My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
The estimable Peter Robinson rudely called me out after I so politely took issue with him in the infamous Kaus-Limbaugh Podcast #3 over his outrageous post suggesting the GOP should not shut the government down over a few billion bucks. Ok, just kidding about Peter being rude or outrageous, but here's my reluctant, absurdly long response to Peter's latest:
First, can we all agree we have a looming debt crisis in this nation? I detect that some don’t agree; a few podcasts ago it seemed as though Mickey Kaus was rather dismissive of the notion, though I could have misinterpreted him. Even if so, he doesn’t hold himself out as a conservative. But what about those who do? I can’t help but infer that the seemingly casual attitude of some on the right – on this site and elsewhere – betrays a naïve perspective that the mighty American empire will simply deal with this in due course and that voices advocating more urgent remedial action are irrational, sensationalistic, populist, radical, immature, and irresponsible. They reason that real adults surveying the scene recognize that if indeed we have a major problem, it is a problem that has been long in the making and its solution will require calm deliberation, and, most likely, bipartisan cooperation. I have to wonder what objective budgetary facts would have to emerge to rouse these complacent sorts out of their sanguinity.
Surely, we can also agree that many Democrats are denying there’s a crisis. Harry Reid recently waxed defiant about Social Security’s role, saying it hasn’t contributed one penny to the deficit. Ditto Bernie Sanders. But even Bipartisan Budget Commission co-chairs Irksome Bowles and Alan Simpson agree the problem is urgent – unless you regard predictions of catastrophic budgetary consequences within one or two years as hyperbole. Paul Ryan, who Peter cites glowingly, is unequivocal about it.
But I don’t think my buddy Peter is at all dismissive of the magnitude of the fiscal problems confronting America; where he and I seem to disagree is how best to address these problems. He believes that 2012 is the pivotal prize and that if Republicans misplay their hand in these disputes over continuing resolutions, budget ceilings, short-term domestic spending cuts (“chump change”) and the like, they will significantly reduce their chances to unseat Obama in 2012 and all will be lost. (It is encouraging to me that Peter apparently agrees with me that if Obama is re-elected this nation is in deep doo-doo, which tells me he also agrees that the Democrats are not serious about addressing our fiscal horror show.)
So I think that Peter and I agree that we have a crisis and that the last best hope for extricating ourselves from it has to be the Republican Party. But we disagree on strategy and tactics. Peter calculates that the Republicans’ political capital would be more prudently spent on making their case for entitlement reform when Paul Ryan presents his budgetary road map in the next few weeks. I agree, and have said as much on the podcasts, that the lion’s share of our long-term problem is in entitlements. It’s unarguable. But that does not mean that the domestic side of the equation or $61 billion cuts of it are chump change. Further, if rhetoric has any effect at all, it concerns me that we conservatives can characterize them as such – which just plays into the Democrats’ narrative and thus militates against our chances to prevail in the budget wars and national elections.
I think that Peter is expressing a defeatist mindset about the GOP’s ability to prevail in a PR battle against Obama, the Democrats, and the MSM – at least on the government shutdown issue. I suppose he sees the 1995-1996 scenario forever locked in stone such that a partisan impasse leading to a government shutdown would necessarily redound to the detriment of the GOP and greatly enhance Obama’s prospects for re-election in 2012. I disagree. Consider:
First, there are significant differences between 2011 and 1995-1996 – differences that would work in favor of the Republicans’ position, if they communicate their position effectively:
- Obama is not Clinton; Rubio and Ryan are not Newt;
- Obama has been a manifest charlatan on budgetary matters. His stimulus program was a colossal, ineffective waste. The CBO has exposed his deceit, or at best, gross negligence in his budgetary projections for Obamacare and, most recently, in his ten year budget – where he came up $2.3 trillion short. This was on top of his own projections that averaged a $trillion per year – a trillion a year through the outyears! And he brazenly said he wasn’t adding a penny to the debt. Think about the soundbites!
