Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
Those who consider themselves constitutional conservatives should take care to consider not only the powers that the Constitution confers on the different branches of government and reserves to the states and the people, but also the schedule that the Constitution sets up for sharp changes and reversals of public policy.
The entire House of Representatives is elected every two years. The voters in 2010, with unusual clarity, elected a House determined to reverse the Obama Democrats' vast increase in the size and scope of government.
But determination is not enough. Barack Obama, elected in 2008, remains in office, armed with a veto. The friendly mainstream media permit him to use euphemisms to insist on tax increases that were roundly rejected by the voters in 2010.
And the Senate, two-thirds of which was elected in the Democratic years of 2006 and 2008, retains a Democratic majority that, though unable to pass its own budget, can frustrate House Republicans' attempts to deliver on their more recent mandate.
The lesson is that you have to win at least two elections in a row to make the kind of policy changes that the Obama Democrats made in 2009 and 2010 and that House Republicans want to make now.
The good news for Republicans is that there has been a convergence of voting in congressional and presidential elections.
Starting in the 1950s, accelerating in the '60s and '70s, and continuing in the '80s, many Americans split their tickets, often electing Republican presidents but electing Democratic House majorities for 40 years.
In the middle 1990s, that changed. The Democratic percentage of the vote for president and for the House of Representatives have differed by no more than 1 percent starting in 1996.
In addition, the percentages for the two parties in the popular vote for the House in the last three off-year elections have been almost exactly the same as the percentages for the parties in the vote for president two years later.
In 1998, the popular vote for the House was 49 percent to 48 percent Republican. In 2000, the popular vote for president was 48 percent to 48 percent Democratic.
In 2002, the popular vote for the House was 51 percent to 46 percent Republican. In 2004, the popular vote for president was 51 percent to 48 percent Republican.
In 2006, the popular vote for the House was 53 percent to 45 percent Democratic. In 2008, the popular vote for president was 53 percent to 46 percent Democratic.
Obviously, this is not good news for Barack Obama, since the popular vote for the House in 2010 was 52 percent to 45 percent Republican. Translate those numbers into electoral votes, and you have something like a 331 to 207 Republican victory.
Now it is possible, even in a period when the congressional and the presidential vote have converged, for a president to improve on his party's off-year performance. Bill Clinton did so in 1996, running 5 percent ahead of his party's House performance two years before, by sharply changing course on public policy.
And it seems that in the negotiations on the debt limit, Obama is trying to depict himself as following a similar course.
He has said he would support billions in spending cuts -- though without providing any specifics. He has said that he would be willing to "look at" means-testing Medicare -- though it's unclear this commitment amounts to anything.
He has encouraged the pliant press to depict Republicans' opposition to "revenues" -- translated into English that means tax increases -- as "intransigence."
But it's Obama who has been intransigent about insisting on tax increases that voters endorsed tepidly at most in 2008 and that they clearly repudiated in 2010.
Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, and he and his party have managed to increase the federal government's share of gross domestic product from 21 percent to 25 percent -- a huge policy change. They are striving now to keep it at that level permanently.
Republicans want to reverse that enormous policy change, and many are ready to denounce any debt limit deal that leaves them short of that goal.
Before doing so, they ought to consult the Constitution. To achieve the changes they want and that voters endorsed in 2010, they need to win again in 2012. The deal that gets them closer to that is what they ought to be seeking now.
Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
July 25, 2011 @ 10:12 am
Does this President remind anyone but me of the shamefaced toddler standing amongst the shattered ruins of his mother’s most treasured keepsake, proclaiming loudly, “I didn’t do it, it wasn’t me, it was (take your choice here) my brother, sister, the dog, the cat…..NOT ME.
His excuses have run out and no one is buying them anymore. I seriously doubt that he needs worry about his re-election. That hope, as people (indelicately) say, is pretty much in the “dumper”!
July 25, 2011 @ 11:15 am
The one problem with the last statement is that Soros and Democruds have been running on election-fraud on a scale which even those of the Indian State of Bihar (known as India’s worst crimepit–election fraud is just ONE of the crimes oft committed there) cannot comprehend.
Also, the shamefaced toddler at least looks cute–the simpering eunuch (s)elected as POTUS in 2008 looks absolutely revolting.
July 25, 2011 @ 11:13 am
If those clowns don’t get a package passed to work on the debt ceiling and deficit reduction that will actually work BEFORE the market craters, they ain’t getting my vote.
