« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Plan B Fails – Now What?

Having one the election, President Obama is using that political capital to separate 98% taxpayers from the 2%. Never mind that Obamacare taxes increase tax burdens for the middle class. never mind that the Obamacare mandate will hit people earning $50,000 a year very hard. We are talking about a political agenda of feeding the perception of most voters that Obama’s wasteful Big Government schemes are affordable if only we go after the top 1%.

The greatest danger the GOP faces at the large and strategic level is the danger of a splintering of the center-right.  With the failure of Plan B, that fracturing that Obama and the left so desire is at hand.

I had hoped that Plan B, though flawed, at least represented a defensible position that mitigated the tax destruction for most Americans, and kept the caucus together. Speaker Boehner certainly hoped it would be a path to greater leverage in a difficult situation, where the President was insisting on the House basically adopting a Democrat tax more and spend more plan. However, the criticism was that a vote for something already panned by Reid and Obama was in effect conceding a negotiation, and doing it in a way that violated some principles. Plan B would have made a nice compromise, but its a bad GOP position to hold when the other side is holding out for a lot more.

We risk now losing worse than that : What we lost in the failure to have a vote is several things. The credibility of having a solution to the tax cliff; a willingness to bend a little to accommodate the other side’s position. Boehner is now stuck. The “extend taxes for all Americans” is a fine position, but a non-starter with the Democrats and Obama. Boehner already negotiated to a position further than he’s got the votes to deliver from his own caucus. So now what?

The ugly conclusion one gets from this is that there is not a unified Republican position that can hold. Obama and Reid will in fact ‘win’ in their goal of splintering the Republican caucus and ironically the conservative movement will be handmaidens in that, encouraging that to happen.  If the cliff happens, action will take place in January when the Congress is LESS Republican, and a bipartisan vote is required. Bipartisan will mean the Democrats will write most of it. They will pass something much closer to what Obama wants. Republicans will not be a party to it for the most part, but the governing coalition in Congress will be constituted in a way to completely leave the conservatives out in the cold. This is the opposite of what the conservatives want, but its a consequence of not being part of a majority coalition position.

There needs to be a “Plan C” – A plan for conservatives to salvage their reputation, their pragmatism and their relevance. The liberals and Democrats are eager to destroy that relevance and using fights like this to do it.

OK, brilliant armchair Generals … What is it? Now what?

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Plan B+: Plan B with further spending cuts
    Plan C: Let it Burn

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      “Let it Burn” should never be spoken, uttered, supported or declared. It’s the ideology of marxists to desire the collapse. Extremists may want that, and so what of the Democrats who blame Republicans and call them ‘extremists’? Are they right? That is precisely the path to defeat, irrelevance, rejection and failure. Let It Burn = “let Obama win this battle, win the next battle, win it ALL for 4 years”.
      If the cliff happens due to Democrat intrasigence, that is one thing. Let it NOT be due to our own desire for it, or unwillingness to find a real solution.

  • missingrreagan

    I’m not so sure Boehner sees it as a loss. Oh, he’ll spin it as one. But game theory it out: he lost a couple of dozen Republicans. Now he can safely marginalize them when it comes time for the real vote. “They’re too extreme! They would have let the country go over the cliff to protect millionaires! Get them off committees! Defeat them in primaries!”

    I bet he thinks we’ve played right into his hands, so he can stake out a centrist position.

    God willing I’m wrong.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      I believe that is wrong and Boehner feels set back and perhaps even shocked. He didnt want it to end this way, and his credibility is now shot – but worse, the credibility of the House GOP.

      Boehner was in a box – Obama’s position was too rigid, and was NOT bending to a viable compromise. Boehner needed to deliver the “BEST UNIFIED POSITION” of the GOP as our stake in the ground. Now he has none.

      This is a big deal: “he lost a couple of dozen Republicans” means “ANY BILL WILL NEED PELOSI’S SUPPORT”. As I said, this puts the conservatives out in the cold when it comes time to govern. Only if there is a Republican unity position do we have a slim chance to stand up to Obama and Reid (think bugs Life).

      Boehner already HAD a centrist position. Democrats will not want a ‘centrist’ they will want more.

      • checkmate2012

        Freedoms Truth, you are over reacting and this could be a good thing only if Rover quits negotiating.

        1. It is incumbunt on the Leader to lead, not dictate. He has to find common ground and has proven he has no desire and indeed seems to relish the cliff. Rover is the only one that bent over backwards to avoid it including ceding the debt limit for a year & raising “revenues” to meet him.