- There was nothing close to the Tea Party in 1995-1996. Oh, and by the way, the Tea Party is not dead!
- Beyond the so-called dependency groups, much of the public is not just concerned, but agitated and anxious over our fiscal situation.
- The MSM has lost power, influence and credibility since 1995.
- The alternative media has gained power and influence since 1995.
- Democrats have approached this in demonstrably bad faith. They have increased the deficits near-exponentially and now say $4.7 billion of cuts in discretionary spending are “draconian.” Moreover, Democrats, for the first time since 1974, did not pass a budget last year despite having complete control of Congress. Their dereliction is what has led to these little mini-wars over CRs and ceilings and shutdowns this year. Is the GOP incapable of communicating this point?
- The GOP registered dramatic electoral victories in November, the main driver of which was public anxiety over the deficits and debt.
Second, if it’s so inevitable that the GOP lose the shutdown debate, how is it any less inevitable that we will lose the debate over the bigger prize – entitlements? It seems that Peter and others who are counseling that we forego this little CR battle are assuming we’ll fare better against Democrats in a PR battle over entitlements, when the Democrats will unleash their entire class warfare arsenal. If you think we’ve seen demagoguery and obfuscation before, just wait until the debate over entitlements.
The Democrats will employ ever more sophisticated levels of deceit, not just downplaying the crisis, but offering quixotic and smoke-and-mirrorish remedies, including confiscatory tax increases. Peter might be giving us a false choice between the CR battle and the entitlements war. I don’t believe it’s one or the other. Rather, fighting this battle will actually enhance our chance to win the entitlements war. I think Peter is both underestimating our ability to fight the CR battle and the Democrats’ ability to fight the entitlements battle. (I take it that, notwithstanding his “chump change” comment, Peter would agree that $61 billion dollars is real money even if but a fraction of the $trillions of unfunded entitlements liabilities. I also assume Peter believes that we need to exercise fiscal discipline over discretionary spending – and that we must do both simultaneously. In fact, Ryan’s roadmap does just that.
Third, I fear that Peter is acceding to the Democratic narrative that a government shutdown is the end of the world. He essentially admitted in his post that military personnel who fear a shutdown will disrupt their lives needn’t be concerned because they will continue to be paid. Perhaps he will counter with the argument that the reality doesn’t matter, only perceptions. That might be true, but if the government does shut down, the erroneous perceptions will be swallowed by the reality long before 2012. We do not have to capitulate to the idea that a shutdown is nightmarish. Essential government services will continue: law enforcement, national security, the post office, entitlements benefits, etc.
More importantly, if the government is shutdown we don’t have to yield to the idea that Republicans caused it. Again, it was the Democrats’ failure to pass a budget when they had control that led to this in the first place. It is their unseriousness about cutting spending that is exacerbating it. (Peter: if you say $61 billion is chump change, you surely won’t dispute that the Democrats proposal of $6 billion is -- or even the $30 billion they are rumored to be prepared to approve.) Moral equivalent arguments in this situation are inaccurate and misleading. The Democrats not only don’t want to talk about cutting spending; they are still dreaming up ways to increase it – not just with Obama’s ten year budget plan (again understated by $2.3 trillion), but with high-speed rail, Obamacare, cap and trade, etc. My point is that Republicans have abundant ammunition today that they did not have in 1995-1996. And they have a far more receptive public concerning budgetary issues.
Fourth, it seems that Peter is assuming that there is little downside to a GOP cave on this. This I believe is his principle error, i.e., underestimating the level of angst of ordinary Americans about the budgetary crisis and the reaction of the Tea Party and other fiscal hawks if Republicans cave. It is no longer just Libertarians who are receptive to the notion that there is little difference between the parties on fiscal matters. It’s not just Obama Kool-Aid drinkers who believe the current debt crisis is a product of the “Bush-Obama spending orgy era.” Bush’s rhetoric about compassionate conservatism, his prescription drug entitlement, his military spending, and the extraordinary 2008 budget year replete with TARP (notwithstanding the many TARP loan repayments), contribute to this perception. I personally think Obama’s approach to spending and Bush’s are different in kind rather than degree, but we’re not talking about what I think or how I will personally react to a GOP cave on the next CR, debt ceiling, etc. We’re talking about how the electorate will respond.
