Boehner Repeals Murphy's Law?

William McGurn: Boehner Repeals Murphy's Law - WSJ.com

When it comes to Murphy's Law—the idea that anything that can go wrong, will—we Irish have our corollary: Murphy was an optimist.

Even from this sunny perspective, it's hard to look at the debt-ceiling compromise and see it as anything but a conservative victory. It's not just that Speaker of the House John Boehner succeeded in imposing some conditions in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. It's that the deal has Democrats, including the president, essentially signing on to the Republican framework for defining the Beltway's budget problem: spending that is too high rather than taxes that are too low.

For the moment, the press focus remains on the intra-conservative spat between Republicans who favor Mr. Boehner's deal and tea partiers who largely oppose it. These disagreements will fade, however. And come the 2012 elections this deal will help force the debate that all conservatives have wanted all along—about the size, scope, and proper mission of our federal government.

McGurn goes further, but this is actually the key issue, and the one that needs to be highlighted. This is the central question of our times - what is the proper role of government? What is its "proper mission"? What tasks rightfully fall within its scope? How big does it need to be to perform that mission, those tasks? How do we fund it? These are questions on which there is, at the moment, no fundamental agreement between large groups of citizens living under that government.

I think that Boehner, and the House Republicans, have performed very effectively during the year, and during this debate. While there are people who aren't thrilled with the deal (actually, I suspect that there's no one who is actually "thrilled" with the deal), I doubt that any sitting Republicans have hurt themselves for the 2012 campaign. And that's important, because they need to hold the house. They also need to take the Senate and the White House, because that's when they're going to be able to really change the trajectory we're currently on.

But I think "repealed Murphy's law" is more than a bit too strong. Let's say, rather, that they evaded it, briefly...

Agreement reached

Who could have seen it coming?

...There won't be a default, because they'll come to some agreement that prevents it. No one wants it, so it won't happen. Much ado about, well, not nothing, but about something that's not going to happen.

- Me, July 15

Tonight:

Senate leaders will meet with their caucuses Monday morning to present a bipartisan agreement to raise the debt limit and cut spending between $2 trillion and $3 trillion.

Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) endorsed the deal on the Senate floor.

“I am relieved to say that leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff,” Reid said.

“The compromise we have agreed to is remarkable not only because of what it does, but because of what it prevents: a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States,” he said.

Reid said he would present it to his Democratic colleagues at 11 am and expressed confidence it would pass Congress. Reid said he would have to meet with his colleagues before giving the final green light.

President Obama took the podium in the White House briefing room a short while later to announce that the leaders from both parties in the Senate and House had accepted the deal.

Not taking "yes" for an answer...

There's an old piece of wisdom that one should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. There appears to be a lot of that going on in the House of Representatives right now...

House Republican leaders, four days before a threatened U.S. default and facing stiff resistance within their ranks to raising the U.S. debt ceiling, plan to make a second try at passing legislation that is headed for a Senate roadblock.

Republicans led by House Speaker John Boehner were forced to scrap action on the measure late last night. They are considering a rewrite for a second time this week after face-to-face meetings with recalcitrant lawmakers failed to yield the votes to push it through the House.

Or, "cutting off nose to spite face," if you prefer...

Now it seems to me that I'm as militant and partisan and anti-debt and anti-tax and anti-government spending as anyone out there, but clearly, sometimes you've got to take the best you can get and go with it. It's hard for me to picture any outcomes of the House failing to pass the Boehner bill that are better than any of the outcomes of passing the Boehner bill. You can believe that US debt is too high and that the Boehner bill doesn't do enough to curb spending (both of which I believe, by the way) and still believe that it's absolutely the best case scenario in the current circumstances. Said circumstances include, again, the facts that the Democrats control the Senate and the Democrats control the White House and the Democrats are unutterably opposed to cutting spending and the Democrats are unutterably opposed to not increasing taxes.

I've said this before, but let me say it again:

The financial problems of the United States can not be fixed with Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of the Senate. The financial problems of the United States can not even be seriously addressed with Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of the Senate.

