Ready to Govern?

I occasionally read DailyKos to keep abreast of what the left is thinking and also because they occasionally have valid criticism that we should take seriously. Today, David Waldman speculates about how the GOP might behave if it came up a few seats short of taking control of the House of Representatives. He speculates that they might try to flip a few Blue Dogs to the Republican side. You can read the whole thing here. But what caught my eye was the criticism that the Republicans don't take seriously the legislative branch. There is some bombast mixed with truth in this argument.

And just to add a twist, I wonder whether House Republicans really want it. There's a good argument for why Republicans might do best politically by falling just short of enough seats to actually have to govern. There's certainly no indication from their campaign "pledge" document that they've got anything concrete in mind, anyhow, so they might do just as well to play the frustrated minority in what they'll portray as an evenly-divided country, in the hopes of making a credible bid for the White House in 2012.

After all, in truth, Republicans don't believe much in the power of the legislative branch. That, too, is evidenced by their lack of specificity in their pledge. They're pretty solidly dedicated to executive primacy, especially when they hold the executive. Recall that in the 40+ years since electing Nixon (whose executive primacy doctrine it is they still adhere to), Republicans have held the White House more than twice the amount of time as have Democrats.

Even when they don't hold the White House, they still believe in a kind of executive primacy, which is why it's so very important to them to spend their energy as legislators not legislating, but working to undermine the legitimacy of any Democratic executive. It's more important that people have doubts about Bill Clinton's finances or personal life, or Barack Obama's birth or religion, than that they actually promulgate policy ideas. No matter who wins the White House, most Republican legislators put all their focus on the executive branch: rubber stamping it as a Politburo when the President is a Republican, and opposing and undermining it when the President is a Democrat. Even when the President is a Democrat who proposes adopting what were once Republican ideas.

I don't agree with everything written above, but a few things stand out. First, Republicans have in fact advanced theories of Presidential power that have not been faithful to the constitution. Perhaps facing a Democrat president, should they retake the legislative branch, they will find a new found conviction in asserting the prerogatives of the House and Senate. Some of Bush's extra-legal actions handed Barack Obama precedent to continue to expand Presidential power. (By extra-legal I mean acts that were not illegal per se, but which the President had not been granted specific power by law; the first attempt at military tribunals for example.)

Further, the Republicans need to think seriously about how they set the agenda, even though the President has some built in advantages. Control of the budget is the most obvious way to reshape a smaller federal government. Republicans learned the wrong lesson from 1995, when their showdown with Clinton resulted in cratering poll numbers. Clinton was able to tag the Congress with the blame for the shut down, when he was the one vetoing the spending bills. There are a number of ways to avoid that outcome if one plans ahead. Appropriations can be passed in a manner to address this, or one could just pass continuing resolutions at reduced funding levels to keep essential services alive. Finally, one could start educating the public ahead of time about the issue. Times have changed, the people are more informed, there are more channels to educate the public on the need to reduce spending and they are ready to listen. The first place to start would be with earmarks.

If the Republicans are serious about being the party of small government, then part of that promise has to be seriously examining the executive branch and reigning in its power.

Following Up on the Pledge

A legitimate criticism of the the Pledge to America is that it doesn't get specific about how to slash the size of government, except for repealing the stimulus and Obamacare (not bad starts, however). Reason magazine steps into the fray with this month's issue appropriately titled "How to Slash Government Before It Slashes You." If Republicans are too get serious about governing they need to look at some of the best ideas (my picks, there were many more, so go subscribe already):

1. Reform Medicaid by changing the funding from a matching grant to a block grant. Matching funding encourages the states to just spend more, rather than getting costs under control.
   
2. Reduce federal education spending back to 2001 levels. The federal government doesn't educate a single child, but the Education budget has risen 80% in the last decade.
3. Switch to defined contributions pensions at the federal, state and local level. (This has been partially accomplshed at the federal level.) It won't solve the immediate issue, but the shift will pay long term benefits to both employees and taxpayers. (Meg Whitman has proposed this, I may vote for her yet.)
4. End Davis-Bacon "prevailing wage" laws. The requirement was originally a racist attempt to deny blacks jobs on federal projects, its impact is to increase the cost of all federal contracts to the benefit of union shops.
5. Bust up Fannie and Freddie. Because these agencies operate with the backing of the Federal Reserve, as well as the Treasury, they will continue to be a drain on the economy. Like a compulsive gambler with a trust fund, they will always take on excess risk and leave you, the taxpayer, stuck with the bill.
   
6. Just start cutting. In the 1990s, Canada, under a Liberal government even, mandate actual cuts in the size of government to deal with a ballooning deficit. The key was a concerted campaign by the Prime Minister to convince the public of the need for cuts. This might have to wait until after Obama is defeated in 2012, but it can be done.

I would like to add my own:
Reduce regulation and then fire regulators. Not only will this save money, but it will grow the economy as businesses are unburdened from the overwhelming number of new regulation that has piled up over twenty years.