I also don’t think we should think of the Tea Party as an adjunct of the Republican Party, but as a watchdog for both parties. I have been gratified that until this point, they have exercised restraint and maturity, preferring to hold Republicans’ feet to the fire, rather than forming a third party, which will be Obama’s best friend. But they expect action. I fear that if Republicans cave on this issue they will significantly diminish their political capital by enraging the Tea Party and donating the narrative to the Democrats who will then be able to say that Republicans were opportunistically fighting over peanuts the whole time.
Tea Party rage over a GOP cave would be deep and wide. Their cave would be seen as cowardly, an abandonment of principles, and an authoritarian, arrogant act of defiance against the people’s clearly expressed will -- all of which would further diminish GOP capital. It could be argued that any such diminutions could be more than reversed through the GOP’s prevailing on the far-greater battle over entitlements. If so, I repeat that our chances of prevailing on entitlements is not enhanced, but reduced by the discretionary cave. Are you going to make me quote Churchill?
Republicans build their big tent not through squishiness, but by articulating and fighting for principled conservatism. They do not win elections by pandering to Independents or No Labels, which is just another way of saying: by diluting their principles. Their electoral victories – on a national level at least – will depend on their vigorous and enthusiastic embracement of mainstream conservative principles. This will not only fire up and intensify the base and voter turnout – just like reductions in marginal tax rates increase the revenue by expanding the pie; it will inspire many of those centrists sitting on the fence and waiting to be led by those who make saving this republic their life’s ambition.
Fifth, I know that some on the right believe that some of us have a jaundiced perspective about Obama, the Democrats and their intentions. In turn, many of us who harbor a rather negative view of the Democrats believe that some of our friends on the right are naïve to the point of unilateral disarmament.
It is probably unproductive to engage in a protracted debate about Obama’s and the Democrat’s intentions. We cannot know for sure. But we should recognize that irrespective of their intentions, they are committed to pursuing policies that will destroy the nation financially. I cannot see them anytime in the near future acquiescing to meaningful discretionary or entitlement spending reforms. It’s just that simple. They will continue to obstruct and the consequence of their destruction will be financial downfall of the US.
If you say you believe Paul Ryan, listen to his words about the consequences of our failure to act. Then ask yourselves whether you believe Democrats are approaching resolving these problems in good faith. The most Democrats will do is to agree to economy-destroying tax increases, which will never solve our problems, but will likely accelerate them. All of which leads me to conclude that whether we’re talking about the upcoming CR debate or the long-term entitlement debate, it’s very unrealistic to believe America’s problems will be solved through bipartisanship – at least not a bipartisanship includes the Democratic leadership as presently constituted. We are in a war and the Democratic left is our domestic enemy. We must defeat them to save America. The only chance we have of achieving bipartisan solutions is if sufficient numbers of moderate Democrats move across the aisle toward budgetary sanity. And, to close the circle for purposes of this debate, the GOP will have a better chance of enticing moderate Democrats if they display leadership and fight for their principles, and boldly articulate the consequences of our failure to act. Now is the time to draw the line in the sand.
So, Peter, my friend, I think we both agree that we face a budgetary crisis that could explode inside of a year, two years or not long thereafter, that if this crisis is to be averted, Republicans will have to do it, and that we cannot do it if we lose the entitlements battle and/or the 2012 elections. We just disagree on the consequences of a GOP cave on the next CR, etc.
Since my purpose here is not to win debate points but to express my honest opinion, which I hope I always do, I want to confess that I am not completely sure about my position, and in fairness, I don’t think Peter claims to be either. I also do not want to be perceived as engaged in fruitless, macho posturing in advocating a hardline GOP position on the CR, etc. I am adamantly against taking a stand that will ultimately hurt America in the long run. I would not knowingly advocate that we take our ball and go home.