What that means is that the best case scenario here is that the Republicans manage to slow the rush to financial catastrophe without damaging themselves enough to cost the party the chance to win back the Senate and the Presidency 15 months from next Tuesday. It's easy to look at the Boehner bill and say, "No, it's not good enough, it doesn't really address the problems," - and I agree - but what's the alternative? If they don't pass something, and we do end up in technical default (not on August 2nd, but somewhere down the road), the consequences are very likely to be severe. And it doesn't matter how we get to that point - the Republicans lose the media war. We know that up front, going in. The people that get to stand on the sidelines and pass judgment, and spread that judgment as fact, are playing for the other team. We know that. It's a doomsday scenario.

But hey, those firebrand conservatives standing on principle can comfort themselves with their principles as they enjoy minority status during the economic apocalypse that accompanies the second Obama administration...

Boehner's Plan Is Not Perfect, But It Ain't Bad

Add the always excellent Dr. Thomas Sowell to the Boehner plan supporters...

Now that the Republicans seem to have gotten the Democrats off their higher taxes kick, the question is whether a minority of the House Republicans will refuse to pass the Boehner legislation that could lead to a deal that will spare the country a major economic disruption and spare the Republicans from losing the 2012 elections by being blamed — rightly or wrongly — for the disruptions.

Is the Boehner legislation the best legislation possible? Of course not! You don't get your heart's desire when you control only one house of Congress and face a presidential veto.

The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available. It is not idealism to ignore the limits of one's power. Nor is it selling out one's principles to recognize those limits at a given time and place, and get the best deal possible under those conditions.

That still leaves the option of working toward getting a better deal later, when the odds are more in your favor.

Spot on...

Senate Democrats Promise To Cause Default Rather Than Cutting Spending

The Democrats have sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner warning the House not to bother passing a debt-ceiling bill that doesn't push our financial problems past the next election, because they won't support it. Despite the panic-mongering of the President, and the rest of the Democrats, about the economic catastrophe on our doorstep, if they don't get what they want (increased taxes and this issue pushed past the 2012 elections) they're going to go ahead and push the nuclear button. They say.

I've taken the liberty of correcting the letter, a little bit...

Senate Democrats Promise to Reject Boehner Plan

Dear Speaker Boehner,

With five days until our nation faces an unprecedented financial crisis [largely of our own making], we need to work together to ensure that our nation does not default on our obligations for the first time in our history [witness us fighting against fiscal sanity during an election campaign]. We heard that in your caucus you said the Senate will support your bill. We are writing to tell you that we will not support it, and give you the reasons why.

A short-term extension like the one in your bill would put America [Democratic politicians] at risk [of having this discussion again before the election], along with every family and business in it. Your approach would force us once again to face the threat of default [consequences of our profligate spending] in five or six short months. Every day, another expert warns us that your short-term approach [our failure to control spending] could be nearly as disastrous as a default [that we're threatening to force if you don't raise taxes] and would lead to a downgrade in our credit rating. If our credit is downgraded, it would cost us billions of dollars more in interest payments on our existing debt and drive up our deficit. Even more worrisome, a downgrade would [cost us the Senate and the White House in 2012 and] spike interest rates, making everything from mortgages, car loans and credit cards more expensive for families and businesses nationwide. [Despite those catastrophic results, we'll go ahead and cause this anyway if we don't get the taxes we want and a ceiling high enough to last past the next election.]

In addition to risking [Despite the bill preventing] a downgrade and catastrophic default, we are concerned that in five or six months, the House will once again hold the economy captive [attempt to deal with the budget problems] and refuse to avoid another default unless we accept unbalanced, deep cuts [meaningful and rational restructuring] to programs like Medicare and Social Security, without asking anything of the wealthiest [(which, under our definitions, means pretty much anyone with a job)] Americans [other than that they continue funding the whole thing as they're already doing].

We now have only five days left to act [but if we don't get our way, we'll force the default]. The entire world is watching Congress. We need to do the right [politically expedient] thing to solve this problem [avoid debating this again in an election year]. We must work together to avoid a default [cutting spending] the responsible way – not in a way that will do America more harm than good [by limiting our ability to use tax dollars to buy votes from our interest groups].

