Predicton: The Republicans are not going to do anything.

I. Overview

I need to clarify this matter a bit. What I mean is that the Republicans are not going to do anything substantive. The Republicans are not going to come up with any substantive policy. The Republicans are not going to create or pass any substantive legislation. They are going to try to repeal some legislation--at least that's what they claim--but if they are successful, then what will they do? Nothing, that's what.

The Republicans have spent the last few years complaining about what they think is wrong, but, with one exception, they have not explained what they think needs to be done to make things right. They have been "the party of 'no'" and nothing else. And now that they have some power again and, according to them, the clear support of the majority of the nation, they have to try to do something substantive and constructive.

I am predicting that the Republicans will not do anything substantive because

• they have no policy ideas to implement,
• they have nothing to replace the laws they want to repeal, and
• even if they did, they will not run the risk of actually doing anything.
  

II. No policy ideas to implement and nothing to replace repealed laws

A. What is and is not policy.

When I refer to "policy," I am not referring to the stated general objectives of the Republicans such as making sure Obama is a one-term President or "we're going to listen to the American people." Those aren't policies. "Policy" is an articulation of objectives AND ways to meet those objectives. And the Republicans have said precious little on the policy front.

Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, said immediately after the election that the Republicans' "top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office." And just how is that going to constitute actual plans and steps to reduce the deficit, help strengthen the economy, provide jobs, etc.? You see, all of those matters and more need to be addressed NOW, not two years from now. As I will discuss in a later post, McConnell's stated top priority is simply an indication that the Republicans do not plan to do anything that is substantive in nature.

John Boehner, who will be the Speaker of the House, said the day after the election that "our job is to listen to the American people and follow the will of the American people." That might be a good idea, but it's not policy. Policy entails coming up with a way to achieve what the people want, and the Republicans don't have a clue. Boehner also said that "It's pretty clear the American people want us to do something about cutting spending here in Washington and helping to create an environment where we get jobs back in our country." Now that's getting close to being policy, but again the Republicans have not yet said anything about how to go about doing these things.

And Boehner might want to rethink his basic philosophy, but more on that as we go...

B. The Bush tax cuts

One policy the Republicans have articulated is the extension of all the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire on January 1. That seems to be their only proposed solution to all our economic problems, as they have said that failure to make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent will keep the economy from recovering, will harm all small businesses, and generally cause all manner of truly bad things to happen. On the other hand, according to the Republicans, extending all of the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and generally cause all manner of truly good things to happen.

Let's keep in mind that the Democrats want to extend almost all of the Bush tax cuts. The only one they want to eliminate is the tax cut for income above $250,000 (as in the first $250,00 would still be entitled to the other tax cuts), and that affects 2% of the population. So given that the Republicans have to date absolutely refused to vote on anything except extending ALL of the Bush tax cuts, not only are the Republicans essentially willing to eliminate tax cuts for 98% of Americans, they are apparently arguing that a tax cut for the richest 2% of Americans is the real key to economic recovery.

I really should devote a separate post to discussing why the Republicans are wrong about this, but for now I will say that this is really nothing more than the supply side, trickle down approach that Reagan tried. And that did not work, now did it?

So, the one policy that Republicans have said they want to implement is an old idea that didn't work before, and in the meantime they are willing to deny tax cuts to 98% of Americans in order to implement this idea that didn't work before.

Furthermore, recent polling shows that if indeed the Republicans "will listen to the people," they (the Republicans) should consider dropping their dogmatic demand that it's either all of the Bush tax cuts or none of them. According to the National Exit Polls, 36% of Americans want to extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone making less than $250,000, and 15% want to end all of the Bush tax cuts. Thus, on election night 51%--a majority--did not want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%. In contrast, an AP-GfK poll conducted from Nov. 3-8 produced a different result, with 53% favoring extension of all the Bush tax cuts. Then again, a CBS News poll done from Nov. 7-10 showed that 44% want to keep the Bush tax cut for the top 2%, but 49% want that tax cut to expire. A similar result was reached in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken from Nov. 11-15. In that poll, 49% wanted the top tax cut to expire while 46% did not. What I'm trying to point out is that there is anything but a clear mandate for the Republicans to demand that the Bush tax cut for the top 2% be extended, and there certainly is no mandate for the Republicans to stick to that demand at the expense of the other 98% of the population.

