Missing: Real fiscal negotiations

. . . chasing a fetish instead

For some unknown reason, the GOP decided to forego fiscal negotiations in the run-up to the appropriations for next year, and focus only on defunding Obamacare. They turned Obamacare into a fetish and focused all their energies on it.

Obamacare is certainly not the only political fetish. In fact, politics is full of fetishes. Each party tries to raise up their fetishes and burn those of their opponents. Here are a few fetishes off the top of my head: assault weapons ban, balanced budget amendment, green jobs, DADT, "real Americans," ...

Actually, I ran out of fetishes sooner than I would have thought. To me, a fetish is a practically useless but politically powerful piece of policy or jargon. In actuality, it doesn't matter, but politicians latch onto it for political grandstanding. Obamacare doesn't really fit this definition, since it will have real consequences, but it has been turned into a fetish because politicians have inflated its symbolism to a great degree.

Negotiate or bust

So, back to the point. Instead of doing some horse-trading on funding this and that, cutting hither and thither, the GOP has wasted months on Obamacare. They did manage to pass a bill in the House cutting 5% from the food stamp budget, but that's it. Maybe someone in the GOP (not you, Rand Paul) remembered to make up a prioritized list of other cuts, and will whip it out after the Obamacare offensive is defeated. If not, the GOP will yet again be caught out with no negotiation strategy. This happened in December '11, Feb '12, Dec '12, and March '13. When will the GOP learn?

The Dems, of course, like spending as much as they can get away with, so they aren't taking up the slack and suggesting their own cuts. Nancy Pelosi says there's nothing more to cut, but also that the Dems will work with the GOP to make government more efficient and end duplication of services. Her negotiation strategy is "you go first." This cynical strategy isn't good for the country at all, but those hopeless Republicans don't have anything better.

I hope we can get back to the situation in 2011 when the Tea Party was pushing for some real cuts, and they weren't going to back down. That was a realistic goal and it worked.

Right now they're engaged in a folly, and they seem to be throwing more energy at it than they had in 2011. Why are they flushing away their power on an unattainable goal? The only answer I have is that they don't know and don't care what is achievable and what isn't.

Perhaps we were damned lucky that they focused on budget cuts in 2011 and not Obamacare. Maybe it was just dumb luck, and not any wisdom at all. If the Tea Party chooses its goal irrationally, they are going to be a bull in a china shop until they're shot down. On the basis of 2013 vs. 2011, I'm not ready yet to declare the Tea Party totally irrational, but that's definitely on the list of possible explanations.

So, to the Tea Party, please go back to demanding some fiscal restraint. Show that your 2011 rational choice wasn't an aberration.

Image: washingtonpost.com

Extras. The food stamp cut mentioned above was 5% of a $80 billion budget that's doubled since 2008. The stimulus increased the grants, but that is also due to end, which may mean the total cuts are larger, perhaps on the order of 10%. The Dems are screaming about "food insecurity," which means one person in a household skipped as few as one meal a month due to food availability. Fetish, anyone?

Bernstein: GOP is "post-policy"--they have no proposals. Josh Barro complains about the lack of rational healthcare reform ideas among the GOP. Yeah, I noticed that.

Short: Funny Farm bill

So the Senate passed a farm bill 66-27. But the House, riven by excessive partisanship, couldn't pass the bill supported by the not-all-powerful leadership. Nothing surprising or particularly interesting there.

However, I noticed this comment:

Why do they call this the "farm bill?" It is mainly SNAP funding these days, and nominally related to crop payments. Sure, the Ag department administers it, but it is really a welfare bill.

Is this a fake talking point, or the truth? Well, I looked it up, and it's true--67% of the farm bill is for food stamps. Wow.

Not that I'm totally surprised. I've noted the increase in food stamp expenditures before, and I've heard first hand of recipients selling the excess food stamps for cash. It sounds to me like a program that should be trimmed. But I'm still surprised that the food stamp give-aways outstrip the farm subsidies give-aways.

I use the pejorative term "give-aways" ironically, but that's how many see one or both programs. For my part, I want a strong agricultural sector in this country. Farmers deserve extra cushioning because we depend on them for our food, and they depend on fickle weather. I would support my doctor if she had a bad year with everyone healthy and no one visiting her (which doesn't happen) because I want her around rain or shine. I feel the same way about farmers.

The welfare program that supplies food stamps (now called SNAP for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is quite a different issue. It should be separated from the agriculture bills. But there's probably an "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" aspect to the bundling. Pols with a rural constituency team up with pols with a poor, urban constituency to make sure they both get their subsidies. Now that's a win-win proposition!

Image: snaptohealth.org

Grand political strategies of our times

Hat tip to commenter Anastasios for this topic. He wrote:

The GOP thinks that they are well-entrenched in the House and time will eventually bring them back into power with a well-timed recession or a major Dem mistake... The Dems acknowledge the mid-term danger but believe the GOP is slowly being throttled to death by demographic and social change, and that by about 2030 the left will have grown strong enough that the dreams of conservatives will be forever dead... In any case, neither side is trying to get things done, but to set agendas for when their expected futures come about. Whatever happens with the sequester and the budget is merely a blip in the sweep of the longer-term strategies they are pursuing... At this point I don't think either party finds it in their interest to minimize problems. [Emphasis added by MP.]