July 25, 2011 @ 11:26 am
The Republicans are doing their job, but their message is the problem! They have to get it simple and say, “Democrats and Obama” not just Obama all the time. It is the Senate Democrats who are the major problem. People paying attention understand that, but the bulk of the public only hear the sound bites. When Obama says Republicans are saying no to everything, the public hears that and believes it when it is the Democrats that have said no to everything the Republicans have proposed all while not proposing anything but new revenues (taxes). I say the Republicans should give Democrats every tax loophole (jets etc) that GE used to not pay any taxes and any other cuts THEY WILL propose and Republicans give that much debt ceiling increase. Make the Democrats identify the cuts. Then they can be blamed for attacking those folks, not the Republicans. That is why they want Republicans to propose the cuts. The message has to be as strong that Democrats won’t budge on raising taxes as they say the Republicans won’t budge on revenues. It is the Senate Democrats who are stopping a deal repeatedly. That message has to be strong to get control of the Senate in 2012.
July 25, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
In order to really do something meaningful to turn around this financial mess we have at the federal level will require the removal of Obama from the Presidency in next year’s election. With his veto power and the Senate in his back pocket, there will be no bipartisan progress in reducing the size and cost of the federal government, tax reform, business friendly changes in government oversight and regulation, and a repeal and replacement of Obamacare. There will be no real restructuring of the entitlement programs with Obama in office.
The debt crisis just shows you how little Obama cares about our financial situation when the best that anyone is willing to cut is somewhere between 2 and 3 Trillion dollars over a ten year period while the national debt will double during the same period from 14 Trillion to over 28 Trillion. Raising taxes/revenue will maybe offset another Trillion, but, the national debt will still be over 20 Trillion at a minimum and maybe much more if interest rates go up over the next ten years, which is likely. This problem is huge and requires draconian measures to get it turned around.
Our politicians are arguing about cuts and revenue increases, but are not even in the ballpark of what is needed and are debating cuts in PLANNED INCREASES over the next ten years and NO CUTS TO THE EXISTING BASELINE FEDERAL BUDGETS. In other words no cuts to the size of the federal government are even on the table in any of the proposals to date.
We need someone like one of our Republican Governors (Christie, Daniels, Kasich, Palin, Pawlenty, or Walker) or Governor Perry from Texas to get into the Presidency to actually do something worthwhile. Someone who is not beholding to the existing old school political arena in Washington.
July 25, 2011 @ 3:01 pm
I beg to differ.
A mandate without a proven track record is spinning castles in the air, which is a mandate driven by political wind.
What we all want to see is the RNC grow a backbone before it dares to pretend to a mandate.
For instance .. and the Constitution applies here … Obamacare is illegal for the one reason that the RNC has refused to debate publicly.
Obama shielded Big Pharma before foisting off his healthcare reform.
Big Pharma is driving esclating healthcare costs.
Big Pharma gets away with this because the Republicans refuse to hold up NAFTA and shove it in Obama’s face.
NAFTA is an internationaly binding trade treaty.
Canadian pharmaceuticals have a right to compete in our marketplace, and that open competiton .. something called Capitalism, by the way .. would turn this whole healthcare debate into a storm in a teacup by driving prices down .. way down.
Why hasn’t NAFTA entered the debate?
Because RINOs cash in on Big Pharma just like their hypocrit DNC counterparts. Libs and RINOs prefer Corporate Fascism .. which is what this healthcare scam is.
When the RNC starts enforcing the LAW in Congress, then maybe we can start talking about a mandate.
July 25, 2011 @ 6:03 pm
Mr. Barone…
Of COURSE the House Majority cannot (alone) enact ANYTHING.
The POINT, though, is that WITHOUT the House Majority, NEITHER CAN Obama/Reid!
For ONCE, it is The House that has become the “cooling saucer” to the impetuous White House and Senate (“quick, we’ve got a <fill in the blank> CRISIS, we have to pass <fill in the blank> BILL to ‘fix it’! There isn’t a moment to spare!”)!
At least for the PRESENT, we’ve got a few Republicans who FINALLY seem to understand that WE, THE PEOPLE (and, more importantly, WE, THE TAXPAYERS) have had ENOUGH!
Just as when RINO McCain was the Presidential Candidate, A LOT of Republicans (like ME) REFUSED to vote FOR another squishy Moderate (incapable of standing up to the spending addicted Liberal policies that have brought us to this $14.3 TRILLION debt)!
FINALLY we have ADULTS in charge who know that we CANNOT continue this UNSUSTAINABLE BORROWING (of $4 BILLION A DAY)!
When Harry Reid (with Obama’s approval) suggests “cutting” $2.7 Trillion (over 10 years) – that’s $270 Billion a YEAR (or $739 MILLION a day).
SO, with the Obama/Reid plan, we RAISE the Debt Ceiling, RAISE TAXES, and continue to BORROW $3.26 BILLION a DAY! Forgive me, if I don’t start jumping for joy!