Jot and tittle

Oh, boy. This is a bad minute and a half soundbite. I understand that there may be more to this and that this may be an off-the-cuff answer to a question that isn’t on the video but still.

Today, John Boehner, in a press conference with other Republicans, said this:

You know, we had another jobs report yesterday.  Another, frankly, disappointing jobs report.  This economy’s not creating the jobs that the American people are looking for.  Their wages are stagnant, and part of the problem is that we’ve got the whole threat of ObamaCare continuing to hang over our economy like a wet blanket.

Employers scared to death in terms of what they have to do and what they don’t have to do, afraid to add new employees.  And, you know, when you look at the problems with ObamaCare all the focus here lately has been on the website.  Clearly there’s problems with the website, but I would argue that the problems go much further than that. 

How about the report over the last couple of days of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are finding out that they’re going to lose their coverage because the plans they have today don’t qualify under ObamaCare.  And when you begin to look at these hundreds of thousands of people I think what you’re going to see at the end of October are more Americans are going to lose their health insurance than are going to sign up at these exchanges.  This is a very serious problem.  It’s affecting our economy.  And it’s affecting the ability of the American people to find the job that will help them take care of themselves and their families.

First of all, there’s no focus here. He starts off talking about the bad job report and ObamaCare being part of the reason for that. Then he skips to the website and then to people who have insurance but whose policies are being cancelled because they don’t meet ObamaCare standards. And then it’s back to the economy and jobs. Both the ObamaCare damper on job creation and the currently insured being dis-insured are problems and I’m glad Boehner is talking about both of them. But jumbling them together undercuts the impact of each. Talk about jobs; then talk about dis-insuring.

Second, where are the props? Obama wheeled out a handful of people for his “NBD on the URL” talk the other day. Where are Boehner’s business owners who are not hiring? Where are the (legions of) currently insured who are being dis-insured? I know all this touchy-feely stuff is the realm of the Left but trust me - having a few thousand of those of us whose insurance was cancelled stacked up behind Boehner would have been more effective than some vague numbers.

Third, Boehner appears to think that the currently insured being dis-insured because of ObamaCare is “affecting the ability of the American people to find the job that will help them take care of themselves and their families.” I hate ObamaCare with a passion and would happily blame it for everything from crabgrass to moldy tile grout, but I just can’t figure out the connection between having my individual health insurance policy cancelled and not being able to find a job. Now, maybe this was a verbal eliding and he was really moving from Topic C (dis-insurement) back to Topic A (bad jobs report) and didn’t intend to imply a causal connection. If so, he should have at least taken a very long breath between “very serious problem” and “[i]t’s affecting”.

Fourth, I have this sinking feeling that Boehner doesn’t actually understand what he’s saying, that he’s just repeating talking points he’s been handed and is sort of saying them because he knows he’s supposed to be ticking off points. I don’t think this is unique to Boehner. I think most of the people in Washington spouting off about ObamaCare are pretty clueless. I also believe that the whole ObamaCare issue is now strictly about political posturing and not at all about good policy. But it doesn’t give me a lot of hope that the Republicans are going to mount an effective campaign to take advantage of the ObamaCare rollout fiasco.

I like John Boehner, in that visceral sort of way that one likes or dislikes public figures. But I’m not holding out much hope that he and his Party are going to rescue us from one jot or tittle of ObamaCare.

(Great. I looked up “jot” and “tittle” to make sure I was spelling and using them correctly and found the use of them to mean “the smallest bit” comes from a Bible verse:

For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. (King James Version, Matthew 5:18)

Looks like we’re stuck with ObamaCare till the end of time.)

Tell me again which side is crazy

I can’t claim to be totally objective but I’ve gotta say that Harry Reid sounds like a vicious lunatic:

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

HARRY REID: Listen, Sen. Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless.

while Eric Cantor sounds like a reasonable man - or at least a reasonable politician:

... over the next several days the House will pass bills to:

1. Reopen the NIH and ensure that all patients have access to clinical trials (passed 254 to 171 with the support of 25 Democrats) [snip]

These sweet-heart deals where the law [Obamacare] applies to some but not others; where unions, politicians,  and big business get special breaks but working middle-class families and small businesses are left to suffer is unacceptable.

To oppose something ...