I am, for example, instinctively skeptical of third party efforts, believing that the perfect (assuming we can loosely ascribe that adjective to a third party), must not be allowed to be the enemy of the good. On the other hand, I think we’ve reached a point in our national history that those who greatly understate the magnitude of our budgetary problems constitute almost as great a threat to the nation as those actively pursuing policies guaranteed to destroy it. For if we fail to successfully address these problems, it will not be because of those misfits in the drivers’ seat implementing these policies, but the rest of us who casually permit it to happen. I am not suggesting that those of you who disagree with me on this debate are in that camp, but I fear that you might be ever so slightly playing into the narrative of those who are.
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
I'm torn on this. I sympathize with Peter's view that an effort to achieve the possible, given that the GOP holds only the House, might be the prudent way to proceed.
On the other hand, I've always been in favor of bringing a nuke to a knife fight.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..." Ah, Barry Goldwater, we miss ye.
Mar '11
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
Unfortunately, Republican leadership has such a glaring history of caving that any attempt at compromise looks like, well, caving. They need to develop a recognizable pattern of standing firm, even in the face of certain defeat. If they can do that, then use their face time on the tube declaring pride and conviction in their stand, November 2012 will bring landslide victories for the GOP across the country, including the White House.
Sep '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
This is a great summary of the situation . Just to take one point here - your understanding of the downside - the tea party and its reaction is spot on. And to add a little to that point I fully expect the Democrats to be saying in 2012, "well, the Republicans weren't really serious about cutting spending" blah blah. In fact they might be smart enough to pick up that banner and say they will cut spending, and drop it once elected of course.
The Republicans are driving by looking in the rear-view mirror.
May '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
David Limbaugh:
Second, if it’s so inevitable that the GOP lose the shutdown debate, how is it any less inevitable that we will lose the debate over the bigger prize – entitlements?
Excellent point.
David Limbaugh:
Republicans build their big tent not through squishiness, but by articulating and fighting for principled conservatism.
Agreed. Republicans are forever talking about a need to move toward the middle as if that has worked in the past and as if they ever do anything else. True, full conservatism is rarely tried.
As Steyn was saying the other day while hosting for Rush, leaders don't move toward the middle. Leaders move the middle toward them.
Republicans couldn't even grasp that concept in budget negotitations. They began with compromise! They undermined their own call for $60 billion in cuts. Republicans have continued to embarrass us, which is why they must do something (shutdown or other) to inspire confidence before 2012. Without some supportive action before the elections, Ryan's Roadmap seems like a pipedream.
And there's the rub. Republicans' marketing record ain't so great.
May '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
I don't even know why you deal with him. Most guys would probably have a slock (lock + sock) with his name on it. :)
Dec '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
A shutdown now may or may not accomplish what the gung ho optimists think it will. If we have a shutdown next week I hope they are right.
However, how many times are the Rs going to use the government shutdown tactic? Think it can be used over and over again, like a kid threatening to hold his breath every time he doesn't get what he wants?
Like it or not the people have not yet given all the power to the Rs.
Note, the Ds want a shutdown now. Rather than strengthen the Rs it could make them look weak. It is unnecassary if the Ds continue to agree to three week CRs that cut real spending $6 billion at a time.
A shutdown now would be largely symbolic and at best only accomplish what a series of such three week CRs through the end of the 2011 fiscal year would.
I do not think the Rs can successfully use this tactic over and over again. I would rather see a government shutdown over something truly substantive that the public would understand is a serious plan to balance the budget, such as over Ryan's 2012 budget.
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
Nickolas: A shutdown now may or may not accomplish what the gung ho optimists think it will. If we have a shutdown next week I hope they are right.
However, how many times are the Rs going to use the government shutdown tactic? Think it can be used over and over again, like a kid threatening to hold his breath every time he doesn't get what he wants?