The newest entry for the "art of the possible" files...

Wall Street Journal:

But what none of these critics have is an alternative strategy for achieving anything nearly as fiscally or politically beneficial as Mr. Boehner's plan. The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . Barack Obama. The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees. The reality is that the debt limit will be raised one way or another, and the only issue now is with how much fiscal reform and what political fallout.

Yes. Exactly.

They're fighting the good fight, but the only way this gets fixed is with a new President, and letting him blame them for a default is not the best way to get there. Politics is the "art of the possible" and what the country most needs is not possible right now because of obstructionist-in-chief.

So take the best deal which is possible, the Boehner plan or something like it, and live to fight another day...

"It is time to start talking about trillions"

Some of us already have been, but Boehner's speaking the right language here...

Asked to define "real spending cuts," Boehner said, "It is time to start talking about trillions" of dollars, instead of the billions and tens of billions debated in earlier budget battles this year.

The budget deal

I said that I was going to write about the budget deal, so here it is.

There is obviously a wide range of opinions on this deal. Over a National Review's The Corner blog, the lockstepped Republican followers love it. And hate it. I haven't spent enough time in the lefty blogosphere to know for sure, but I've seen reports of similar phenomena.

My take - it's the Monty Python's Flying Circus budget deal. And not just because of the surrealistic "cutting 1% from the budget that we can only half fund to start with is too hard to do" nature of the debate.

When I was in college, we had a "Monty Python" weekend, back in 1981 or 1982. There were screenings of several films, and the special event was a talk by Python member Graham Chapman. It was ... quite amusing. But the interesting, and relevant, part of the talk was his description about how the name was chosen. In short, there were six of them, plus a couple of hangers-on and/or agents and/or producers looking for a name for this new show, and a bunch of names were thrown out for discussion. As the discussion went on, people moved to their favorites, arguing for them. The name "Monty Python's Flying Circus" was chosen, according to Chapman, because it was "the one that nobody liked." No one got their first choice at the expense of everyone else's first choice.

This budget is like that. Nobody really likes it. Which is good, because there's very little to like about it...

Evidence that the Democrats won:

• The Republicans didn't get everything that they wanted.
• Planned Parenthood didn't get defunded, so they'll still be turning tax dollars into Democrat campaign contributions.
• Obamacare didn't get defunded.
• The Republicans didn't get their $100 billion in cuts. They didn't get to their $62 billion in cuts.

Evidence that the Republicans won:

• The Democrats didn't get everything that they wanted.
• As preposterous as it sounds, given the current economic situation, the Democrats wanted to spend more. They didn't get to.
• In January, Harry Reid denounced as "draconian" and "extreme" cuts of about $32 billion dollars. Yesterday, he proclaimed cuts of $38.5 billion to be "historic."
• The DC scholarship program got funded.

Evidence that the American people won:

• None.

To say that it doesn't go far enough in addressing the problems that we face would imply that it actually starts to address the problems that we face. We've got a fiscal sucking chest wound, and they've found a piece of a little band-aid for it.

But I'm not ready to rant and rave and jump all over Boehner and the house Republicans. The situation is what it is, and the fact remains that the Republicans, as Boehner has said, control "one-half of one-third of the federal government." (Of course, the SCOTUS has nothing to do with the budget debate, so it's really "one-half of one-half" but that's nitpicking.) And it's also a fact that they cannot fix it all today. The problem is too big. The most important things that they can do right now are a) control the problem as much as they can and b) position themselves to be able to fix it in the future. Given the media environment, a shutdown, holding out for a better deal now (albeit one that wouldn't appreciably improve the situation) would probably have decreased the chances of being able to attempt to fix it next year or the year after.

Let's face it - there's going to be no serious attempt to address any of these problems signed into law by this President. It may well be that the best we can hope for over the next two years is to slow the growth of the debt, and make that clear to everyone so that we'll have a new President signing budgets in 2013. Given that fact, I'm not going to get too worked up over this deal.