... is to maintain it. - Ursula LeGuin

So the sequester is supposed to kick in this Friday, March 1 - or, more accurately, the budget sequestration provision of the Budget Control Act of 2011. I had forgotten most of what I ever knew about how this came to be but Wikipedia explains that:

In 2011, sequestration was used in the Budget Control Act of 2011(BCA, P.L. 112-25) as a tool in federal budget control. This 2011 act authorized an increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the following ten years. This total included $1.2 trillion in spending cuts identified specifically in the legislation, with an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts that were to be determined by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives known as the "Super Committee" or officially as the United States Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. The Super Committee failed to reach an agreement. In that event, a trigger mechanism in the bill was activated to implement across-the-board reductions in the rate of increase in spending known as "sequestration".

The sequestration was supposed to kick in on January 1, 2013, but “the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 delayed in until March 1 of that year.”

Ah, yes. Debt ceilings, sequestration, Super Committees, fiscal cliffs, all that. And once we get past March 1, it looks like we’ll need another Continuing Resolution by March 27. Then there’s another fight over the debt ceiling coming up in May. Another fiscal cliff. Another chance for the parties to squabble, another chance for the economy to tank, another chance to have our credit rating downgraded, another chance for everyone outside of government to pay still less attention to still another crisis that never quite happens.

I'm pretty much sick of all this. So here’s what I’d like the Congressional Republicans to do, assuming they can act together.

Call a press conference.

Talk about the lousy shape the economy is in. Talk about the unemployment rate and the number of people who have stopped looking for work. Talk a lot about the morality of leaving future generations with crushing debt so we can have what we want now.

Say that the best choice for the country is the Path to Prosperity. State that the House is prepared to pass a budget based on this proposal immediately if the Senate Democrats will agree to pass it unchanged and President Obama will agree not to veto it.

Say that if the Senate Democrats and President Obama will not so agree, then the second best choice for the country is Bowles-Simpson. Acknowledge its flaws but point out that it is better than what we have now. State that the House is prepared to pass a budget based on this plan immediately if the Senate Democrats will agree to pass it unchanged and President Obama will agree not to veto it.

Say that what is bad for the country are the policies the President and the Congressional Democrats want. Explain what they are and why they are bad. If the Congressional Republicans cannot explain what these policies are and why they are bad, they should find another line of work.

Then say that nonetheless there is something that is worse for the country than the policies of the President and the Congressional Democrats: our current situation. The unending crises, the constant fiscal cliffs, the partisan bickering, the name-calling, the accusing, the lack on a budget, the constant kicking the can down the road through Continuing Resolutions and suspensions of the debt ceiling - none of that is good for anyone. Therefore, if the President and the Senate Democrats will not agree to either the Path to Prosperity or Bowles-Simpson, the Republicans are prepared to do the following:

1) Raise the debt ceiling to $21.5 Trillion.* Explain that this will be the last debt ceiling raise ever approved by a Republican-controlled house of Congress and that no future suspension of the debt ceiling will be considered.

2) Pass whatever budget President Obama and the Senate Democrats propose. Explain that Republicans will vote for a continuing resolution to get the country to the end of June and give President Obama and the Congressional Democrats a chance to put together a budget bill. That will be the last Continuing Resolution ever approved by a Republican-controlled house of Congress.


End the press conference.

The Republicans should do all this while avoiding partisan sniping, sarcasm, loaded language, and pettiness like the plague. It would be nice for at least one side to discuss the issues rather than the people involved, the supposed motives of the other side, the history of the failures, and whose fault it all is. And if high-mindedness isn’t enough reason to take this tack, the fact that bad-mouthing President Obama doesn’t work should be.

Doesn’t advocating this make me a nihilist, rooting for disaster to prove my point - or at least to gain political advantage in the long run? No.

I believe we’ll end up with a debt ceiling of $21.5 Trillion before Obama leaves office anyhow so that’s not a giveaway. As for passing the Obama/Democrat budget, there are three possibilities. One is that this approach works and the country recovers economically: unemployment drops like a rock; housing sales pick up; young people buried in student loans find good jobs; small businesses spring up like grass in a meadow and flourish like poplars by a flowing stream; the infrastructure is healed; consumer confidence skyrockets; a new sense of purpose and energy spreads across the country - and 90% of those polled now call themselves Democrats. Bad for conservatives but good for the country so I couldn’t really complain.

The second possibility is that the economy will remain in the doldrums. I believe this is the best we can hope for if we keep doing what we’re doing now so this outcome would be a wash.