I may be wrong, but I don't see this as a "tactic" at all. The Democrats didn't pass a budget for this year and Republicans are trying to complete the year's budget process. It requires affirmative legislative action. If nothing is done -- i.e, no bill is passed, the government shuts down because it's budgetary authority expires. If they don't reach an agreement it's every bit as much the Democrats causing it to happen -- in reality, it's way more the fault of Democrats because they are not acting in good faith. Bottom line: There is no action "shutting the government down." It shuts down on its own. Please quit falling for the narrative the GOP will be the one shutting it down.
Jun '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
Washington better know, the budget surgery that America is scheduled for--we're on the gurney rolling down the hospital hall if you didn't notice--will be done by them (Congress and the President) with a big sharp scalpel, or someday, not far off, by the World's investors with a dull ax. That surgery is going to happen.
May '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
If the cuts Republicans are currently attempting to make (be it $6 billion or $60 billion) are truly insignificant, then it shouldn't matter whether or not those cuts are passed. If Republicans are truly incapable of making any meaningful cuts during Obama's term, then such meager reductions cannot be touted during elections as proof of progress. So Republicans should abandon such nibbling and demand real cuts and reform regardless of Democrats' likelihood of rejecting the proposals.
In other words, if politically possible cuts this year won't help Republicans in their campaigns next year, then we might as well start the public debate on entitlements now.
Mar '11
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
I think this gets at the heart of the issue, $61 billion is only chump change if entitlements escape reform. You make a compelling case, but I also find Rob Long's argument persuasive: What if the public decides that de-funding NPR and cutting down on our foreign aid is good enough? Is the potential Tea Party rage greater than the aggregate voter apathy?
Dec '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
David Limbaugh
Nickolas: However, how many times are the Rs going to use the government shutdown tactic?
I may be wrong, but I don't see this as a "tactic" at all. The Democrats didn't pass a budget for this year and Republicans are trying to complete the year's budget process. It requires affirmative legislative action. ... Bottom line: There is no action "shutting the government down." It shuts down on its own.
I think it is a tactic. Almost everyone talks about it in either strategic or tactical terms. I think the public will see it that way. And we all know appearances matter.
The Ds have been agreeing to continuing CRs. At best a shutdown will accomplish no more than incremental CRs through the end of the fiscal year would. Unless the Ds refuse to keep agreeing to the incremental CRs it will appear the Rs are refusing to continue funding the government.
But, I could be wrong.
My larger point was if the government is shutdown over a budget battle, it would be better if it is over something the public understands is a comprehensive proposal for cutting the deficit, such as Ryan's 2012 budget.
May '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
The overriding consideration now is psychology and awareness of the American people. The 90% percent, maybe 95% of Americans who arent plugged into blogs, etc need to have their attention gotten. Shutting down the government (to the extent it would actually be shut down) is a good way to do it. Give Johnny some advance warning that National Park may close down, but then do it. JUST DO IT.
If a shutdown harms Republicans, we are all doomed anyway: Obama will be reëlected, and it just doesn't matter..
Dec '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
At the end of this current battle to fund the government for the rest of the 2011 fiscal year, even if the government is shutdown for awhile, the Rs will still have to agree to both continued deficit spending through the end of the fiscal year and a higher debt ceiling, just to keep the goverment running.
If the Ds were not agreeing to any cuts at all the Rs would be a stronger position. However, the Ds are agreeing to some cuts. There are real cuts in the CRs.
The fact is these $2 billion a week cuts in real spending represent at least a 20% annualized cut in the discretionary part of the goverment spending pie, which was $430 billion in 2009. The other two big slices are entitlements, $2000 billion in 2009, and defense, $690 billion in 2009.
Yet many here refer to this as trivial. Getting the Dems to agree to what amounts to a weekly 20% cut in discretionary spending is significant IMO. However, if most here do not see that, it is even less likely the public will. So what exactly will the public think this government shutdown is all about?
