government of, by and for the party

     I don't know how many of you watch the Sunday morning news/talk shows.  I once was a devoted watcher, sometimes even switching back and forth actively between Meet the Press and Face the Nation.  I even watched Fox News Sunday regularly.

     Over the past 6 months, my Sunday morning viewing has become less regular, in large measure because the politicians who appear on them have, for the most part, been doing it so long they have become expert in obfuscation and non-answers--and, again for the most part, hosts have let them get away with that.

     I was reminded last Sunday (Jan. 23) of why I used to watch these shows so faithfully.  On Meet the Press, host David Gregory's first guest was the new Republican majority leader in the house, Eric Cantor of Virginia.  Cantor is obviously in a position of real power now, but he has been touted as one of the Republican party's most important "young guns," a metaphor I find both completely expectable and sadly foreboding.   During the interview, Gregory pressed Cantor on several issues, most of them related to the Republican House members' "Pledge to America" that they will cut 100 billion dollars from the budget deficit in their first year.

       There are two portions of that interview that I found especially revealing of the empty rhetoric the GOP used to give Obama the "shellacking" he acknowledged in the last election.  What that election made clear is that you can get elected by tossing red meat to the masses.  What this interview reveals is that the party either has no clear idea of how it is going to fulfill those promises, or, as the cynic might observe, has no real intention of doing the kind of governing those promises would require.

       This first excerpt deals directly with the Pledge to America's promise of a 100 billion dollar cut:

        MR. GREGORY:  Everybody's talking about the State of the Union address, and the president is already previewing it.  This is a portion of the message that he will deliver on Tuesday. Watch.
(Videotape, yesterday)
PRES. BARACK OBAMA:  And so my principle focus, my number one focus, is going to be making sure that we are competitive, that we are growing, and that we are creating jobs not just now, but well into the future.  And that's what is going to be the main topic of the State of the Union.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY:  Being competitive, in his mind, also means some additional targeted spending in some areas to make America competitive, as well as cuts, as well as dealing with the deficit.  Here is the headline in The New York Times this morning, the way they describe it:  "Obama to Press Centrist Agenda in His Address.  A Retooled Presidency.  Balancing Deficit Cuts with New Spending to Create Jobs."
Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR:  David, you know, I'm, I'm really interested to see and hear what the president has to say.  I, I, I think he's got a real chance to lead here.  But the question is, did he listen and has he learned from the last election?  I think that the vision the president laid out over
the last two years is one very much focused on increasing government spending and trying to spawn action from a Washington-based perspective. And, and what the people have said is, "Enough.  We've got to shrink government, we've got to cut spending, and we need to really look to the private sector to grow jobs."
MR. GREGORY:  But he's saying, he's saying now there's got to be a combination of some spending to keep America competitive, and also cuts dealing with the deficit.  Is that a vision you can support?
REP. CANTOR:  What we've said is our Congress is going to be a cut and grow Congress; that we believe we've got to cut spending, we've got to cut the regulations that have stopped job growth.  When the president talks about competitiveness, sure, we want America to be  competitive.  But then when he talks about investing, I think even someone from the White  House this week had said that this is going to be a cut and invest White House.  We want to cut and grow. Because when we, we hear invest, when--from anyone in Washington, to me
that means more spending. And any...
MR. GREGORY:  Right.  Well, well, let's just be clear.  You don't believe that there's a balance that you have to get right in terms of investing in the economy to help it innovate, to become more competitive.  That's not a vision you agree with.
REP. CANTOR:  David, where--what I would say is the investment needs to occur in the private sector.
MR. GREGORY:  Not by government.
REP. CANTOR:  And, and for too long, and for too long now there's been uncertainty on the part of investors.
MR. GREGORY:  Right.  OK, well, let's, let's pick up where Republicans have left off.  Cut and grow, that's the mantra.  You campaigned on a pledge to America last September, and this is a part of what you said, it was very clear:  "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt." And then you came into office and you said, "Well, we're not going to hit that $100 billion figure." And here was the headline on Friday in The Washington Post:  "GOP bloc in the House calls for deeper cuts," and the sub-headline:  "Campaign pledge divides the party." You're arguing about just how much to spend.  I thought this was already worked out.
REP. CANTOR:  David, let, let's step back a minute and look at sort of the whole sort of continuum of the spending challenges.  We're, we're going to really have three bites at the apple here as far as approaching reducing spending and the size of Washington.  As far as the mess in the past, we're going to have this debt limit increase vote that will come, and that is dealing with the rampant spending that's been in place in this town for some time that's gone on overdrive in, in the last couple years.
MR. GREGORY:  And I'll get to the debt limit, but this is a targeted question.
REP. CANTOR:  But as far as the decisions that we make now, it is about the continuing resolution vote that will come up in the next month or so, right?
MR. GREGORY:  Right.  But $100 billion, or not $100 billion?
REP. CANTOR:  And, and we've committed to say $100 billion in reductions, which brings spending down to '08 levels.
Now, we also are in the position where we are starting to even deliberate on that five months into the fiscal year.  We are intent on making sure, on an annualized basis, that we are hitting the '08 levels or below.  And so every member will have the chance to come to the floor, to talk about whether they believe that '08 levels are enough to cut, because some members actually want to see us do more.  And I agree, we ought to look in every way possible to reduce spending as much as possible.
MR. GREGORY:  It seems like it's a straightforward question, though.  Are you going to live up to the $100 billion pledge?  I assume you've put a lot of thought into that...
REP. CANTOR:  David...
MR. GREGORY:  ...$100 billion figure.  Can you make it or not?
REP. CANTOR:  Absolutely.  On an annualized basis, we will cut spending $100 billion.
MR. GREGORY:  You do it this year as you pledged?
REP. CANTOR:  On an annualized basis...
MR. GREGORY:  Which means what exactly?
REP. CANTOR:  Well, again, David, look where we are.  We are where we are because the Democratic majority, last Congress, didn't pass a budget, right? They didn't do it.  So we're in a continuing resolution environment.  So now we've got an interim step to take to make sure that we reset the dial and bring spending back down to '08 levels.