C. Other policy areas at a glance

1. Health care

Republicans have said they want to repeal the health care law. And can anyone tell me what the Republicans want to do to replace those laws? Anyone? Bueller...? I am working on a detailed post about health care. In it I will explain that the Republicans won't repeal health care for several reasons, including

• The insurance industry got a lot of what it wanted.
• If the law is repealed, the insurance companies would lose favorable gains and risk losing much more.
• The Republicans are not going to subject their close friends the insurance companies to such loss and risk.
• The current law already contains Republican ideas.
• The Republicans don’t have anything better to offer.

For now I will give you a basic explanation. I think the health care reform legislation did not reform anything. In the early stages of the "reform" process I had a post discussing my displeasure with what was being proposed, which ended up being the basic framework for what was eventually signed into law. My basic complaint is that the "reform" largely left the status quo in place. For you doubters, realize this: before "reform" our health care system was based on and controlled by insurance, and after "reform" our health care system is still based on and controlled by insurance. Under the current law, every person will be required to have health insurance (or face a penalty), and thus the means of delivering health care will become even more entrenched in and controlled by the insurance industry. What the current law does is change access to and delivery of insurance, not the actual health care. The current law also does not address in a direct and/or meaningful way the cost of the actual health care. The current law does not come close to reform of the health care system. As I stated in my previous post, "It seems that in this country we have determined that 'health care' and 'health insurance' are the same thing, and that is just bullshit." And John Boehner is talking the same ol' bullshit. Right after the election he said that "we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill, and replace it with commonsense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance." Notice that he said nothing about bringing down the cost of actual health care.

And once again, if Boehner and the Republicans plan on listening to the American people, they might want to rethink the whole repeal the health care law thing. Boehner declared on November 3 that the Republicans had a mandate to repeal the health care law. Johnny might want to take a chill pill. The National Exit Polls showed that 48% want the law repealed, but 47% do not, and while "repeal" was 1% more popular, it still did not garner a majority. The CBS News poll mentioned above had it 45% for repeal, 44% for no repeal. However, a USA Today/Gallup poll done on Nov. 4-7 shows that only 35% want to repeal the health care law (10 % want repeal with no replacement, and 25% want repeal and a new law in its place), while 56% do not want a repeal (20% think the law is fine as is, 29% want it expanded, and 7% want it scaled back). In other words, the numbers do not show a mandate for the Republicans to repeal the health care law.

2. The federal deficit/government spending

The Republicans have also decided that after years of running up the federal deficit and saying the deficit is not a problem that now the deficit is a huge problem. Funny how those complaints were not made by the Republicans until after the Democrats had majorities in Congress and Obama in the White House...Anyhoo, the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of how the deficit problem should be solved, other than to say spending must be cut. Thanks for that update from the Department of the Bloody Obvious, but exactly what do the Republicans want to do to cut spending by the federal government? I'll give you a hint about what they will not do, and that is get rid of earmarks and other pork projects, in spite of their declared moratorium on earmarks.

I am also working on a post that addresses this topic in more detail. For now I will say that the Republicans can't even get everyone in their own party to want to get rid of earmarks. Furthermore, the biggest part of the budget which can be cut is discretionary spending, and far and away the biggest part of that is the defense budget. Anyone seriously think that the Republican Party is going to drastically cut defense spending? And how can they address the deficit without addressing revenue coming in? I don't give a rat's ass what they say, trying to balance any budget--especially if one wants to do it sooner rather than later--necessarily involves spending AND revenue.

