- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
BLANKLEY: Obama’s pretend budget cuts
Spending is the lifeblood of the president’s party
Question of the Day
The great American engine of democracy is beginning to build up a head of steam, and it remains the finest device created by man to organize collective human action.
Two months ago, the conventional wisdom held that Washington would do nothing of consequence to start dealing with our fiscal crisis. Certainly that was the political base line for President Obama's Feb. 14 budget proposal for 2012, which, while roundly condemned as a call to inaction, was seen as politically "shrewd."
Then, about a month ago, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed $61 billion in budget cuts for the remainder of the 2011 budget - as the Democratic Party-controlled Congress had failed to pass any budget while in the majority last year.
That action produced a new conventional wisdom - that the GOP effort to make some cuts in the 2011 budget would lead to "civil war" between GOP leadership and the Tea Party faction - and risked condemnation from the public for implicitly threatening to shut down the government.
Then last week, GOP Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan produced a proposed budget for 2012 that would reorganize and trim Medicare and Medicaid programs, otherwise bring federal spending back to its historic level of 20 percent of gross domestic product, reduce tax rates and loopholes (while keeping revenue neutral) and bring the budget into balance by 2040.
This both assured most Tea Party freshmen that the GOP leadership was serious about deficit reduction and brought out the predictable Democratic Party response: The GOP wanted to cause cancer in women, "kill" women and the elderly and generally impose barbaric morals on a helpless public. Then conventional wisdom declaimed that Mr. Ryan was an honorable idealist, but he was leading the GOP to political suicide.
However, over the weekend, House Speaker John A. Boehner successfully negotiated a $38.5 billion spending cut for the remainder of 2011, civil war did not break out in the GOP, and within hours, the White House suddenly announced that, after all, the president would announce by Wednesday his plans to deal with the deficit by, among other things, curbing entitlement costs.
Steady leadership by Mr. Boehner and the House GOP, powered by an increasingly alert public, has turned the president's stated deficit-reduction policy objective 180 degrees in two months. And this from a president who the Washington political and journalistic wizards have been proclaiming to be almost certain to be re-elected.
Well, no president who is confident of re-election chooses to embarrass himself by so conspicuously reversing himself on the central domestic issue of his time within two months unless he fears a new mood among the voters.
I don't know what new Washington conventional wisdom the network parrots will be reciting Thursday morning after the president's remarks, but let me offer a broad assessment of the fast-emerging debt- and deficit-reduction fight strategies.
The Republicans have bet the farm that the American public will more likely punish them for inaction than action. Good. The president seems to have come to the same conclusion regarding his chances with the 2012 electorate. So a fight over something that looks like real legislative action on the deficit crisis is going to be joined by the two parties.
But the nature of the Democratic Party's coalition for power must drive it to protect the excessive spending at all cost. The Democratic Party coalition since Franklin D. Roosevelt has been premised on the concept of "tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect." The phrase was first reported in the New York Times by reporter Arthur Krock in 1938, allegedly as a quote from FDR's closest adviser, Harry Hopkins. Hopkins denied having said it at the time, but it encapsulated the Democratic Party's successful method of getting elected by taxing the rich and upper-middle class, spending on the poorer public and thereby getting re-elected by that public.
If the Democratic Party gives up the vast spending that is driving the nation to fiscal catastrophe, that undermines its ability to win elections as a national political party. Democrats will fight for years to prevent such a spending "drought."
But as it has suddenly become clear to the president and his strategists that they cannot be seen to be on the sidelines, they will have to offer what may seem like a plausible solution.
But even confiscating all the income of the rich cannot sufficiently fund the reduction in deficits. Nor can an end to sleight-of-hand waste, fraud and abusein entitlements cover the gap. Ultimately, the Democrats either will not, in fact, deal with the deficit or they will have to do so by very heavily taxing the middle class. Either way, they want to keep spending, but they will try to hide those alternative realities.
Thus, the upcoming challenge for the Republicans will be less to persuade the country that entitlement reform is necessary (because the president will admit that). Instead, their task will be to: 1) Unmask the true nature of the Democrats' purported proposals; 2) convince the country that a high-tax solution to the deficit threat will result in low economic growth; and 3) convince the country that the GOP low-tax solution will sustain the needed social safety net while inducing higher economic growth necessary to our future prosperity.
Politics is about to get much uglier - but possibly more productive.
Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century" (Regnery, 2009) and vice president of the Edelman public relations firm in Washington.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
By Steve King
Get Breaking Alerts
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- U.S. evacuates embassy in Libya amid violent clashes between militias
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama: U.S. should 'embrace an economic patriotism that says we rise or fall together'
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- EDITORIAL: Obama's 'economic patriotism' means higher taxes