Meanwhile, in Congress…

 

One of the more compelling reasons to vote for Donald Trump is that he’ll probably cede a lot of the legislative agenda to Congress, more out of boredom than principle. Truth be told, if Trump spent his presidency traveling around in a gold plane and a red hat to Make America Great Again while leaving the policy details to Mike Pence and Paul Ryan … that wouldn’t be half-bad to me. If I had any expectation that Trump could stick to that for more than five minutes without causing a constitutional and/or geopolitical crisis based on the latest political squirrel to cross his path, I might reconsider my Neverism.

Regardless, NRO’s Ian Tuttle appears to be entirely right that the GOP’s new “A Better Way” agenda deserves more far more attention than it’s received, both in mainstream and conservative media. The story of its creation itself is interesting. As Tuttle writes:

That the famously fractious House Republican conference has coalesced around a single agenda is an accomplishment in itself, made possible, members insist, by Ryan’s “bottom-up” approach. “This is real,” says Kevin Brady (R., Texas), who is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and led the Tax Reform Task Force. “Each piece — six major challenges and solutions — was developed by the conference, bringing the best ideas from all Republicans regardless of which committee they serve on or their region.” He notes that the final tax-reform blueprint incorporates ideas from more than 50 members. “It’s the first tax-reform proposal that reflects the consensus of House Republicans since Reagan’s reforms in the ’80s.”

The plan has six points — poverty, national security, the economy, the Constitution, health care, and tax reform — each of which has its own page on the speaker’s spiffy new micro-site, featuring videos and full- and bite-sized white papers. At first glance, it’s good in a very Ryanesque way: that is, if you won’t settle for less than Rand Paul taking a chainsaw to federal code, this likely isn’t your thing, as its prescriptions tend to be more about market-oriented reforms than cutting government down to size. Still, I find a lot to like here, and the re-focus on deregulation and job creation as anti-poverty measures — something Ryan has been trying to do for a long time — is very welcome. From the section on Poverty:

Our plan includes:

  • New authority for states to link poverty programs so that, instead of a one-size-fits-all strategy, you benefit from a more holistic approach. This means that if you would be penalized under current programs for getting married or working more hours or getting a promotion, states could repackage your benefits to help you find a path forward.
  • A commonsense approach to the way the federal government matches state and local spending so that, instead of a one-size- fits-all rate, we back the programs that work and wind down the ones that don’t.
  • Greater portability for housing assistance so that, instead of being consigned to poor neighborhoods, you can move to areas with more jobs and opportunities.
  • A new commitment to consolidate and streamline programs, so people get better service and have a clear understanding of where they need to go for help.

Similarly, on Healthcare, there’s a lot of GOP conventional wisdom, but of the pretty-good sort:

  • Make support for health insurance portable. For people without access to employer coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid, our plan offers a refundable tax credit to help buy health insurance in the individual market. This is support you can use as you move from job to job, and into your retirement years. In fact, the credit is age-adjusted, so it grows as you get older.
  • Expand patient-centered health care. Our plan empowers you to choose the care that’s best for you—and your budget—by expanding the use of health savings accounts.
  • Preserve employer-based insurance. For the 155 million Americans who get health care through work, our plan caps the open-ended tax break on employer-based premiums. This will help keep premiums low, and is a far cry from Obamacare’s controversial “Cadillac tax” that the law’s architects admit is a tax on workers.
  • Allow sales across state lines. Our plan allows you to purchase a plan licensed in another state, a step towards making the insurance market more competitive, and giving you the power to shop broadly for more affordable policies.
  • Allow small businesses and individuals to band together. Instead of hitting them with even more mandates, our plan allows small businesses and individuals to band together through new pooling mechanisms to increase their purchasing power so they can negotiate with insurers for lower prices.
  • Back wellness programs. Rather than tie up wellness programs in red tape, our plan makes sure employers are able to reward employees for making healthy choices. This will encourage personal responsibility, and save both businesses and workers valuable health care dollars.
  • Enact real medical liability reform. Instead of preserving a status quo that costs our health care system as much as $300 billion each year, our plan establishes reasonable limits and ensures plaintiffs can recover full medical costs.
    […]
  • Build a stronger NIH. Our plan provides NIH with a robust, steady level of discretionary funding while increasing accountability for taxpayers and supporting scientists working on cutting-edge research.
  • Remove barriers to research collaboration. Our plan makes sure taxpayers are getting the most out of their investment by breaking down barriers to sharing and analyzing health data.
  • Accelerate drug discovery and development. Our plan streamlines clinical trials and modernizes data-collection activities to improve how treatments are developed, tested, and ultimately approved by the FDA.
  • Advance personalized medicine. Our plan makes sure that our regulatory system keeps pace with the state of science so that we can treat patients based on their genetic makeup.
  • Improve the use of electronic health records. Our plan spurs innovation and improves partnerships between the technology and health care sectors.