But it's not a good one. For anyone¹.





¹ I am glad that the military will continue to get paid...

It's still early...

...but the congressional Republicans are on a roll right now, making good decisions and presenting them well...

Chairman Paul Ryan to Deliver Republican Response to SOTU:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced today that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) will deliver the Republican address following the President’s State of the Union address to Congress on January 25, 2011. Last year – in an unprecedented failure – Congressional Democrats chose not to pass, or even propose a budget, punting on a duty that represents the most basic responsibility of governing. Chairman Ryan will deliver the Republican address Tuesday night from the House Budget Committee hearing room, where the Democrats’ spending spree will end and the Republicans’ push for a fiscally responsible budget that cuts spending will begin.

In making the announcement, the GOP leaders noted that Chairman Ryan is a leading voice for fiscal discipline and common-sense solutions to cut spending and create jobs. Known for his thoughtful and detailed critiques of big-government policies, Ryan has helped put to rest the Democrats’ argument that more government spending and higher taxes is the answer to most of our nation’s ills. His commitment to free enterprise and limited government make him the right choice to outline a vision for how a smaller, less costly government will help create the right conditions for the creation of good, private sector jobs.

“Paul Ryan is uniquely qualified to address the state of our economy and the fiscal challenges that face our country,” said Speaker Boehner. “We’re broke, and decisive action is needed to help our economy get back to creating jobs and end the spending binge in Washington that threatens our children’s future. I’m pleased that Paul will be outlining a common-sense vision for moving our country forward.”

I am also pleased...

Not the adverb I'd have chosen...

Boehner on JFK

"Sadly, this is the first Congress to convene without a Kennedy since the Truman administration," Boehner said, as turned to his left.

I'm reminded of Bart Simpson, listening to Poe's The Raven during the first Treehouse of Horror episode. "You know what would have been scarier than nothing? ANYTHING!"

What would be better than "sadly"? ANYTHING! Joyfully, thankfully, happily, mercifully, gratefully, there's no Kennedy in the Congress.




(Of course, you can parse it to make it true - it's very sad that there have been Kennedy's, namely Teddy and Patrick, in the Congress for the last fifty years - but that's clearly not what Boehner meant. What this country has needed for a very long time is fewer and better Kennedy's, and given the unlikelihood of the latter, the former is just dandy, thanks...)

"The illness is spending..."

John Boehner, as reported by Robert Costa, hitting exactly the right notes again:

Washington has an illness. The illness is spending. The debt is a symptom of that illness. The American people want it cured. President Obama and congressional Democrats have been on a job-destroying spending spree that has left us with nothing but historic unemployment and the most debt in U.S. history. If they want us to help pay their bills, they are going to have to start cutting up their credit cards. "Cutting up the credit cards" means cutting spending – and implementing spending reforms to ensure we keep on cutting. We know the American people will settle for nothing less.

Of course, the right words are great, and important, but if they aren't ultimately followed by the right actions, they may end up doing more harm than good. If the Republicans screw up now and let the Democrats off the hook to firm up the disastrous policy decisions of the past four years, well, there's no situation so bad that it can't be made worse...

Disagreeing with Dr. K

Charles Krauthammer is brilliant, but I disagree with part of his take on John Boehner's speech yesterday:

I thought it was a good speech but he was really heavy on the humility. “Dust to dust” is as humble as you get. And this after all is a guy who led the party to the biggest House landslide in over 70 years. I thought he slightly overdid it. I’m not looking for a glorious triumphalism, but I think he didn’t exactly have to wear a sackcloth. … I would have hoped for a little more pep and vigor in the acceptance [speech].

I think it's appropriate for everyone who has worked on Capitol Hill for the last 20 years, or any part of it, in any capacity, to be wearing sackcloth and ashes. They should have scarlet 'D's tattooed on their foreheads. What the Federal Government has done in that period of time to "we the people's" financial future is horrifying.

Unfortunately, those who've done the most damage are least likely to see it as such...