December 28, 2011--Obama and Boehner Together
Here's a suggestion for Barack Obama and John Boehner.
They have at least one thing in common--neither is in control of his caucus in Congress; and if Obama is reelected and Boehner manages not to be unseated by Tea Party House members, the gridlock we have seen will continue, probably worsen.
This, in part, is because the congressional radicals in Boehner's party want gridlock. Through it, by accretion, they are achieving their goals--a stagnant Congress translates into a less-powerful, reduced federal government. They have figured out that they do not have to get any legislation passed to achieve their anarchistic agenda. Quite the opposite--all they need to do is make sure nothing gets done and, viola, there will be less of everything: funding for education, infrastructure, health care, agriculture, veterans, research, foreign aid. They will, however, find ways to fund preparations for war and, of course, war itself. For them Iran is in the next bulls eye.
Even if Republicans loss control of the House they are poised to take control of the Senate. The disproportionate number of Democrats up for reelection (and thus vulnerable) plus the many Democrat Senate incumbents voluntarily not seeking reelection (Nebraska's Ben Nelson is the latest to opt out of the fray and a Republican is almost certain to replace him) suggests Harry Reid's days as Majority Leader are numbered. So come the next Congress it will be the Democrats' turn to obstruct legislation. They will take a page from the Republicans playbook and filibuster everything.
But even in this clouded and depressing context, there is an opportunity for John Boehner and Barack Obama to make some interesting history.
Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill figured out ways to work together in the 1980s and got quite a lot accomplished as did Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich during the '90s.
All that is required (and it is a great deal) is for Obama and Boehner to see mutual interest in working together, screw up their courage to confront the extreme forces in both of their parties, and sit down regularly over a few drinks to see if they can strike some big deals, or "grand bargains" as they have recently been described.
They could return to a bargain of the sort they apparently agreed to five months ago when the United States confronted the need to raise the nation's debt ceiling. Obama and Boehner, it is reported, agreed to more than $4.0 trillion in deficit cuts but pulled back when the Tea Party and liberal constituencies in their parties rebelled. Versions of the same thing was true for Reagan and O'Neill and Clinton and Gingrich, but they had the strength of self and political courage not to cave in to the pressure brought to bear on them by members of their own parties. As a result we had relative prosperity, a version of worldwide peace, and reasonably balanced budgets without dramatically sacking our most essential social programs--in fact, during both of these decades some were expanded.
Let's say Boehner and Obama agree to $4-5.0 trillion in budget cuts and revenue "enhancements" (some raised taxes and the elimination of most tax loopholes) and take their deal to the House and Senate. The Tea Party folks will object because of the new taxes and some Democrats will dig in because of cuts to entitlement programs. This is inevitable.
What isn't inevitable is for Obama and Boehner to continue to give in to these demands. They should decide to let the political chips fall where they may and seek a bipartisan base of support for this and other vitally needed actions. My congressional head count suggests this budget deal or, better, a version of Simpson-Bowles would have a good chance of passing in both houses.
Do Obama and Boehner want to go down in history as presiding over governmental gridlock at a perilous time in our history, or do they want to make some history?
Sounds like an easy choice to me.
They have at least one thing in common--neither is in control of his caucus in Congress; and if Obama is reelected and Boehner manages not to be unseated by Tea Party House members, the gridlock we have seen will continue, probably worsen.
This, in part, is because the congressional radicals in Boehner's party want gridlock. Through it, by accretion, they are achieving their goals--a stagnant Congress translates into a less-powerful, reduced federal government. They have figured out that they do not have to get any legislation passed to achieve their anarchistic agenda. Quite the opposite--all they need to do is make sure nothing gets done and, viola, there will be less of everything: funding for education, infrastructure, health care, agriculture, veterans, research, foreign aid. They will, however, find ways to fund preparations for war and, of course, war itself. For them Iran is in the next bulls eye.
Even if Republicans loss control of the House they are poised to take control of the Senate. The disproportionate number of Democrats up for reelection (and thus vulnerable) plus the many Democrat Senate incumbents voluntarily not seeking reelection (Nebraska's Ben Nelson is the latest to opt out of the fray and a Republican is almost certain to replace him) suggests Harry Reid's days as Majority Leader are numbered. So come the next Congress it will be the Democrats' turn to obstruct legislation. They will take a page from the Republicans playbook and filibuster everything.
But even in this clouded and depressing context, there is an opportunity for John Boehner and Barack Obama to make some interesting history.
Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill figured out ways to work together in the 1980s and got quite a lot accomplished as did Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich during the '90s.
All that is required (and it is a great deal) is for Obama and Boehner to see mutual interest in working together, screw up their courage to confront the extreme forces in both of their parties, and sit down regularly over a few drinks to see if they can strike some big deals, or "grand bargains" as they have recently been described.
They could return to a bargain of the sort they apparently agreed to five months ago when the United States confronted the need to raise the nation's debt ceiling. Obama and Boehner, it is reported, agreed to more than $4.0 trillion in deficit cuts but pulled back when the Tea Party and liberal constituencies in their parties rebelled. Versions of the same thing was true for Reagan and O'Neill and Clinton and Gingrich, but they had the strength of self and political courage not to cave in to the pressure brought to bear on them by members of their own parties. As a result we had relative prosperity, a version of worldwide peace, and reasonably balanced budgets without dramatically sacking our most essential social programs--in fact, during both of these decades some were expanded.
Let's say Boehner and Obama agree to $4-5.0 trillion in budget cuts and revenue "enhancements" (some raised taxes and the elimination of most tax loopholes) and take their deal to the House and Senate. The Tea Party folks will object because of the new taxes and some Democrats will dig in because of cuts to entitlement programs. This is inevitable.
What isn't inevitable is for Obama and Boehner to continue to give in to these demands. They should decide to let the political chips fall where they may and seek a bipartisan base of support for this and other vitally needed actions. My congressional head count suggests this budget deal or, better, a version of Simpson-Bowles would have a good chance of passing in both houses.
Do Obama and Boehner want to go down in history as presiding over governmental gridlock at a perilous time in our history, or do they want to make some history?
Sounds like an easy choice to me.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home