Everyone in Washington is signaling that political life will return to semi-normal after the hiatus created by the shootings in Tucson, though gestures (genuine or not) of enhanced civility and collegiality remain the order of the day, for a while at least. This “new mood” will be put to the immediate test next week when House Republicans hold a formal vote on the (seriously, this is the official title) “Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Act.”
The outcome is foreordained by the earlier party-line vote on the rule for this bill, and no one expects it to get anywhere in the Senate. Thus it’s all agitprop, and House GOPers will strain to keep some control over the lurid rhetoric about health reform threatening the fundamentals of American liberty that so many congressional candidates embraced during the 2010 campaign cycle.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the broad fiscal issues that will in particular challenge congressional Republicans, who have made so much noise about restoring fiscal discipline, but who have mostly distinguished themselves by putting tax cuts off the table while thumbing their noses at the Congressional Budget Office’s once-sacrosanct role of acting as a bipartisan scorekeeper on the cost and benefits of proposed legislation.
One key issue, of course, is whether Republicans will signal an intention of doing something about entitlement spending or will instead let the full brunt of deficit reduction fall on non-defense discretionary spending (questionable in part because of the immediate negative economic impact that would have by reducing public sector employment and further dampening consumer demand). An interesting and sure-to-be-debated perspective was offered today in a New York Times op-ed by National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, who bluntly reminded Republicans of the long history of failed GOP efforts to go after Social Security and Medicare absent Democratic “cover:”
Reforming these programs is vital to our nation’s long-term fiscal health — which is why Republicans should resist this advice and leave the issue alone. Reform is impossible this year or next unless President Obama takes the lead on it. What’s more, Republicans have no mandate for reform, and a failed attempt will only set back the cause.
Unsurprisingly, there’s also an effort underway from the left side of the ideological spectrum, under the loose umbrella of a group called “Strengthening Social Security,” to raise pressure on the president to avoid embracing the kind of entitlement benefits cuts suggested by the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission when he makes his State of the Union Address. If Republicans do predictably make their interest in entitlement spending contingent on presidential “cover,” as they did during the Clinton administration, then the internal White House decision on the administration’s own fiscal strategy could have a big impact on what actually happens to non-defense discretionary spending this year.
On the more purely political front, the Republican National Committee is voting today on its chairmanship, with prospects for another term for embattled incumbent Michael Steele looking grim. With three major opponents in the field, none of whom seems to command a majority of the RNC, a multi-ballot election is very likely, with Wisconsin Republican chairman Reince Priebus, once a Steele ally, considered the front-runner. Steele’s supporters appear to be making a last-minute attempt to spread fears that Priebus is too close to potential presidential candidate Haley Barbour and his nephew, Mississippi RNC member Henry Barbour.
Speaking of presidential wannabees, Georgia-based conservative radio talk host Herman Cain became the first Republican to officially file exploratory committee papers for the 2012 race to oppose Barack Obama. Cain, an African-American former business executive, made an unsuccessful run for the Senate in 2004 (losing to fellow-Republican Johnny Isakson), but has become a Tea Party favorite on the airwaves. He recently won a 2012 straw poll conducted on the website of the influential RedState blog, though it should be noted that RedState is Georgia-based as well.
More generally, as David Weigel of Slate has noted, the 2012 presidential cycle is getting underway very slowly; 14 candidates had at least set up exploratory committees by this time four years ago (in 2004, five Democrats had done so by this point on the calendar). In the absence of a real front-runner, the reluctance of supposed “dark horse” candidates like John Thune, Haley Barbour, Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie to get into the race has increased the stock of better-known retreads like Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney. And while Sarah Palin’s political status has taken a serious hit just before, during, and after the Tucson tragedy, she is another potential beneficiary of a sluggish-to-develop field. If Palin decides against running, keep an eye on her close friend Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who is making noises about a candidacy and planning to spend some time in her native state of Iowa, where she will be squired around by right-wing icon Steve King.
