Today's Wall Street Journal posted an editorial titled "The Tea Party's First Victory." Not all of the conservatives are declaring victory, but let's look at where we have been and where we are.
The editorial states:
"This is getting to be a habit. President Obama ferociously resists tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts--right up to the moment he strikes a deal with Republicans and hails the tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts as his idea. What a difference an election makes."
The election of 2010 has changed the debate. The Republicans (Tea Party members) control the House. They do not have the Senate or the Presidency. With that small majority they managed to change the discussion from how much we will increase spending to how much we will cut spending.
The editorial reports:
"Now the battle moves to the debt ceiling increase and Paul Ryan's new 2012 budget later this year, and there are lessons from this fight to keep in mind. One is to focus on spending and budget issues, not extraneous policy fights. Republicans have the advantage when they are talking about the overall level of spending and ways to control it. They lose that edge when the debate veers off into a battle over social issues."
I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Is the funding of Planned Parenthood a social issue or a spending issue? We need to keep in mind that according to Open Secrets, in the 2010 election cycle Planned Parenthood contributed $ 262,986 to Congressional Democrats and $2,000 to Congressional Republicans. According to ABC News Planned Parenthood will receive $363 million in federal funding for the remainder of 2011. The fact that organizations that receive federal funding can make campaign contributions is deeply troubling to me.
The Wall Street Journal makes a suggestion for future spending debates:
"We are not talking here about that hardy perennial, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, that would easily become a lever for Democrats to push for higher taxes. Far better would be statutory limits on spending increases and debt as a share of GDP, sequesters that automatically cut spending if Congress exceeds those limits, supermajority rules for replacing those limits, and revisions of the budget baseline so that each year's budget begins at last year's spending levels, not with automatic increases.
"This is the kind of reform the public will understand is directly related to the debt limit, and one that Senate Democrats and Mr. Obama will find hard to oppose. Republicans should waste no time starting to explain their debt-limit terms, so voters also understand the GOP isn't toying with default as a political ploy."
It would be nice if both political parties could agree to this basic concept.
Leave a comment