        2. The House could become stonger if it listens to the conservatives which do not want to cave on spending reduction so Rover should heed their advice and maybe win on that stance. I actually think this makes the center-right stronger, not weaker.

        Lastly, “when the Congress is LESS Republican, and a bipartisan vote is required”, you are wrong. GOP retains the house by 242-193…we don’t need Pelosi.

        Regroup and rethink that it’s now on Obama and Reid’s shoulders to avert the cliff and it shall be amusing to see their solution.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          Lastly, “when the Congress is LESS Republican, and a bipartisan vote is required”, you are wrong. GOP retains the house by 242-193…we don’t need Pelosi.”

          We dont need Pelosi if we are UNIFIED. If we lack party unity and discipline our narrow majority is worth squat.

          If there are 40 votes for “I wont compromise at all” Republicans, who refuse to vote for a bipartisan solution, and the Senate will not pass the straight up extention,,, then ipso facto any deal will require Democrat House votes to get to 218. Pelosi will whip against anything but an obama-approved outcome. Any such outcome gives Pelosi a lot more leverage and will make the result obviously less conservative.

          I am completely and utterly opposed to the nonsensical ‘let it burn’ and ‘let the Dems own it’ stupidity. Bad policy outcomes like massive tax increases will permanently increase their power and decrease GOP popularity and leverage. The Democrats know this, so they want the cliff to happen. We should want a rational resolution.

          Plan B was at least a way to get in front of this and not own the cliff failure. MAYBE they can pass Plan B next week or some similar plan or agreement, but IMHO any failure to have a unified GOP position that move somewhat in a direction of compromise makes a non-conservative result more likely.

          “Regroup and rethink that it’s now on Obama and Reid’s shoulders to avert the cliff and it shall be amusing to see their solution.”

          Not amusing at all. It’s less on their shoulders now than yesterday. Were they sweating then?
          they HAVE a solution – “pass our very reasonable bill that ‘only’ adds $1.4 trillion in taxes and ‘only’ screws the top 2% and those with middle class investment income like qualified dividends.”
          They want our surrender. Dividing us is the first step to get there.

          this is a very toxic situation for the GOP and conservatives. I don’t blame conservatives for holding to principle, but I consider this division a worst-case outcome for conservatives and GOP, and wonder if we expect Hercules from our leaders and get instead Pickett’s charge or Gen Sickle’s.

          http://www.historynet.com/daniel-sickles

          • bk

            “If there are 40 votes for ‘I wont compromise at all’ Republicans, who refuse to vote for a bipartisan solution” – Or you could say there are 195 or so Republicans who refuse to work on a solution the GOP as a whole will support.

            If we want to have a bill that can pass 395 to 40 then Boehner could have done that six weeks ago and skipped the kabuki dance. Reid wants to go back to how it was with Obamacare: the House passes a pretend bill, Reid writes the bill he wants, and the House passes it as a ‘substitute’ to the original so that we can all pretend that it originated in the House. Heck we can make this simple. Elect Pelosi by a vote of 395 to 40 and then go off and sing Kumbaya.

          • red_oakster

            Bk, I think you got to the nub of this, however unintentionally. Let’s suppose the 195/40 breakdown is correct. 40 members cannot control events for very long. I would love it if the GOP House caucus made the debt limit their line in the sand and insisted on tax reform as part of the price for raising it. But if we have a market meltdown when the issue is the debt limit, it’s going to very hard to keep a lot of GOPers from surrendering. The purpose of the Kabuki dance was to keep a deal in sight and the markets calm until arriving at the more favorable terrain of debt limit negotiations. Then, Boehner, more in sorrow than in anger, might have explained that the debt limit vote needed tax and entitlement reform to pass. A lot of the 195 might have chosen to fight. Now that is a less certain outcome.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            ” A lot of the 195 might have chosen to fight. Now that is a less certain outcome.”

            I would argue that most of the 195 WILL fight, will not cave and are strong conservatives actually, but that the Democrats in January will only need about 20 weaklings to peel off. There are 20-40 GOP “RINOish” members in swing districts who will be forced to ‘vote their district’ and cave if it comes to that.

            The decision for the 40 on the right will be more about how to maximize their influence in that dynamic. Saying “no” to everything will leave them out in the cold. Maybe Plan B was a tough pill to swallow, but if it was the real vote for a real compromise, I’d hope they would be smart enough to sign on.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            “If we want to have a bill that can pass 395 to 40 then Boehner could have done that six weeks ago and skipped the kabuki dance.”

