« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Could new tea partier majority do more than merely defeat Plan Bs?

Have conservative Republicans in the House the numbers and the courage to seize party leadership, play government shutdown/debt ceiling chicken with President Obama and speak debt cliff truth to entitlement seniors’ power?

It took 23 months, but the historic 2010 tea partier-led GOP landslide finally paid off conservatives with the rejection of Speaker John Boehner’s surrender of upper income tax earners to the tender mercies of President Obama’s fiscal cliff tax rate increases. All taxpayers face income, payroll and other tax rate increases come New Year’s Day as a result of the debt ceiling compromise establishment House Republicans and Democrats passed over the objections of conservatives and tea partiers in 2011.

Could this week’s Lame Duck vote be a portent for more courageous conservative majorities next week and next year? For the sake of America’s economic health, we hope so.

In the aftermath of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives after four years of Democratic Party rule, conservatives hoped to use the body’s Article I power of the purse to rein in Obama’s run of budget deficits more than tripling the largest of any run up under President George W. Bush. But Speaker Boehner proved no match for a Democrat Senate and President that welcome crises as opportunities to demagogue for political gain, even while threatening the checks of the military and seniors on Social Security in case of a government shutdown. The Speaker was always quick with the excuse that the GOP “only held one-half of one-third of the government.”

Is it possible, that four trillion dollars in Obama debt and his improbably re-election despite presiding over a recovery” worse than any recession since the 1930s that enough non-tea partier conservatives have decided to join their Class of 2010 Republican brethren in a fight to save America from the financial ruin Obama and the Democrats seem hell bent on realizing?

We are told that, despite the Speaker’s leadership team failure to whip up the votes for his “Plan B” counter to President Obama’s phantom plan, that the “inertia” of party leadership and seniority-driven partnerships, it is unlikely that a majority of the Republican House caucus would oust Boehner before the new congress convenes in January. One would think that the People’s House is a corporation operating under a collective bargaining agreement, than a branch of government answerable to We the People.

Hopefully, enough members want to wield what power conservatives in Washington have under the Constitution,  and  do more than pass their time with continuing resolutions that do nothing to stop the spending madness they were elected to end. Of course, that would require the courage to face the loss of committee assignments, campaign contributions and, the possibility that they might one day no longer need a temporary resident near Capitol Hill. Egad!

Moreover, if they were to muster the courage to risk an end to Georgetown cocktail party invites, they would also need to have the courage to battle President Obama and the media when the government shuts down and national park rangers star in TV ads worrying about how they will eat unless the big bad Republicans grow hearts.

Finally, would they also have the courage to utter the truth none dare speak even if one’s name begins with Paul and ends with Ryan. That is, that for America to address the debt crisis in a meaningful way, entitlement reform can’t only apply to Americans retiring a decade or more from now, unless senior boomers are comfortable handing their children and grandchildren a future of tax deductions from paychecks so draconian that hopes of the American Dream would be on par with Mayan calendars.

The first tea partier House majority vote makes what once seemed impossible, possible. Hopefully this wasn’t just the last lurch of a lame duck. The New Year will reveal if the new 2013 House Republican duck is Daffy or not.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Editor – Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor – Political Daily

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist – Examiner.com

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Let’s repeal Part D as a first step, if we’re going to use that as a litmus test!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I would rather cut Medicare more overall through more systemic reform but keep certain aspects of part D, but that’s too much in the weeds for me this close to Christmas! Smile

  • commonsenseobserver

    :D

    Of course, most agree, though there are some on our side (and in the media) who think wholesale cuts to Medicare are fiscally responsible and compassionate while structural reform is not.

  • WmCraig

    Going after retired citizens and taking away benefits will not change the colors on the map. Advocating for restoration of Medicare Advantage, basically a free market insurance for seniors that wraps Medicare with benefits paid for by seniors makes would have more effect if the purpose is to gain political power. Medicare advantage program restoration and expansion could if we had the power to implement means testing provide the ability to move the costs downward by adjusting the portion of the costs born by government based on need without reducing the benefits overall. People would get a benefit, some people would pay more for that benefit. Think of it as a free market replacement for Part D.

  • WmCraig

    I hope your right.
    Michelle maybe? It would be worth watching to see someone that could make the minority leader look like the creep she is.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Well, the purpose for me is two-fold: win and with a mandate for restorative change and for that, I think Medicare and SocSec have to be radically reformed for both the short and long term. Love your Medicare Advantage proposal, but wonder if its enough for significant savings. We know how to lose by being DemLite and I would just wish that we could find one man with the courage to quit telling current beneficiaries and those soon-to-be that they need not be a part of saving the nation and giving them a pass to screw their kids and grand kids I would rather lose trying to actually do something that could actually be trans-formative rather than pretending that Ryan’s plan was radical. It is immoral for current and soon-to-be seniors to be coddled as we deem promises made must be kept when they are unsustainable unless we want a country that only exists to make their retirement cushy as the yutes have their future stolen by the selfish BabyBoomers.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Well, the Heritage Foundation, Sens. Coburn and Bur, Rep. Herger, and the Bipartisan Policy Center, have all come up with serious proposals to reform Medicare, based on the premium support model in the Path to Prosperity and Ryan-Wyden, but which would also go further and faster in reforms to traditional FFS Medicare. Of course, fiscal reasons would demand that we impose the stringent spending growth cap found in Obamacare, although it’s a little silly, being based on GDP like the failed SGR, and it’ll be difficult for someone to go into an election defending that while attacking Obama’s Medicare cuts, which a future Republican nominee would presumably like to do.

    There will need to be safeguards against “cherrypicking” by insurance companies. And the transition period will always be tricky. And we need to bring down the overall cost of healthcare itself.

    But Social Security reform is a little more dangerous, even with cover from Simpson-Bowles. It may make sense for the payroll tax cap to be raised in exchange for benefits reform, a cut in the actual FICA rate, and partial privatization (which could be marketed as a FICA tax cut itself).

    But many Conservatives seem to regard means-testing with deep suspicion, even though many academics believe that these programs should be re-focused on their core purpose of insuring seniors from hardship.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I think we need to eliminate SocSec FICA payroll taxes and end the “insurance” pension fiction and means test it; with all workers taxes only by FIT. more later

  • mrguggis

    Surly I’m not the only one who has noticed that the same bunch of idiots who mashed the accelerator pedal to the floor to send us over the fiscal cliff (voted for the language in the bill) are now crying about the very fiscal cliff they voted for.