JONATHAN CHAIT JANUARY 14, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Politico has the House GOP plan:
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of 10 leaders who attended a strategy session in Annapolis, Md., this week, said the party will attack Democrats relentlessly for the stimulus, health care and cap-and-trade bills. Internally, Republicans call it the “80-20 strategy,” which, loosely interpreted, means spending 80 percent of the time whacking Democrats and the remainder talking up their own ideas.
Cantor said he is more confident than ever this gives Republicans an authentic chance of netting the 40 seats they need, especially after reviewing data provided by five GOP pollsters during the leadership retreat. It showed what other public surveys reveal: widespread unease with Democratic policies.
Cantor conceded that the public is far from thrilled with the GOP — in fact, the party’s image is worse than the Democrats’ — but he argues that Republicans will benefit most from the public loathing of Washington.
So, Cantor understands that people don't like his party, but they can possibly gain control of the House if they can avoid discussing their ideas. At which point, of course, they'll immediately claim a mandate to implement those ideas. I think this could work.
Now, about those positive ideas that will account for the other 20 percent, they come up at the end of the article:
It won’t be an entirely nasty campaign — at least 20 percent of it. So after Labor Day, the GOP is leaning toward releasing a document — “a 21st-century blueprint,” Cantor calls it — that would echo the party’s successful “Contract With America” of 1994.
Cantor says it would start with jobs, then go on to promising a level playing field for investments. Aides say it would be more general than the bill-by-bill roster of the “Contract,” instead focusing on vaguer principles. Tax cuts will be included, too.
Okay, so for ideas, we've got... tax cuts. Plus "a level playing field for investments," which is vague but sounds to me like a euphemism for more tax cuts. I'm thinking that 80-20 is going to end up more like 99-1.
1 comments
Here it all is! The people want all of the ruling Democrats' key programs. So why are they dead or dying? It's the obdurate Rs fault! It's the pansy moderate Ds fault! We haven't adequately explained it all to the poor dumb bastards! The deficit issues can be solved, or at least contained, by doing what the dumb bastards want; tax the rich! What is actually happening? In this R's view, the great mistake traces back to Rahm Emanuel's comment that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Be fair to Rahm; he only voiced what the entire liberal wing of the Democratic party was thinking: the opposition has been rejected; an FDR-comparable economic crisis is upon us; we have huge majorities; this is our time! Ram the whole agenda through! The political mistakes , in my view, were 1) to bring up the whole agenda, rather than focusing on the economy, and 2) to leave the legislative details to congress to sort out , rather than presenting congress with an administration program. Next, taxing the rich. You would think that would be a sure-seller in tough times, and Chait finds support, in the abstract. So why isn't it stirring broad support for the liberal agenda? My first thought is that most people work in the private economy, many work for employers that are classified as small businesses, and those people have the not insane idea that if my boss is doing well I'm doing OK; if he's hurting, it isn't good news for me. Many of these people would be delighted to lay a heavy tax hand on the investment bankers, but nobody has talked about raising personal tax rates only on that segment of the prosperous (or the entertainers, athletes, etc.). My second thought is that there is push-back against the Ds candidly-expressed income re-distribution agenda, whether we like it or not. And not all of that push-back comes from R voters. Now that I have supplied thoughts that will enable some TNR bloggers to s..t on me, let me offer some observations that will go ignored by responders. The R majorities in congress were thrown out because they were spenders, not because they were tax cutters. The D majorities may be thrown out because they are spenders, not because they are tax raisers. At the top personal rates, the difference between Clinton and Bush is 4%. That should not be the stuff of revolutions. The real issue is on the spending side, and much of that has to do with any faint scintilla of choosing priorities. Have at me!
- lsernoff
February 19, 2010 at 8:42pm