            Please describe such a bill that would preserve taxpayers and get such wide support. I dont believe such a unicorn exists.

          • bk

            “The catch is can we get a unity position that is also a credible alternative and basis for Democrat compromise?”

            Who cares? Is anything offered by Obama “credible” or a “basis for compromise”? As soon as Boehner gives on anything, Obama moves the goalpost and pulls more off the table.

            “Please describe such a bill that would preserve most taxpayers and get such wide support.”

            I didn’t say such a bill would be any good, just that it would pass without all the whining and wasted time.

        • Jim_Riggs

          The 113the Congress will have 233 Republicans and 200 Democrats with 2 seats currently vacant.

          • checkmate2012

            I stand corrected. We both may be off but me moreso:

            HOUSE LINEUP
            113th Congress
            (As of 12/8/2012)
            -Republicans 235
            -Democrats199
            -Vacancies*1
            *Jackson (D), IL resigned 11/21/2012

            From http://housepressgallery.house.gov/2012-house-election-results

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    The fracturing of the Republican coalition is noted here ..

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/a-role-reversal-dems-grow-more-unified-while-cracks-form-in-the-gop-20121220

  • http://www.bohnetlaw.com rightappeal

    Forget the grand bargain and pass things individually. Break up the Bush tax cuts not by income, but by the taxes they cut – one bill to extend the child tax credit, one for the 10% tax bracket, one for dividends, etc. Maybe even pass some alternatives, like a cut in corporate tax rates that would make a worthy replacement for the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. Make it clear that the things people like and which we support could easily become law if the Democrats weren’t holding them hostage to secure more spending.

    • http://twitter.com/patmcguinness Patrick McGuinness

      How does that solve anything? If you break it up, the Democrat pass what they want and the rest is trashed.

      “Democrats weren’t holding them hostage to secure more spending.” Democrats arent doing that, they are merely holding out for NOT cutting spending AND more and more taxes. your idea just gives them what they want by letting them pick and choose.

      • http://www.bohnetlaw.com rightappeal

        Passing individual bills would make it harder for the Dems to blame Republicans for raising taxes on the middle class (which the cliff will otherwise do), and also preempts them from presenting a post-cliff restoration of selected cuts as their own idea. And it’s basically a way of potentially salvaging some of the tax cuts that will otherwise expire. I think the Dems would likely end up enacting at least the child tax credit and the 10% bracket. I suspect they would like those to expire and are using the cliff as a way to publicly support them while blaming Republicans for killing them.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          Actually Dems would want to pass the whole Bush tax rates for everyone under $250,000. We could raise it higher. Boehner calculated $1 m as good ground.
          Boehner passing a bill for all taxpayers and a bill for 99% of taxpayers, separately, would in effect do as you propose.

          • http://www.bohnetlaw.com rightappeal

            Yes, except that my plan would not put the Republicans on record against any of the tax cuts, and would make it easier to pressure the Dems into enacting some of the bills (since Obama supposedly wants the lower income cuts). We would probably not get the cap gains and dividend cuts on middle income taxpayers, but I’d suggest that the incentives created by those cuts would be largely neutered by an overall income cap anyway.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Letting the child tax credit would probably accelerate family breakdown, which would probably accelerate the emerging Democrat majority.

      Of course, we can always take a few tips from Iain Duncan Smith in the UK (working poor) and Stephen Harper in Canada (ethnic minorities).

    • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

      That was what Rep. Dr. Tom Price was proposing. I think it is a great idea. GOPers will be on record of not supporting any tax increases, but they can send it to the Senate with instructions not to return it to the House. Tell the senate to pass as many tax cuts as they want and send each bill that they can pass to the President.

  • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

    “Plan C” is simple. Get the following legislation passed in the House:

    Cut regular federal income tax rates for all income levels except the top one with no expiration date, the GOP middle class tax cuts
    Cut corporate income tax rates with no expiration
    Make permanent the current dividend, capital income tax rates
    Make permanent the current payroll tax rates
    Eliminate the AMT
    Keep the sequestration spending cuts in place
    Eliminate the Obamacare taxes
    Implement Cut, Cap, and Balance

    Dare the Senate not to pass it as is. If it somehow gets passed the Senate as is or in a modified form that keeps to the standards of these items, dare Obama not to sign it.

    This is what Boehner should have been working on since after the election.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      You have different elements but your approach is close to what Boehner was attempting. Maybe he just needs to rejigger the legislative content to win people over?