans agree with the Democratic Party's position on several key issues. Whether it be immigration reform, a balanced deficit-reduction plan, background checks on guns, etc. So what does it say about a party that it is so unresponsive to the majority of their base? Issues that get 50+% Republican voter support sometimes result in zero Republican votes in Congress. Issues that get 75-80% Republican voter support may end up forcing the hand of a handful of Republicans, as you saw with the Manchin-Toomey background checks bill, but not enough to pass even with 90+% support nationwide.

As long as the moderates keep giving the GOP candidate their votes, they are enabling the radical nutty wing of the party. I understand you may be a Northeastern moderate Republican who is pro-choice and in favor of same-sex marriage (or at least indifferent enough on those issues that they aren't decisive when it comes to casting your vote). And you vote Republican usually because you want your taxes lower, you don't like the welfare state all that much, and you'd prefer less regulations and "smaller government" (whatever that means at any given moment). But the thing is that even though you are voting for your moderate GOP Congressman, in doing so you are empowering the Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Louie Gohmert, Michelle Bachman wing of the party. They are the ones who hold the power in Congress and/or have the national talk-show celebrity status to drive the daily conversation. 

If you think those politicians are bad for your party in the long run and that wing of the party embarrasses you as a card-carrying Republican, then you need to think long and hard about what your vote means when you vote locally. I'm not saying you should vote for a Democrat whom you disagree with on most issues. But chances are if you are in a Republican-leaning district, the Democrat opposing your Republican incumbent is going to be a moderate to center-right Democrat, if he/she has any hope of winning. The Democratic candidate will vote much more moderately than whatever Republican you elect. 

But yet the majority of the base continues to vote for people who then don't represent their views. And the alleged moderate politicians continue to go along with the most radical elements of their party, out of fear that the radical voters will outnumber the moderates in primaries. So if moderate Republican voters really want to exert some political power, their best option is to vote for Democrats, at least right now. And then eventually (maybe) Republican politicians will moderate and begin adopting some of those positions to truly represent the will of the electorate.


The Republican party used to always be considered the "daddy party", while the Democrats were the "mommy party."  But as we've seen the last several years the Republican party has been governing like an abusive dead-beat daddy party. And perhaps moderate GOP voters should consider putting mommy back in charge of the household until daddy goes through counseling and rehab.

Paul Ryan is a Fraud

 I can't tell them we really plan to end Medicare as we know it. I'm running for President for pete's sake. (CNN)

It'll be interesting to see how the Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan ticket handles criticism of their budget plans in the upcoming days. The next week or so will likely frame how both campaigns talk about his issue from now until November, barring a potential reboot during the conventions.

At least when it comes to specifics, both are already distancing themselves from the budget blueprint laid out by Ryan nearly two years ago, which Romney had previously voiced support for up until about 96 hours ago. Romney even went so far as to say he'd sign Ryan's budget into law within the first 100 days of his administration.

Previously we've heard how "courageous" Ryan is to put forth such a budget that compels us to have a "serious conversation" about changing Medicare from a contribution program to a voucher program and potentially changing other entitlements. The beltway media love to have serious conversations about having serious conservations about cutting entitlements, as long as their sizable beltway media incomes aren't taxed at a higher rate.

But now that his plan is receiving more scrutiny outside the beltway and outside the base of his party, so far Ryan is backtracking awfully fast and Romney is claiming Ryan will fall in line and disavow his plan, even though it's the same plan Romney said he would sign if he were President.

That would seem to be the opposite of "courageous." It isn't all that courageous to propose a budget plan that carries out a 40+ year goal of the movement conservatives in your party, which includes upper income tax cuts and entitlement and spending cuts that transform the budget in a way that most  Americans do not support.

In 2003-04, a young rising star in the Democratic Party named Barack Obama received some coverage for his "courageous" stance against the Iraq War. Much like Ryan's budget plan, his position was very popular among the base of his party, but less popular with independents and the other party. And then imagine a world where during the 2008 campaign, Obama attempted to run away from that position, or at least perhaps tried to muddy the waters to try to conceal what his original position was, when it turned out 2/3 of the country held the opposite opinion. There would be a lot of terms to use to describe Obama's new messaging - politically savvy, hackish, etc, but "courageous" would not be a term anyone would use. Yet with Ryan, he's still portrayed that way by most of the balance-obsessed media.

Here's the thing, either Ryan's plan does what it says it does or it doesn't. If it does, then all the attacks the Obama campaign is going to make on it are mostly accurate. If it doesn't, then the plan was a fraud to begin with and Ryan should have no credibility on these issues. Or as Paul Krugman, Jonathan Chait, and others suggest - perhaps the plan is honest about the massive cuts, while being fraudulent when it comes to revenue estimates and deficit reduction. And the clarity isn't helped when Romney keeps signaling that the Ryan plan is great, but also is different from his plan in many, many secret ways that he'll be glad to tell us all about after we elect him President.

