Spending cuts: GOP policy or pander?
During the “fiscal cliff” battle, I asked several Republican lawmakers why they didn't push harder for spending cuts in exchange for their historic concession to vote for higher taxes. They invariably answered that they were waiting for the fight over raising the debt ceiling. Then, they promised, Republicans would demand serious cuts.
Their thinking was this: The GOP was on the wrong side of the polls in the battle over raising taxes on the highest earners. Surveys showed substantial public support for the president and Democrats on that issue. But Republicans are on the right side of the polls in the battle over fiscal responsibility. The GOP, the party trying to put sensible limits on President Obama's runaway spending, is better positioned to make the case for cuts.
Everybody knows Obama's tax increases will do little to reduce deficits in coming years. They'll add about $60 billion in revenue a year, turning a $1.2 trillion deficit into a $1.14 trillion deficit. And everybody knows entitlement spending is on its way to eating the entire federal budget.
Nevertheless, the mood on the political left since the election has become one of solid opposition to any and all cuts in entitlements. The president won the election, activists on the left say, so he should get the tax increases he wants and Republicans should not get the spending cuts they want.
And the president is not through trying to raise taxes. In coming days, he will cite the Republican offer, made just after the election, to raise revenue by eliminating tax deductions and broadening the base. Now that he has won the fight to raise tax rates instead, Obama will demand that Republicans give in on deductions, too, as they had once offered.
The GOP hopes to stop that cold. “The president got his revenue,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Jan. 3 in his opening remarks to the new Senate. “Now it's time to turn squarely to the real problem, which is spending.”
But Republicans know they will soon be cast as the villain again. During the fiscal cliff fight, they were accused of being the party ready to plunge the nation into financial disaster on behalf of their millionaire and billionaire friends. During the debt ceiling fight, they will be tagged as the party willing to take the nation to the very brink of default to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly.
Unlike the fiscal cliff battle, when it was obvious that taxes were going to go up, there's no clear sense of how this next fight will end.
Nobody knows, even the main players. To cite an example from the fiscal cliff fight, shortly before the deadline I talked to two senior senators, one from each party, and was struck by how little they knew about what was going on. Of course, they knew the issues and the moving parts, but when it came to the actual provisions of the bill that was being fashioned as we spoke, they were flying blind. What would the tax rate cutoffs be? What about the sequestration cuts? And the other issues, like estate taxes? The Senate leadership was making the decisions, and even senior lawmakers didn't know what was happening. Expect a lot of that in the next few months.
So Republicans enter the debt-ceiling fight, knowing there will be plenty of confusion, name-calling and desperate maneuvering. But they know one other thing, too. They know they're doing the right thing.
Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pitt men collect another transfer with Brown’s Maia
- Rostraver man charged with killing sister’s boyfriend, dumping body at gas well site
- What’s in a name? A Pittsburgh connection to Britain’s new princess
- Steelers are banking on linebackers to improve strength of defense
- Runner's heart attack, variety of ailments make busy day for marathon medics
- Testimony to begin in trial of man accused of shooting Connellsville student-athlete
- Uptown neighborhood in Pittsburgh on verge of breakthrough
- Kaboly: Steelers fill biggest needs by drafting defensive players
- Gorman: They ran for Erica who lived for the marathon
- Further testing needed to determine cause of death for missing Beaver County woman
- Kennywood to review park security following fight