JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 19, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A scant few months after the Paul Ryan budget redefined the boundaries of conservative fanaticism, the Republican Party's new "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Constitutional Amendment makes that document seem quaintly reasonable. Ezra Klein sums up the policy:
Ronald Reagan's entire presidency would've been unconstitutional under CC&B. Same for George W. Bush's. Paul Ryan's budget wouldn't pass muster. The only budget that might work for this policy -- if you could implement it -- would be the proposal produced by the ultra-conservative Republican Study Committee. But that proposal was so extreme and unworkable that a majority of Republicans voted it down.
37 House Republicans and 12 Senate Republicans have pledged not to support a debt ceiling increase unless the CC&B Constitutional Amendment passes. Mitt Romney has signed this insane pledge. Ramesh Ponnuru has some gentle questions:
Representative Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who is a leading supporter of the amendment, said in an interview that if “the president wants this debt-ceiling increase, he’s going to help us get the votes.” He argued that Obama should deliver 50 Democratic votes in the House and 20 to 30 in the Senate. “That’s a good compromise for both sides.”
Does the congressman think that 50 Republicans would vote for a constitutional amendment that contradicts everything they stand for if President Romney asked them to?
What a congressman who pledges to increase the debt limit only if a spending-limit amendment passes is really saying is that he opposes increasing the debt limit. Because there is no way that two-thirds of Congress is going to pass this amendment now, or ever.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the CC&B amendment is the casual way in which it attempts to enshrine specific spending levels and to freeze current taxes into the Constitution. I would like to see its advocates explain why it is necessary for the Constitution to require their agenda. What is keeping the public from electing officials who will enact this agenda? If people want to enact policies like this, why not just let them do it? And if they don't, why force these policies upon them?
8 comments
File under Profligate Deficit Hawks (I linked to this article on the thread immediately below, but it merits the widest possible dissemination): http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fervent-budget-cutters-still-spend-on-mass-communication/2011/07/15/gIQAXAJVGI_story.html?nav=emailpage
- liberalref
July 19, 2011 at 2:13pm
When did all these "Pledges" become so centrally important? I guess if you're ruling by dogma, it's easy to sign a pledge to keep to your dogma. Though the LAST time the Republican Party demanded a balanced-budget ammendment, they immediately abandoned that approach once they had a Republican in the White-House. I don't think these pledges are worth the paper they're not written on.
- AllanL5
July 19, 2011 at 2:17pm
Isn't it obvious? Support for budget cuts and deficit reduction in the abstract is consistently high. But when a detailed plan emerges, voters see their favorite programs targeted (Medicare, Social Security, and Defense are especially popular and especially big) and that support evaporates. The current proposal allows Republicans to vote for the abstract idea without running the risk of producing a detailed plan.
- gckettler
July 19, 2011 at 2:18pm
What were the Govt spending divided by GNP figures over the past? Klein seems to say that it was over 18%. What is it now. How high would SS, medicare, defense and interest bring the figure this year.
- stanmvp48
July 19, 2011 at 2:18pm
Ah, I have it. Because a "Pledge" lets you act like you've really done something, when in fact you've done nothing. It's a win-win -- you can claim dramatic action, while being able to abandon it in the future with nobody noticing. That is, it's a win-win unless you actually want to govern with rational policies. But it's a great cover for vaguely stated dogma.
- AllanL5
July 19, 2011 at 2:19pm
I've come to the conclusion that something like tax rates or how we should address the needs of the underprivileged does not lend itself to politics. It's like answering a question by group vote, where the group of voters are just voting on what they would like the answer to the question to be, as opposed to just having someone find out the answer by diligent effort. They want 2 + 2 to equal 5, so let's just vote that way.
- Nusholtz
July 19, 2011 at 6:53pm
I'm going to assume those questions are rhetorical. By now, anyone who's been paying even a little attention should know the answer.
- Dausuul
July 19, 2011 at 7:17pm
What all the Republicans are really saying is, I will not enact balance budgets or maintain the debt ceiling, I have to be constrained by a Constitutional amendment. And the requirement of a two-thirds vote in order to raise taxes is just one more step away from Democracy and toward Plutarchy, which is the real Republican agenda.
- jgmusgrove
July 20, 2011 at 11:23am