     Ok, so we still don't know what "annualized basis" means, and Cantor declines to even address the notion that meeting or not meeting the "Pledge to America" was dividing the party.  The Michelle Backmann/Rand Paul Tea Party wing of the party clearly has the 100 billion dollar cut graven in stone.  The rest of the Republican party had no problem advocating that during the election cycle, but is now decidedly vague on how--or even if--it will happen.

      The second portion of the interview I found revealing came when Gregory brought up Social Security, which all through the election season Republicans pilloried as a perfect example of government spending that has created the huge budget deficit.

MR. GREGORY:  Let's talk about Social Security.  A couple weeks ago Majority Leader Reid in the Senate was on the program, and I asked him about whether Social Security is in crisis.  This is what he said.
(Videotape, January 9, 2011)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV):  When we start talking about the debt, the first thing people do is run to Social Security.  Social Security is a program that works, and it's going to be--it's fully funded for the next 40 years.  Stop picking on Social Security.  There are a lot of places that
we can go to...
MR. GREGORY:  Senator, are you really saying the arithmetic on Social Security works?
SEN. REID:  I'm saying the arithmetic in Social Security works.  I have no doubt it does.  For the next...
MR. GREGORY:  It's not in crisis.
SEN. REID:  No, it's not in crisis.  This is, this is, this is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government.  Social Security is fine.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY:  If you disagree with Leader Reid, are you prepared to raise the retirement age, means test benefits or, in another way, seriously tackle the entitlement of Social Security?
REP. CANTOR:  David, what we have said is we've got a serious fiscal train wreck coming for this country if we don't deal with these entitlements.  And so entitlements are something that we need to begin to work on.  Now, for me, the first entitlement we need to deal with is the
healthcare bill, is the Obamacare bill, you know.
MR. GREGORY:  All right, we'll get to health care.  I asked you about Social Security, though.
REP. CANTOR:  Absolutely.  And, and so we have got to focus on what we can do together.  Now, as you--as, as that just indicated, the Senate is not willing to do anything under Harry Reid.
MR. GREGORY:  Well, what are you willing to do?  Means test benefits, raise the retirement age?
REP. CANTOR:  David, we've--we have a program that we have seen one of our members, Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee, put together called the "Roadmap."
MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.
REP. CANTOR:  And he and Kevin McCarthy and I wrote a book together, and in that book we reserved a chapter for a discussion about Social Security, about Medicare, and how we can begin to at least discuss to do that.
MR. GREGORY:  But what are you for?  Leader, I'm asking you what you what you're for.
REP. CANTOR:  Well, what, what I'm telling you we're for, is we're for an active discussion to see what we can come together and do.
MR. GREGORY:  How long do we need to discuss Social Security and what is happening?  It's been discussed for years.
REP. CANTOR:  Well...
MR. GREGORY:  How about--and the irony of Paul Ryan being introduced, the budget chairman, and he's doing the response to the State of the Union, he is the one who's proposed draconian cuts to Social Security and to Medicare...
REP. CANTOR:  Well, David...
MR. GREGORY:  ...and Republicans don't stand behind him.
REP. CANTOR:  David, that's not true.  I just told you that we put a chapter in our book about it because the direction in which the Roadmap goes is something we need, we need to embrace.  Now, let me tell you this.
MR. GREGORY:  Raising the retirement age, means testing benefits, those are specifics.  That...
REP. CANTOR:  The fundamental--the starting point in any plan has got to be we need to distinguish between those at or nearing retirement.  Anyone 55 and older in this country has got to know that their Social Security benefits will not be, will not be changed.  It is for all the younger people, those 54 and younger, we're going to have to have a serious discussion.  Now, with Harry Reid talking about the fact that he doesn't want to even discuss it...
MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.
REP. CANTOR:  ...that's not leadership.