The security plan strikes me as boilerplate-but-sensible, as does the tax plan (which echoes Trump’s, in a good way). I’ve only glanced at the sections on the Constitution and the economy as a whole, but they also seem respectable. Again, though, the most interesting part of all this is that this agenda not only has the backing of GOP congressional leaders, and that so many of them contributed to it and have ownership of it.

Whatever happens at the top of the ticket — or whatever one might think of it — it’d be a damn shame if we lose this congressional majority.

Published in Domestic Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. cirby Inactive
    cirby
    @cirby

    Here’s the thing…

    If Trump gets in, we get to deal with, well, Trump. He’ll do and say some silly things, and piss off a lot of people. And Congress can safely ignore him, for the most part, since it’s basically just him and a bunch of people who like what he says.

    Hillary, on the other hand, will have the Democrats behind her. That means that every silly idea she comes up with to cover some political favor will have a lot of Congresscritters pushing it. Not to mention the entire population of most newsrooms in the country. And most of the bureaucrats in the government, Federal, state, and local. And Bill, if he knows what’s good for him.

    So the choice is really between “someone we can ignore, and someone we can’t.”

    • #1
  2. BD Member
    BD
    @

    Chuck Schumer: “I think in 2017, Democrats and Republicans will come together and pass immigration reform.  Paul Ryan has made no secret of the fact that he has been open to immigration reform.”

    • #2
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I like a lot of this.

    I also think the GOP controlled House needs to make radical changes to its rules in order to make this stuff happen.

    • #3
  4. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    I’ve thought for a long time now that Ryan looked at the Presidential race one day and said “Well, crap.  I guess it’s time to lead the policy agenda from the house.  You know, how it is supposed to be.  Dammit.  No more turkey hunting for me!”  And then he set about doing it.  I guess I was right.  I’m going to spend a fair bit of time on the microsite and see what I think.

    • #4
  5. Herbert E. Meyer Member
    Herbert E. Meyer
    @HerbertEMeyer

    There’s an exceptionally important point here, which the media has missed completely:  Despite all of its flaws, the Republican Party has drawn up a detailed program of legislation it believes will make our country a better place.  Wow!

    It’s a shame that so much attention is focused on the candidates rather than their parties.  If we can shift attention to the parties, the GOP suddenly is in much better shape with voters.

    If the GOP Establishment had any political skills — alas….– they would spend some time and money pushing this.

    • #5
  6. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    So why was there not a showcase series of votes on this very plan to force Obama to veto and/or Senate Dems to filibuster?  Then the GOP ccould say this is what the Democrats do NOT want you to have.  Then the GOP nominee would have ready platform (or some constraints in the event the nominee were kind of a loose cannon–like that could ever happen, right?).

    So why the ‘oh well, poor us, it will never get past Obama anyway, heavy sigh‘ approach?

    The media is not forced to cover any legislative item that is not the subject of a hard-fought, high-profile vote.  Sometimes there’s no San Jacinto without an Alamo and some hard-fought losses in this case could have been useful.

    • #6
  7. Trinity Waters Member
    Trinity Waters
    @

    Tom, I’m calling you out on the slur in your first sentence; boredom surpasses his principles.  Really?  I’d posit that he’d be according Congress their constitutional duties.  Why do posts that are actually positive about Trump always have a negative caveat?

    I can’t wait to exult in the coming landslide, when I’ll win a 100 bucks from my conservative ex-military neighbor, and I’ll get the most excellent helpings of schadenfreude here on Ricochet!  The lamentations of the erstwhile shrunken minority of neverTrump turncoats will be exciting!

    Now I’ll go back and start with the next sentence.

    • #7
  8. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    cirby:Here’s the thing…

    If Trump gets in, we get to deal with, well, Trump. He’ll do and say some silly things, and piss off a lot of people. And Congress can safely ignore him, for the most part, since it’s basically just him and a bunch of people who like what he says.

    Hillary, on the other hand, will have the Democrats behind her. That means that every silly idea she comes up with to cover some political favor will have a lot of Congresscritters pushing it. Not to mention the entire population of most newsrooms in the country. And most of the bureaucrats in the government, Federal, state, and local. And Bill, if he knows what’s good for him.

