The latest news is that the GOP is proposing to hold the budget hostage to their demand that Obamacare be delayed by one year. Wonkblog is celebrating as this makes it less likely that they will go the brink on the debt limit, which would be far worse.
On the other hand, a government shutdown is now nearly inevitable. It isn't clear that there is enough time before Monday evening for the Senate to act.
If one were to consider this game of political chess, let's consider the positions of the various groups.
For the House GOP, this was likely their best option. By proposing a one year delay of Obamacare they start looking reasonable. They can argue that the issues with the implementation of Obamacare justifies such a delay - it's all to ensure smooth transition. They are quite rightly banking on the assumption that most people will ignore the fact that these delays have been exacerbated by the fact that many states waited until the Supreme Court decision to act and that the House GOP has consistently been unwilling to provide the necessary funding to accelerate implementation. So, while the GOP probably should share the blame in the current mess, they likely won't. In fact, Kathleen Parker's view is probably representative of how moderate GOP members will likely give the GOP a pass.
The question is, what's in it for the Democrats. Well, not much.
On the other hand, a government shutdown is now nearly inevitable. It isn't clear that there is enough time before Monday evening for the Senate to act.
If one were to consider this game of political chess, let's consider the positions of the various groups.
For the House GOP, this was likely their best option. By proposing a one year delay of Obamacare they start looking reasonable. They can argue that the issues with the implementation of Obamacare justifies such a delay - it's all to ensure smooth transition. They are quite rightly banking on the assumption that most people will ignore the fact that these delays have been exacerbated by the fact that many states waited until the Supreme Court decision to act and that the House GOP has consistently been unwilling to provide the necessary funding to accelerate implementation. So, while the GOP probably should share the blame in the current mess, they likely won't. In fact, Kathleen Parker's view is probably representative of how moderate GOP members will likely give the GOP a pass.
The question is, what's in it for the Democrats. Well, not much.
- It is not likely that a year's delay will make the law any more palatable and while some issues may be addressed, issues will likely remain so that the situation will be that we will go into the 2014 elections with Obamacare hobbled by a huge number of issues, while none of the benefits of the law will be apparent. By contrast, if the law is not delayed, it is likely that most of the kinks will be worked out by early 2014, ensuring that Democrats will enter the 2014 elections with the best chance of touting the law's benefits - which are actually quite extensive.
- What happens after one year? The GOP failed to win the Senate, lost ground in the House and lost the Presidency in 2012. In fact, the GOP received fewer votes than the Dems in the House in 2012. Yet, they are holding the country hostage to force a year's delay in Obama's signature achievement. How likely is it, then, that they will agree to implementation next year, especially when they will have an impending election and likely a stronger electoral position.
- Implementing it now is likely the best chance the law has of surviving. Once implemented, it'll be hard to unwind the law. By the time the 2016 elections take place and the new President enters, the law would have been in operation for three years and the entire industry would be so intertwined with the law that wholesale changes would hurt rather than help. Should the law be delayed though and if the GOP were to gain a majority in the Senate, it is possible that they could put enough obstacles in the way of the law to give them a fighting chance of repealing the law post 2016.
- In terms of precedents, if Obama negotiates, it'll set a horrendous precedent. It'll mean that the GOP could lose successive elections and yet, through a gerrymandered control of the House, blackmail the country to do its bidding. A future liberal wing could potentially hold the country hostage to get its own way too. It completely undermines the structure and meaning of the democratic process and the system of checks and balances.
- Finally, the question for the Democrats is who will get the blame if government shuts down. It's likely that the GOP supporters will blame Obama and the Democrats, but every polling firm is showing that Ted Cruz's crusade has effectively made this the GOP's baby. So, the inevitable debacle from Obama's unwillingness to negotiate will likely hurt the GOP and help the Democrats. The Democrats therefore have nothing to lose and everything to gain by standing firm.
The question then is how quickly will the GOP capitulate. Let's see. The markets are betting soon. However, we are in nearly unprecedented territory here. By framing the debate as an Obama vs the GOP issue rather than a focus on issues, the GOP has boxed itself into a position where any sort of climb down that appears to leave Obama unscathed will likely be unpalatable to its Tea Party wing. As I explained in an earlier post, the fiscal policy objectives of the GOP have been largely met. So, this really isn't about spending or debt.
We may be in for a game of chicken akin to Arthur Scargill's stand-off against Margaret Thatcher. So, does Obama have the steel Maggie Thatcher did?
No comments:
Post a Comment