3. Employment

The Republicans have attacked Obama and the Democrats for not solving the employment problem, but what do the Republicans think should be done to create jobs--other than keep the Bush tax cut for the top 2% of Americans?

4. Financial reform

The financial reform act, known as the Dodd-Frank Act, was signed into law on July 21, 2010. Final Congressional approval of the act came on July 15. On that day, John Boehner was already calling for a repeal. He was soon joined by Representative Mike Pence, Senator Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, and others.

I don't recall hearing much talk about repealing Dodd-Frank in the run-up to the election or since the election, and I have been unable to find anything online. Maybe that's because most Republicans have actually been doing that "listening to the people" thing. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll done at the end of August, "The financial reform bill President Obama signed into law in July is the most popular of five major pieces of legislation Congress has passed in the past two years--in fact, it is the only one...that a majority (61%) of Americans support."

The Republicans are not going to try to repeal the financial reforms. As explained on Nov. 3 by Douglas J. Elliot of the Brookings Institute,

Republicans must be very careful not to feed public perceptions that they are too friendly with the despised bankers. Concern on that score kept Republicans from holding firm on their Senate filibuster of the original bill and that concern will remain, since hatred of bankers seems unlikely to fade away anytime soon. Related to that, they must be aware that any momentum to reverse parts of Dodd-Frank could be undercut by another major lawsuit, or even criminal charges, against major Wall Street players. The SEC suit against Goldman Sachs was a strong force that drove Dodd-Frank forward in its final phases and past crises show us that there are likely to be a number of additional legal actions over time as the crisis is dissected further.

And if they did try to repeal Dodd-Frank, what would they propose in its place? I'm not aware of any specifics given by the Republicans. Surely they would not simply want to go back to the way things were before Dodd-Frank. After all, it was not regulation that led to the banks and securities firms and other financial institutions doing all the insane crap that resulted in the financial meltdown. Thus, if Dodd-Frank was repealed, something would need to be put in its place. Why? Basically so the banks and Wall Street would not keep doing the same crap that got us here, or as Pat Garofalo put it,

[B]usinesses large and small are having trouble accessing loans because the economy is weak and banks are holding onto money (much like large corporations are). Lifting regulations is not going to suddenly make them feel that economic conditions merit making loans, but it would free them up to reengage in some of the risky practices that led to the financial meltdown.

So in order to A) avoid looking like they are "too friendly with the despised bankers," and B) actually do something in the interest of the economy, the Republicans would need to come up with something to replace Dodd-Frank. And just what would that be? Can anyone tell us?

5. Foreign policy

We still have two wars going on, the war on terrorism necessarily involves dealing with other countries, the Middle East is still a mess, North Korea is still ruled by crazy-ass Kim Jong-Il, Iran is still a huge problem, and on and on...Have the Republicans talked about any of this lately? Not just "no," but "hell, no."

Granted, in our system of government, these matters are primarily the domain of the Executive Branch, but Congress has oversight responsibilities on all of this. And of course, Congress holds the purse strings for all of these matters. Also, Congress has to consider and ratify all treaties with foreign nations in order to make them effective. In other words, Congress has work to do in the foreign policy arena.

And yet the Republicans are basically ignoring foreign policy. The Tea Party unquestonably energized the Republican Party and was a key component in the GOP's success in this election. Where does the Tea Party stand on foreign policy issues? I have no idea. The Tea Party is all about domestic issues. Tea Party darling Rand Paul typified this approach when in July he told the National Review Online that on the campaign trail "foreign policy is really a complete non-issue." Well, buddy-boy, now that you are in office it's a major issue that you and your fellow Republicans are going to have to deal with.