    So the choice is really between “someone we can ignore, and someone we can’t.”

    This is similar, but perhaps more positive, to my rational reason for voting for Trump.  He has no institutional support in Congress – if he does something nuts he’ll get impeached.  The Dems won’t turn Hillary out unless she shoots someone on Pennsylvania Avenue in broad daylight on live TV.  And even then only if it’s a Democrat. So the choice is between someone we can impeach, and someone we can’t.

    • #8
  9. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Isaac Smith: He has no institutional support in Congress – if he does something nuts he’ll get impeached. The Dems won’t turn Hillary out unless she shoots someone on Pennsylvania Avenue in broad daylight on live TV.

    I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not so sure. We’ve already seen folks cave to Trump quite quickly and thoroughly (*cough* Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry *cough*), and that’s likely only to increase if Trump actually becomes president. Moreover there will undoubtedly be some plausible, maybe even persuasive, reason why impeaching him is impracticable at the time. “We’re so close to repealing ObamaCare!” or “But then we’ll ensure that the Democrats take over in 2020!” will be shouted and they won’t be totally wrong.

    • #9
  10. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    Herbert E. Meyer:It’s a shame that so much attention is focused on the candidates rather than their parties. If we can shift attention to the parties, the GOP suddenly is in much better shape with voters.

    If the GOP Establishment had any political skills — alas….– they would spend some time and money pushing this.

    Yes, @herbertemeyer – Or if conservatism’s own punditry and opinion-leaders didn’t continually chase after the latest “Squirrel!” of personality that appears in their twitter-feeds and on the nightly news.

    • #10
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Like Bryan, I see some positive and potentially effective changes. More than that, I like the fact that so many Republicans were involved. And like Bathos, it would be a good idea to put it to vote now, and if it’s rejected, it makes a statement about the Dems.

    • #11
  12. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: Greater portability for housing assistance so that, instead of being consigned to poor neighborhoods, you can move to areas with more jobs and opportunities.

    Oh, boy!

    I think Stanley Kurtz may have some enlightening things to say about the origins of this little time-bomb and what it really portends.

    He discussed it at length on a Powerline podcast some time ago.

    Remember: he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    • #12
  13. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: One of the more compelling reasons to vote for Donald Trump is that he’ll probably cede a lot of the legislative agenda to Congress, more out of boredom than principle.

    One?

    How about “one of the only compelling”

    • #13
  14. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Trinity Waters:Tom, I’m calling you out on the slur in your first sentence; boredom surpasses his principles. Really? I’d posit that he’d be according Congress their constitutional duties. Why do posts that are actually positive about Trump always have a negative caveat?

    I can’t wait to exult in the coming landslide, when I’ll win a 100 bucks from my conservative ex-military neighbor, and I’ll get the most excellent helpings of schadenfreude here on Ricochet! The lamentations of the erstwhile shrunken minority of neverTrump turncoats will be exciting!

    Now I’ll go back and start with the next sentence.

    If Trump wins in a landslide, I hereby commit to reccomending for main feed promotion the next twenty posts that you write starting on the day after the election and posting a compliment on each one.

    • #14
  15. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Herbert E. Meyer: It’s a shame that so much attention is focused on the candidates rather than their parties. If we can shift attention to the parties, the GOP suddenly is in much better shape with voters.

    Are you listening to the voice of wisdom, Tom?

    • #15
  16. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not so sure. We’ve already seen folks cave to Trump quite quickly and thoroughly (*cough* Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry *cough*), and that’s likely only to increase if Trump actually becomes president. Moreover there will undoubtedly be some plausible, maybe even persuasive, reason why impeaching him is impracticable at the time. “We’re so close to repealing ObamaCare!” or “But then we’ll ensure that the Democrats take over in 2020!” will be shouted and they won’t be totally wrong.

    Gov. Jindal and Gov. Perry have both led conservative administrations and have spoken  out for conservative policy at the national level for decades. You don’t really think that these men of superior integrity caved, do you? I would suggest that they conducted their due diligence and decisively concluded that supporting the Republican nominee was the best course of action.

    I’m hoping that you’ll eventually reach the same conclusion after objectively weighing the consequences of abandoning the White House to the Dems versus empowering Congress to pass productive legislation, and having it signed into law.