In any case the Republicans have a huge problem right now. At least one of the following three things must be true: 1)their Presidential ticket plans to end Medicare as we know it, while cutting taxes for upper incomes, 2)their budget plan couldn't possibly work, not should it be taken seriously, and/or 3)the result of their plan will severely increase the deficit, painting their 3+ year campaign in favor of deep spending cuts to reduce the deficit as nothing more than a charade to co-opt the Tea Party and re-take power.

So which is it?

GO'P Lies

No, the coming military sequester cuts and "fiscal cliff" are not Obama's fault

McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor: "How can we get you to understand what a horrible no-good deal we forced everyone to make us take last year?!"

It became obvious during the Debt Ceiling negotiations last summer that the the Republican leaders were incapable of negotiating in good faith. Time after time, a grand bargain was supposedly in reach, only to see Speaker John Boehner or House Majority Leader Eric Cantor walk out near the end of that round of the process. During these negotiations, at various times the Republicans turned down deals with a ratio as high as 8 to 1 spending cuts to tax revenue increases.

Finally a deal was reached at the last minute: $1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, and an establishment of a Super Committee with a deadline of December to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion or more over the next 10 years. The Super Committee had the flexibility to use a combination of tax revenue increases and spending cuts to reach this $1.2 trillion, and if they couldn't reach a deal automatic spending cuts would kick in starting in 2013, reducing military budget and domestic spending budget by roughly equal amounts (roughly $600B each) over the next 10 years.

But once again, the GOP showing their lack of seriousness about the deficit, offered three of deals they knew were unacceptable. The first offer was $2.2 trillion in spending cuts with no tax revenue increases, which was rejected. The second offer included $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and $300B in tax revenue increases. That part seems pretty good, but then the Republicans on the Super Committee also included a poison-pill extension of the Bush tax cuts and a lowering of the top marginal income tax rate. The Democrats predictably balked. The final offer was even worse: $640B in spending cuts and $3B in tax revenue increases, a ratio of 213 to 1 spending cuts to tax revenue increases. And it would barely meet half of the agreed-to deficit reduction figure.

Just like during the summer, no compromise could be made on a balanced deal that also contained significant tax revenue increases, so the automatic spending cut triggers were set to take place in 2013.

This underscores a point Jonathan Chait has made time and time again and he made it again yesterday:

What the defense sequester drama actually shows, for the jillionth time over the last twenty years, is that Republicans don’t actually care about reducing the budget deficit. If you care about reducing the deficit, you want to keep in place these triggers in order to force some kind of agreement. But Republicans want to disarm the defense trigger, and also of course the expiring tax cuts, which are the other trigger, leaving no pressure mechanism to force a deficit agreement. They’re happy to use the pretext of the deficit to pass something that cuts upper-bracket tax rates and social spending (especially for the poor and non-elderly), but there’s no plausible way to read their actual legislative position as anti-deficit.

This reinforces once again that the Republican party cares deeply about only one domestic policy: ensuring taxes remain low for rich people. All of these other issues, especially the whining about the budget deficit and spending that takes place whenever a Democrat occupies the Oval Office, is a ruse and merely a means to achieve the ultimate end of lowering taxes for the rich.

Anyway, in the last week or so the GOP new line of attack blames President Obama for the spending cuts that are scheduled to take place to the military in early 2013, as part of this deal. Here were Mr. Boehner's new talking points earlier in the week:

"Let's remember why we have the sequester. We have it for one reason: because the President of the United States didn't want to deal with the debt limit again before the presidential election. Because the president didn't want to be inconvenienced, he came up with the sequester," he said.

Well, actually, Mr. Boehner, you have the sequester because one party would not accept any fair amount of revenue increases as part of a balanced deal to reduce the defict. These spending cuts do seem to have some real teeth and will likely result in some job losses and possible overall macroeconomic harm. But that's more of a general argument against any significant spending cuts during a time of poor economic growth, than it is an argument against these cuts specifically. Cutting safety net programs would present a similar drag on the economy. 

Keynesians would have preferred a clean debit limit increase in the winter of 2011, followed by more spending to stimulate the economy. Or if anything a balanced deal that has a significant amount of upfront stimulus spending, coupled with future deficit reduction measures, all budgeted over a 10-year window.

So in review, the GOP held the country hostage last summer for months over the Debt Ceiling increase, making an unprecedented demand for a significant deficit reduction plan as a prerequisite for any deal to raise the debt limit. Then they negotiated a deal to raise the debt limit in exchange for an unspecified future plan to reduce the deficit. Then when no agreement could be reached on this future plan, automatic across-the-board spending cuts became the law.

Last summer we were reminded how bad things were when the leaders representing one of the two major parties no longer had the power nor the courage to negotiate budget deals without first consulting the Tea Party, Grover Norquist, and Rush Limbaugh. And things are even worse when the same party leaders now seem unwilling to follow through on deals they voted into law.


How can you run a government effectively when one of the two major parties can no longer be taken seriously when it comes to following through on agreements they passed into law? The GOP were exposed as fiscal frauds when it comes to the deficit years ago. Now they are being exposed as frauds in general. And this is just yet another example of them living up to the "worst Congress in history" label given to them recently by Ezra Klein.