Jun '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
David Limbaugh: [edited...how could I not?]
I think that Peter is expressing a defeatist mindset about the GOP’s ability to prevail in a PR battle against Obama, the Democrats, and the MSM – at least on the government shutdown issue. I suppose he sees the 1995-1996 scenario forever locked in stone such that a partisan impasse leading to a government shutdown would necessarily redound to the detriment of the GOP and greatly enhance Obama’s prospects for re-election in 2012. I disagree. Consider:
Couldn't have said it better myself...even when I did say it myself on Peter's first posting. Nicely done, David.
I don't think any of us are quivering in fear about countering Chris-"Mr. Tingles"-Mathews, the self-avowed socialist Lawrence O'Donnell or the oh-so condescending Rachel Maddow or the rest of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful MSM.
Oct '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
David, the key point is whether the public buys into the notion that Obama is Clintonian.
Whether he deserves credit for it or not, most Americans remember Bill Clinton as the only president in living memory to balance the budget. If the public buys into Obama's conversion to Clintonian centrism, they will go with the Democrats.
That's a big "if", of course. Obama's crowd has always hated Clinton almost as much as they hated triangulation. Embracing his tactics is not easy. Clinton had that "I love everyone" attitude, and could connect with average Americans; Obama, on the other hand, has been quite effective at informing half the population that they are not worthy of him.
Still, my gut feeling is this is 50/50. It could go either way.
Mar '11
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
1. The Democrat Party is an organized criminal operation marketing itself as a political party.
2. In the last 2 years they have thrown bricks through the glass storefront of America and have looted the automotive aisle, the banking aisle, the insurance aisle, the health care aisle, the energy aisle, the housing aisle, the monetary aisle, and the contract law and secure voting aisle.
3. Because of the beauracracy and the size, this government for all intents and purposes is the Democrat Party writ large. It's the party of government.
4. We're standing here arguing whether we should stop them from carting the loot out of the American store!
Jun '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
Dale in Annapolis: 1. The Democrat Party is an organized criminal operation marketing itself as a political party.
2. In the last 2 years they have thrown bricks through the glass storefront of America and have looted the automotive aisle, the banking aisle, the insurance aisle, the health care aisle, the energy aisle, the housing aisle, the monetary aisle, and the contract law and secure voting aisle.
3. Because of the beauracracy and the size, this government for all intents and purposes is the Democrat Party writ large. It's the party of government.
4. We're standing here arguing whether we should stop them from carting the loot out of the American store! · Apr 2 at 5:57pm
Wonderful imagery. Should be used in the 2012 campaign. Well done, Dale.
Dec '10
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
In the interest of brevity, is it alright if I say, ditto?
I've been trying to argue the same thing on this issue, although less eloquently and in less than 200 words. I would only quibble with the following.
David Limbaugh:
I think that Peter is expressing a defeatist mindset about the GOP’s ability to prevail in a PR battle against Obama, the Democrats, and the MSM – at least on the government shutdown issue.
Republicans do PR. Democrats do propaganda. If Republicans can't light a fire under the electorate with the truth about 4 billion in deficit spending per day, or roughly the median annual income in America every second, the country is doomed anyway -- shutdown or no shutdown. As Chris Christie likes to say, "the day of reckoning is here." Absent politics, serious responsible grownups devising a budget for this country would be closing entire departments and reforming entitlements.
Jan '11
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
No, we're arguing about how to stop them from carting the loot out!
Feb '11
Re: My Obscenely Marathon-ified Response to the Evil Peter Robinson
A lot of this talk about America's budget crisis and the dire straits we are in will generally fall on deaf ears with a good majority of the American electorate, unless a real dose of in your face reality, such as the economic crisis of 2008 slaps them in the face. I think it is viewed as political grandstanding and people just generally tune it out. You can talk billions ,trillions and gazillions and most people won't care until they see something that affects them personally. Unfortunately by then it will be too late.