I don't know whose agenda the future will favor, but his point spurred me to think about grand political strategies of the recent past.

 The Permanent Republican Majority

Back in 2001, or even earlier, Karl Rove envisioned a permanent Republican majority. That wasn't so long ago, but I still had to remind myself how it was supposed to come about. In a nutshell, the GOP would build a coalition of reliable, motivated supporters who would vote in larger percentages than the general public. This coalition was conservative (social, fiscal, and foreign policy) with pro-business and evangelicals being in the forefront.

Rove was very solicitous of the concerns of evangelical and conservative groups. But he also needed to make sure that the GOP blind-sided by bread-and-butter concerns, so education and Medicare were also on the radar. I recall reading the Medicare Part D came about because Rove didn't want the Dems to have the lack of medication coverage as an issue.

Of course this dream didn't survive the debacle of the Iraq war, with all lives lost, money borrowed and wasted, and arrogance that it was going well. The dream, already dead, was killed even deader by the financial crisis of 2008. No wonder I had to research to remind myself how 'the permanent Republican majority' was supposed to work.

The Obama plan?

This is much more speculative (meaning I have no data to help me determine either way), but perhaps Obama has a similar plan for a permanent Dem majority. The Dems tend to be favored when turnout is high, which means that they gain the most from turning irregular voters or non-voters into regular voters. Obama's 50 state strategy and local campaign offices that stay open and active through the off-years are aimed at this pool of irregular voters. I think the major drives to sign people up for food stamps and Medicaid also aim to turn irregular voters into regular voters.

If Dems can keep these voters coming to the polls, and sign up even more, they will have an electoral advantage. There's little the GOP is doing to woo these voters away, and they don't have an equivalent pool to tap. Lots of people think the GOP is screwed. So it would seem unless the Dems revert to being their own worst enemies through overreach.

Triangulation

I can't end this reflection without mentioning the Clinton strategy of triangulation. Under this strategy, Clinton negotiated a successful reform of welfare. He also avoided the fate of many old-line Democrats (turned out of office in 1994), and won reelection in 1996. Though it wasn't a 'grand' strategy, it worked well for Bill Clinton. Hillary wasn't so lucky or adept, and the Dems gave the nomination in 2008 to someone friendlier to the traditional left.

Successful planning

I notice that political strategies don't have as long a shelf-life as their supporters hope. I also notice that I can talk about strategies without talking about principles or deeply held values. Of course, deeply held values probably don't have a long shelf-life either as political strategy, or a successful strategy at least.

Deja vu

Image: amazon.com

The absence of coherent Obama criticism

I spend way too much time reading politics on the internet, but it certainly has broadened my thinking. I especially like the comments since there are a wider range of ideas, some wonderfully unfiltered. There are trolls too, but I occasional learn something from them.

One commenter was complaining that there are no Dems criticizing Obama from the right. That's a good point. Where are the Dems who are urging Obama to be more conservative, particularly more fiscally conservative?

I tried to remember any, and I couldn't. So I called my friend Google, who provided only one on-topic link to Dems criticizing Obama, though it's possible that both Google and I overlooked some. Here is the criticism, dating from April 2011:

The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) ... and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)... Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a "real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction."

Perhaps the deal of August 2011 blunted most of the criticism. It's also likely there are fewer moderate and conservative Democrats to apply the pressure. Kent Conrad chose not to run for reelection in 2012, but Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor are still in the Senate. Maybe the Dems have circled the wagons. That would make sense, especially in an election year, if you can get your sprawling party to do it.

Well, something is lost when there isn't criticism from the center. One trollish commenter pointed out that Bill Clinton "should have been criticizing Obama as an irresponsible big spender." You know, I find this believable, especially if it is softened somewhat. I can imagine Clinton thinking that we need to trim some of the federal safety net programs, encouraging people to be more independent, and states to experiment with ways to save money on Medicaid and similar programs. Obama has done the opposite, pushing food stamp and Medicaid sign-ups. (Bush had a program to encourage food stamp sign-ups too.)

So why isn't there more criticism of Obama from the center, or from the right side of the Democratic party? I don't know, but maybe the reasonable criticism was and is drowned out by the over-the-top criticism from outside the party. For example, Gingrich called Obama "the food stamp president," which has unpalatable racial tinges. Others who call Obama "a muslim, ...liar, a socialist, an idiot, a communist, the anti-christ,... evil (list courtesy Google auto-completion) do more damage to themselves and the GOP than to Obama.

Even Romney, who tried to be non-crazy in his charges, couldn't make criticism stick. I think there's a lesson here. You have to be credible in your criticism and not overreach, or you bring doubt onto your whole message. You can't say that Obama has ruined the economy, or it's all his fault the recovery is so weak, without a strong argument to support it. The majority just didn't believe it, and the GOP looked partisan, foolish, and dishonest.

Come on, let's have better quality in Obama criticism. We need it.

Image: teapartytribune.com