    • #16
  17. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Isaac Smith: He has no institutional support in Congress – if he does something nuts he’ll get impeached. The Dems won’t turn Hillary out unless she shoots someone on Pennsylvania Avenue in broad daylight on live TV.

    I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not so sure. We’ve already seen folks cave to Trump quite quickly and thoroughly (*cough* Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry *cough*), and that’s likely only to increase if Trump actually becomes president. Moreover there will undoubtedly be some plausible, maybe even persuasive, reason why impeaching him is impracticable at the time. “We’re so close to repealing ObamaCare!” or “But then we’ll ensure that the Democrats take over in 2020!” will be shouted and they won’t be totally wrong.

    I agree that there are few who would move against him before impeachment became likely. I think it pretty clear that the moment it became plausible, it would have a landslide of support, though. Recall that the Democrats get to vote, and that few of them could survive a primary after voting to retain Trump. You only need a minority of Republicans, and I’m pretty sure a strong majority would prefer Pence in the way that they’d prefer to see their son marry a Christian Ivy League supermodel than a deadbeat whose meth addiction has put her best days behind her. Perry’s cancer on America/ hope for America switch seems a little hair triggered, but there’s no obvious reason to believe that it’s irrevocable.

    Obviously, they’d need Trump to be at least as careless as Bush, Clinton, and Obama, each of whom gave opponents reasons to draw up impeachment articles. Is it your position that Trump is likely to be much more responsible than they were?

    • #17
  18. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    James Of England:I agree that there are few who would move against him before impeachment became likely. I think it pretty clear that the moment it became plausible, it would have a landslide of support, though. Recall that the Democrats get to vote, and that few of them could survive a primary after voting to retain Trump. You only need a minority of Republicans, and I’m pretty sure a strong majority would prefer Pence in the way that they’d prefer to see their son marry a Christian Ivy League supermodel than a deadbeat whose meth addiction has put her best days behind her. Perry’s cancer on America/ hope for America switch seems a little hair triggered, but there’s no obvious reason to believe that it’s irrevocable.

    Obviously, they’d need Trump to be at least as careless as Bush, Clinton, and Obama, each of whom gave opponents reasons to draw up impeachment articles. Is it your position that Trump is likely to be much more responsible than they were?

    Excellent! I agree entirely…well, except for the supermodel part.

    • #18
  19. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    rico:

    James Of England:I agree that there are few who would move against him before impeachment became likely. I think it pretty clear that the moment it became plausible, it would have a landslide of support, though. Recall that the Democrats get to vote, and that few of them could survive a primary after voting to retain Trump. You only need a minority of Republicans, and I’m pretty sure a strong majority would prefer Pence in the way that they’d prefer to see their son marry a Christian Ivy League supermodel than a deadbeat whose meth addiction has put her best days behind her. Perry’s cancer on America/ hope for America switch seems a little hair triggered, but there’s no obvious reason to believe that it’s irrevocable.

    Obviously, they’d need Trump to be at least as careless as Bush, Clinton, and Obama, each of whom gave opponents reasons to draw up impeachment articles. Is it your position that Trump is likely to be much more responsible than they were?

    Excellent! I agree entirely…well, except for the supermodel part.

    I don’t mean to sound ungrateful for the majority agreement but I’m not sure that I understand why you disagree with that bit. Strong anti-Ivy feelings?

    • #19
  20. Snirtler Inactive
    Snirtler
    @Snirtler

    @oldbathos:So why was there not a showcase series of votes on this very plan to force Obama to veto and/or Senate Dems to filibuster? Then the GOP ccould say this is what the Democrats do NOT want you to have.

    Because the plan was only recently completed.

    The article by Ian Tuttle that Tom cites says that the idea for a comprehensive plan didn’t come into being until Dec 2015. Paul Ryan pitched the idea to his colleagues at a House GOP retreat in Jan 2016. In Feb, they formed a task force for each of their six policy priorities. It took four months for the different groups to complete their studies, discussions, and consultations.

    • #20
  21. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Snirtler:

    @oldbathos:So why was there not a showcase series of votes on this very plan to force Obama to veto and/or Senate Dems to filibuster? Then the GOP ccould say this is what the Democrats do NOT want you to have.

    Because the plan was only recently completed.

    The article by Ian Tuttle that Tom cites says that the idea for a comprehensive plan didn’t come into being until Dec 2015. Paul Ryan pitched the idea to his colleagues at a House GOP retreat in Jan 2016. In Feb, they formed a task force for each of their six policy priorities. It took four months for the different groups to complete their studies, discussions, and consultations.