There, the GOP needs to take a look at some of these ideas and get ready to govern. They better cut spending, or they will find themselves with primary challenges again. The Tea Party has shown its clout, time to use it for the good of the Republic.

Pledge to America - Some Conservative Blowback - UPDATE

I noticed a smattering of blowback from the right against the "Pledge to America" unveiled by the Republicans. I think Greta Van Susteren asked the toughest question on her Fox News show, when she asked Paul Ryan "Why isn't there a pledge against earmarks?" I thought that was a great question and Ryan's answer of essentially, "trust us" doesn't really cut it.

Another commenter that I respect, Eric Erickson at RedState has this to say:

The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.

I thought that was a little harsh. The pledge includes a roll back of the stimulus and Obamacare, as well as rolling back federal spending to 2008 levels. Not intellectually challenging perhaps, but necessary first steps.

Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ and direct mail mastermind from the 1980's had this to say in an email to me (how BDaddy got on his email list, I don't know.):

This new promise is mostly about Republicans promising not to do things they relished doing in the last decade. But if the GOP does not push hard in the new Congress to return America to small, constitutional government, expect most Republican incumbents to be seriously challenged by Tea Party candidates in 2012.

Agreed, but again, it is still a step in the right direction. Glenn Beck makes the same point right now his TV show, by saying that returning to 2008 spending levels is insufficiently bold. Viguerie goes on to say the document is a good first step.

Was this the year to be even bolder with this pledge? Would the Democrats attacks have been more vicious or less? Who cares? As a way to change the debate, I think the document is almost brilliant. It focuses on the real issues, even if it doesn't have too many specifics. It keeps the focus on the right issues, for the most part, and puts the left on its heels.

Michele Malkin is among those on the right who liked the pledge.

Left Coast Rebel links to a pretty decent set of proposals, that unfortunately might be construed as too radical right now from Doug Ross. Don't get me wrong, he has great ideas, but I question if we have sufficiently changed the terms of the debate for a major party to issue a manifesto like his.

• We will repeal the Democrat health care bill and, if vetoed by the President, will de-fund every aspect of that bill until such time as the American people have input into a sensible health care reform process.
• We will slash the size of the federal government bureaucracies (Commerce, Education, Energy, the EPA, Labor, etc.) by 20% in 2011 with a goal of reducing each by 50% over the next three years, thereby saving hundreds of billions of dollars.
• We will secure the border with physical fencing suitable to repel drug smugglers, human smugglers, and terrorists, while encouraging legal immigration and enforcement of the law.
• We will confront the entitlement crisis -- Social Security and Medicare -- by preserving benefits for those who depend upon them and moving to privatized options for younger workers. Anything less condemns future generations to mountains of debt and economic catastrophe.
• We will strengthen our armed forces, space and missile defense programs to retain our unparalleled superpower status.
• We will begin the process of paying down our debts, spending within our means every year.
• We will ban public sector unions, which exist solely to wage war against the taxpayers who fund their operations.

UPDATE

Jonah Goldberg hopped on my bandwagon and reviewed the conservative reaction to The Pledge albeit much more eloquently than me. If you thought this article was worthwhile you ought to give his round up a read as well, to put some perspective on the whole effort.

Bottom line, I think Republicans can look forward to crushing the Democrats this fall and the Pledge will be somewhat helpful in both doing so and in claiming a policy mandate.

The Pledge

Drudge links to an early copy of the new Republican "Pledge to America" published by CBS news. My first quick review is that this is a home run. Much of what I asked for is in place, and little of what I feared. They hit for the cycle, to use another baseball analogy, striking back on the lack of constitutional government, high taxes, high spending, high debt, bailouts and excessive regulation. They call for the repeal of Obamacare. They also hit on process as well, with a pledge to give lawmakers three days to read any bill. (Congratulations Dean, they were listening.) Best of all they make the case that these ills are at the root of the continued high unemployment and economic crisis.

I am impressed and thankful that they have adopted so many of the Tea Party's issues. But of course I have some disagreements.

1. The commitment to secure the border is almost in the fine print, not quite, but not prominent enough and mixed in with a bunch of other national security issues.

2. Too much time is spent on the national security stuff. Not that it's not important, just not as important as constitutional government. It risks coalition building.

3. They just had to insert a "traditional family values" paragraph at the start. I am not against, just think this might be the year to deal with weightier issues. Fortunately, they don't make a big deal with any new policy proposals of a social nature.

Summary from CBS news:

Jobs:

- Stop job-killing tax hikes

- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income

- Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit

- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.

Cutting Spending:

- Repeal and Replace health care

- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)

- Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward

- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Reforming Congress:

- Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority

- Give members at least 3 days to read bills before a vote

Defense:

- Provide resources to troops

- Fund missile defense

- Enforce sanctions in Iran