The third possibility, of course, is that things get much worse. This is worrisome but I think there’s a good chance that’s going to happen soon anyhow if we keep “solving” our economic problems the way we have been - and I’m absolutely certain that’s going to happen eventually if we continue the way we are and that “eventually” isn’t much later than “soon”. I also think there’s a limit to how much damage President Obama and the Congressional Democrats can do in four years - and to how much damage they will risk doing given that all but one of them will be up for re-election shortly. It’s easy for them to talk Big Left when they know their policies won’t be implemented; knowing they are going to have to live with the consequences should induce a certain amount of realism and caution into their approach.

I truly believe that continuing down the road we’re on is the worst possible path. Taxes are going up already; meaningful, intelligent spending cuts don’t seem on the table; wandering from one crisis to another is practically the definition of a climate of uncertainty; and no one on either side is accountable for anything.

So I’d like to see the Republicans ask President Obama and the Congressional Democrats to do the conservative thing and then, if they refuse, gracefully step aside. Doing so will require President Obama and the Democrats to actually sit down and put something detailed on the table and I hope that once budgeting stops being primarily an exercise in slash-and-burn partisan politics, the Democrats will come up with something less destructive. And even if they don’t, why keep putting the economy through these fiscal cliff upheavals if we’re going to end up raising the debt ceiling and doing nothing to fix our actual economic problems anyhow?

*****

Notes:

$21.5 Trillion is an incredibly big number. However:

When Obama entered office, the debt ceiling was $11.315 Trillion. It is now $16.394 Trillion - an increase of $5.079 Trillion in Obama’s first term. If we increase the debt ceiling by the same amount in Obama’s second term, we will end up with a debt ceiling of $21.473 Trillion. Round it up a little and we get $21.5 Trillion.

To look at it another way:

When George W. Bush entered office, the debt ceiling was $5.95 Trillion. When he left office it was $11.315 Trillion. That’s an absolute increase of “only” $5.365 Trillion but a percentage increase of 90%.

If we increase the debt ceiling during Obama’s two terms by 90%, we will end up with a debt ceiling of $21.4985 Trillion. Round it up a little and we again get $21.5 Trillion.

So $21.5 Trillion it is.

Six of one, six of another

My original version of yesterday’s “Unprincipled” post on denying women the right to vote was longer than the one I actually put up. In that longer version, I went on to discuss what I believed was the larger issue:

The fact that some on the Right can entertain the notion of depriving women of the vote - even as a provocation, even only half-seriously - tells me that they don’t understand democracy any better than those on the Left. It’s also a small part of the reason why a Republican sweep in November won’t really mean much. Americans don’t hate the Left and love the Right any more than they hated the Right and loved the Left when they elected Barack Obama. We hate whichever side is in power, not because we’re all anarchists - or even Libertarians - but because it’s the side in power whose lack of principle is most obvious. Those out of power can proclaim their principles and promise to act on them; those in power can be clearly seen to act on no principles at all.

And I’m not entirely sure the much-ballyhooed Republican November sweep will actually occur. The more likely a Republican victory looks, the less principled the Right will sound. The only question is whether that lack of principle will become so obvious by November 2 that voters will simply decide to hate both sides equally.

Today Megan McArdle has up a post entitled, “Did Stimulus Work?”. Read the whole thing but here is her conclusion:

I'd like to think that had Democrats focused on alleviating suffering, rather than chasing "shovel ready" stimulus projects, Republicans might have gone along more easily. I have no reason, however, to think that this is actually true--any more than I have reason to think that Democrats would have seriously considered projects they couldn't plaster their names all over come election time. I am, in fact, extraordinarily depressed by the extent to which arguments over stimulus seem to be proxy wars over the permanent level of government spending, rather than serious attempts to address the problem at hand.

This is another piece of why a Republican victory in November - if it occurs - will not mean much. Neither party - neither side, Right or Left - is particularly interested in addressing what the voters want addressed and that becomes painfully obvious with regard to a party in power. Thus we are probably looking at a series of elections in which the only consistent result is to vote out whoever is in. This will go on until either power is so evenly split that government is deadlocked or a third party arises that is truly interested in addressing the problems the voters want addressed.

It is understandable that politicians wish to do good and to be seen to do good. Unfortunately for politicians in both parties, the voters are beginning to realize that our current crop of politicians is far more interested in the being seen than in the actual doing.