       There are a couple of observations worth making here.  First, Harry Reid is absolutely correct when he says there is no "crisis" in Social Security.  Every actuarial table around shows that, for at least the next 30 years, the Social Security Trust Fund will take in more than will be needed to meet its obligations.  That doesn't mean that what will happen 30 years from now when that is no longer the case doesn't need to be addressed.  In Congressman Ryan's "Roadmap," he calls for Social Security to be privatized--for the money now being sent to the SSTF through FICA to be invested in private 401(k) type plans.  This of course is the same route George W. pushed at the start of his second term, which would have resulted, had it been passed, in the loss of virtually all retirement money when the stock market imploded in 2007.  Social Security was created to provide a "safety net" for retirement, while any responsible stock broker will tell you  the private market is a crap shoot.

     The second thing worth noting here is that Senator Reid's response to Gregory's question is succinct and unequivocal.  "I'm saying the arithmetic in Social Security works. . . it's not in crisis.  This is something perpetuated by people who don't like government."

     Cantor's response on the other hand rambles on for several minutes.  First he tries to conflate Social Security with other entitlement programs, some of which, like Medicare, are a huge contributor to the budget deficit, and others of which, like what Cantor refers to as "Obamacare," will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, actually reduce the budget deficit.  When Gregory refuses to allow that, ("All right, we'll get to health care.  I asked you about Social Security, though"), Cantor blames the Democrats ("the Senate is not willing to anything under Harry Reid"), which of course is not what Reid said.  He simply observed that there is no immediate crisis.  When Gregory pressed him, ("Means testing, raise the retirement age") the best Cantor can come up with is that he and other young guns have written a book that has a chapter in it on Social Security.  Gregory then pressed harder, asking him "But what are you for?  Leader, I'm asking you what you're for?"  Cantor's non-answer was to note that there needs to be an "active discussion."

       Cantor didn't want to talk about what's in his book because he knows what's there is more talk about drastically slashing government involvement in Social Security and drastically increasing private sector involvement--and he knows that's a non-starter with all but the Republican red meat base.

       What Cantor did say in this interview was that spending and the budget deficit were the American people's number one concern, and that the big  question for Obama is "did he listen" to what the people said in the last election.  Those of course have been the twin pillars of the Republican mantra since November.  And as with so many aspects of the GOP mantra, Cantor wasn't really interested in inconvenient truths.  For example, a very recent CNN poll found that barely 20% of Americans consider the budget deficit a pressing enough problem to justify cuts in Social Security or Medicare.  Barely 25% favor balancing the budget it means cutting education.  Incredible as it must sound to Cantor and his colleagues, over 50% of the country supports continuing at least current levels of government support to the arts, science and anti-poverty programs. 

        Which leads me to what I find most disturbing about this interview: what it reveals about the party now controlling one chamber of the federal government and a majority of state legislatures is that it really isn't interested in doing the governing the country wants.  This is a party that is all about winning elections by tossing red meat to its rabid base and persuading, if I might call it as I see it, the dimmer lights amongst us to vote against their best interests by telling them that everything government does is bad and everything business does is good.  It is a party that campaigns on generalities like "cut 100 billion dollars," but once in office either forgets about that pledge, or, if forced to be specific, focuses almost entirely on cutting social programs or health care programs or education, while standing firm on the need to protect the rich and its corporate patrons.  To be sure, Democrats can be charged with some of the same obeisance to the wealthy and the powerful, but not generally to the exclusion of everyone else.

       Most disturbing of all, the lack of country-first vision that Cantor's interview manifests is not a 2010 anomaly.  It's representative of a GOP strategy that has been consistent at least since Reagan announced that government was the problem not the solution: to wit, a very conscious and at times very organized effort to dismantle everything about government that is designed to protect the have-nots from the haves.  The consistency, and the systemic nature of this strategy is very well documented in a book entitled "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank.  I highly recommend it.