I am going to write more about this in another post, but apparently one foreign policy issue on which the Republicans have articulated a position is the New START Treaty (new strategic arms reduction treaty) with Russia. The old START Treaty expired last December. The Republicans are against New START, and that position is frightenly short-sighted and dangerous. Why? Because the New START Treaty will have an impact on so many issues that are of vital importance to America, and failure to ratify the treaty could likely result in many more failures in international affairs--and some of those relate directly to our national security and efforts to combat terrorism. And what are the Republicans proposing be done in place of this treaty regarding reduction and monitoring of Russian nuclear weapons--and weapons material--and improving relations with Russia, which could influence affairs in the Middle East and most notably with Iran? Nothing. Not a damn thing.

III. The Republicans are not going to run the risk of doing anything.

The Democrats basically set themselves up for failure starting in 2009. Obama ran on the theme and promise of "Change," and most of the rest of the Democrats in Washington adopted that refrain. Change was not going to happen quickly enough or in great enough degree to satisfy people even under the best of circumstances, and the circumstances were made difficult because of strategic errors made primarily by Obama (different discussion for a different post). Basically, the Democrats raised expectations and then failed to meet them, particularly among many Democrats. To be more specific, many people who would generally be considered to more toward the left end of the political spectrum were unhappy with the lack of change.

Even so, the Democrats have actually done some things since 2009, such as the health care law and financial regulation legislation. And although the bailout of the auto industry started in December 2008, before Obama took office, it started while the Dems controlled Congress, and then the Obama administration took control of it. The Republicans focused on what the Dems did, and managed to whip their base into a frenzy, and that went a long way to achieving success in the mid term elections.

The Republicans have set themselves up for failure, but I think they have made their situation even worse. By harping incessantly about how bad the Democrats have been and how quickly they have ruined the country, the Republicans created a wave of anger and unrest that resulted in massive gains by the Republicans. However, they have inadvertently set the expectation bar even higher. And, in my opinion, part of those expectations include a factor of impatience.

The expectations created by the Republicans when combined with the actual logistical circumstances present multiple dilemmas for the Republicans. If they do nothing, they risk making their now energized and angry base mad at them. Yet they have to appease their angry and energized base somehow. If they do something--other than try to repeal various legislation--they run the risk of the Democrats turning the tables on them and showing that what the Republicans wanted to do did not work. At the least, the Republicans would not find it so easy to simply blame the Democrats. Moreover, given that the Republicans control the House and not the Senate, they cannot simply push through legislation they want.

That means that in order to actually get something done, the Republicans will have to cooperate and work with the Democrats. AND they might actually have to compromise on some matters. Cooperation and compromise will not be tolerated by the energized and angry Republican base. The GOP's tactics over the last few years have ensured that. And Republican lawmakers have already shown they are not going to be in the mood to compromise on anything. McConnell, in his post election speech at the Heritage Foundation said the following:

The formula is simple, really: when the administration agrees with the American people, we will agree with the administration. When it disagrees with the American people, we won’t. This has been our posture from the beginning of this administration. And we intend to stick with it. If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction.

(emphasis added). Mitch, you might want to check out some of the poll numbers listed above. Maybe then you will figure out that cooperation is not a unilateral exercise. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor also showed that Republicans are not going to cooperate or compromise.

Now add in the fact that under the best of circumstances legislation and change in our government do not happen quickly, and the Republicans seemingly have some tough choices to make.

There are risks regardless of what path they choose, but they are going to take the path that presents the least amount of risk. They are going to continue to be the "Party of 'No.'" Only now they are going to be even worse. They are going to continue to squawk about repealing this law or that without any intention to do that. They don't really want repeal because they would have to come up with some actual policy and legislation, and they don't have any. Moreover, if they have to come up with policy, they run the risk of it being rejected by public opinion, or, worse yet, having their ideas exposed as bullshit or nothing really different from what the Democrats come up with. They are going to reflexively be against anything and everything the Democrats propose. It is in this way that they can try to placate their energized and angry base. It is in this way that they can try to avoid responsibility for anything. And that is exactly what I predict they are going to do.