    Right. The Healthcare portion was launched this Summer. I thought that there was more fanfare than it deserved (it’s not that exciting), but if people didn’t hear about it, maybe there should have been more. This isn’t an easy year to get policy proposals into the media, though.

    • #21
  22. Snirtler Inactive
    Snirtler
    @Snirtler

    @susanquinn:“More than that, I like the fact that so many Republicans were involved.”

    Yes, wide involvement means more buy-in for the plan.

    “And like Bathos, it would be a good idea to put it to vote now, and if it’s rejected, it makes a statement about the Dems.”

    Based on the House calendar, September is pretty much the last month before the elections for the chamber to vote on anything. That’s too little time to get the word out about the House GOP’s shiny, new plan. Also because it is a six-point agenda, I imagine it will entail crafting several pieces of legislation each of which has to be voted on. The House cannot do that immediately.

    • #22
  23. Snirtler Inactive
    Snirtler
    @Snirtler

    James Of England:

    This isn’t an easy year to get policy proposals into the media, though.

    Yep. I don’t think there will be any serious interest in or discussions about House policy initiatives until after the election’s over.

    • #23
  24. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    James Of England:

    rico:

    James Of England:I agree that there are few who would move against him before impeachment became likely. I think it pretty clear that the moment it became plausible, it would have a landslide of support, though. Recall that the Democrats get to vote, and that few of them could survive a primary after voting to retain Trump. You only need a minority of Republicans, and I’m pretty sure a strong majority would prefer Pence in the way that they’d prefer to see their son marry a Christian Ivy League supermodel than a deadbeat whose meth addiction has put her best days behind her. Perry’s cancer on America/ hope for America switch seems a little hair triggered, but there’s no obvious reason to believe that it’s irrevocable.

    Obviously, they’d need Trump to be at least as careless as Bush, Clinton, and Obama, each of whom gave opponents reasons to draw up impeachment articles. Is it your position that Trump is likely to be much more responsible than they were?

    Excellent! I agree entirely…well, except for the supermodel part.

    I don’t mean to sound ungrateful for the majority agreement but I’m not sure that I understand why you disagree with that bit. Strong anti-Ivy feelings?

    Naw, just the “supermodel” part.

    • #24
  25. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen
    @DuaneOyen

    The one thing missing from the health section- which, as always, is at least 75% about health insurance payment rather than health care reform, is reform of licensing and consequent embrace of actual cost-cutting technology.  Once reality (competition from other countries and unsustainable crashes in Medicare) has set in, that is what is really going to solve the problem in true Herb Stein fashion (“Anything that can’t continue on this way, won’t”)

    Right now, we are still too much owned by the AHA, the AMA, and the specialty groups.  The GoP Doctors Caucus is, for the most part, not a force for good.  They are oftentimes almost as sleazy as the chiropractors lobby.

    • #25
  26. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    James Of England:

    Trinity Waters:Tom, I’m calling you out on the slur in your first sentence; boredom surpasses his principles. Really? I’d posit that he’d be according Congress their constitutional duties. Why do posts that are actually positive about Trump always have a negative caveat?

    I can’t wait to exult in the coming landslide, when I’ll win a 100 bucks from my conservative ex-military neighbor, and I’ll get the most excellent helpings of schadenfreude here on Ricochet! The lamentations of the erstwhile shrunken minority of neverTrump turncoats will be exciting!

    Now I’ll go back and start with the next sentence.

    If Trump wins in a landslide, I hereby commit to reccomending for main feed promotion the next twenty posts that you write starting on the day after the election and posting a compliment on each one.

    A sincere complement?

    • #26
  27. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Isaac Smith: He has no institutional support in Congress – if he does something nuts he’ll get impeached. The Dems won’t turn Hillary out unless she shoots someone on Pennsylvania Avenue in broad daylight on live TV.

    I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not so sure. We’ve already seen folks cave to Trump quite quickly and thoroughly (*cough* Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry *cough*), and that’s likely only to increase if Trump actually becomes president. Moreover there will undoubtedly be some plausible, maybe even persuasive, reason why impeaching him is impracticable at the time. “We’re so close to repealing ObamaCare!” or “But then we’ll ensure that the Democrats take over in 2020!” will be shouted and they won’t be totally wrong.

    They would vote to impeach for the same reason Republicans were willing to impeach Nixon, some of them feared their own positions in the next election, some of them were truly offended by the lawlessness and were motivated by principle.  I suspect it will be the same.

    • #27
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.