I’m sorry to say that the events hopefully foreseen in this Commentary didn’t come to pass. Despite the Tea-Party conservatives elected in 2010, the House remained firmly under the control of RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Despite having a voting majority, John Boehner and the other Republican “leadership” gave Obama and the House Democrats everything they wanted, then tried to plead that “…it was the best deal we could get.”
It’s probably worth reading, though. It’s a good example of how true conservatives coulda, shoulda, woulda acted…compared to how the RINOs did act.
There’s an old saying in my business. “Be careful whose ass you kick on the way up. You may have to kiss it on the way down.” I’ve always thought that simple homily summarized one of life’s most basic—and most immutable—truths.
I’ve been amused to watch the liberal Democrats in Washington re-learn that lesson since the November election. For two years they held both houses of Congress and the White House. They could do whatever they wanted, and they did. Republican attempts to offer alternatives to big spending bills and the healthcare bill were either ignored or, in some cases, publicly ridiculed.
Early in his presidency, Obama told the Republicans (I’m paraphrasing here because I don’t have his exact words in front of me) that “Bipartisanship means I’ll tell you what I want and you vote for it.”
Now the shoe is on the other foot. Republicans control the House, and although the Democrats still have a majority in the Senate, they have lost their “supermajority” that allowed them to steamroller anything past the Republican minority.
To make matters worse for the Democrats, many of the new Republicans in both houses are strong conservatives, candidates put forward by the Tea Party and other right-wing groups. Those people came to Washington with a clear mandate from their constituents—stop the spending. Reduce the size of government. Stop the move toward European-style socialism. Take us back to the days of “we the people,” not “we the government.”
The latest example of the sea-change in Washington is the battle over the “continuing resolution” that will fund the federal government until September 30, 2011, the end of the current fiscal year. The very need for a CR is indicative of a failure on the part of the Democrats. They had a Constitutional obligation to pass a budget for fiscal 2011 and have it in place by the first day of the new fiscal year, October 1, 2010.
They declined to do that, for purely political reasons. They knew that any budget passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by a Democrat president would contain significant increases in spending. The electorate was already upset about their runaway spending, and they didn’t want to have to defend even more spending increases during their 2010 re-election campaigns. So they resorted to an “emergency” provision, even though there was no emergency.
The current CR expires on March 4, leaving just a few days short of seven months in the current fiscal year. To fill out the rest of the year the now-Republican-controlled House has passed a CR that contains $60 billion in spending cuts. That actually puts them a little ahead of their campaign promise to reduce spending by $100 billion a year. Their $60 billion cut is 60% of the $100 billion promise. Seven months is only 58% of a year.
But wait—there’s a problem. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has announced that he will not allow the Senate to vote on a seven-month CR that contains $60 billion in spending cuts. Instead, he says the Senate will pass a one-month CR—with no spending cuts—to keep the government running until early April while the Democrats and Republicans negotiate a “realistic” CR for the remaining six months. Presumably, “realistic” means minimal cuts, and only to programs the Democrats are willing to cut.
I think I’d like to play poker with Reid. First he draws to an inside straight. Then, when he doesn’t fill it, he bluffs.
First of all, Mr. Reid, the Senate cannot originate spending bills. That power is reserved to the House (Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution). So any spending bill (like a one-month CR) that originates in the Senate is, by definition, unConstitutional.
And now you want to negotiate, Mr. Reid? Really? After literally locking Republicans out of meetings for two years, where the details of the healthcare and spending bills were decided? Really?
But the main thing, Mr. Reid—and I must admit I get some pleasure out of this—is that you’re pretending you’re still Prince Harry. You’re pretending that you and Princess Nancy can still make jokes about the commoners eating cake. You’re pretending that you can still dictate to the Republicans how things are going to be.
It’s time to wake up, Mr. Reid. Your two-year nappy time is over. Princess Nancy’s jet coach has turned back into a pumpkin. Your crown is tarnished. The commoners are breaking down the gates.
There are a lot of things to like about this situation. I think what I like the most is that if Speaker of the House John Boehner and the Republicans in the House stand firm, the Democrats are in a no-win situation. If the Senate refuses to pass the seven-month CR by March 4, the government will shut down on March 5. The Democrats lose.
If the Senate passes the CR and Obama vetoes it, the government will shut down on March 5. The Democrats lose.
And if the Senate passes the CR and Obama signs it, the Democrat base will be furious with them for caving in to the Republicans. The Democrats lose.
And when the Democrats lose, the American people win.
You’ve heard this from other sources recently, but I want to add my voice to the chorus. The United States of America is at the most critical juncture of its 223-year history. Events of the next two or three months will determine which direction the nation goes for decades to come.
They could literally determine whether the nation survives.
We tend to think of things in terms of Republican and Democrat, but that’s not really accurate. Some Republicans are relatively liberal, and I suppose some Democrats could be relatively conservative. I’ve never known one, but I’ll admit it could be possible.
But this isn’t a matter of Republican vs. Democrat. It’s a matter of liberal vs. conservative. Higher taxes and more spending vs. lower taxes and less spending. Bigger government vs. smaller government. Most important of all, it’s a matter of capitalism vs. socialism.
The battlegrounds are Washington, D.C., Wisconsin, and Indiana. Ohio, Michigan, and Rhode Island. New York, California, and perhaps others. The question to be decided is nothing less than…who runs the United States? Is it run by Congress and the White House? The unions? Wall Street? The environmentalists?
Or will it once again be run by the only group the Founding Fathers specifically named in the Constitution?
We the People.
