Pelosi's Loss Could Be Obama's Gain

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

I know the enemy, it's within.

Groet / Cees

PS. Hoe kan het dat zo'n ongelooflijk hardwerkende en gedreven vrouw als
Pelosi, zo verkokerd kan handelen?

Pelosi's Loss Could Be Obama's Gain
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703704575276931429180508.html
A pivot to the center (and re-election) would be easier without the
House speaker.

By FRED BARNES  JUNE 7, 2010

In Washington these days, President Obama is rumored to be hoping
Republicans capture the House of Representatives in the midterm election
in November. There's no evidence for this speculation, so far as I know,
but it's hardly far-fetched. If Mr. Obama wants to avert a fiscal crisis
and win re-election in 2012, he needs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be
removed from her powerful post. A GOP takeover may be the only way.

Given the deficit-and-debt mess that Mr. Obama has on his hands, a
Republican House would be a godsend. A Republican Senate would help,
too. A Republican majority, should it materialize, could be counted on
to pass significant cuts in domestic spending next year—cuts that Mrs.
Pelosi and her allies in the House Democratic hierarchy would never
countenance.

Though Mr. Obama's preferred solution to his fiscal predicament would
probably be a very large tax increase, it's a nonstarter. He needs
spending cuts to assuage both markets and voters. It was the surge in
spending—the stimulus, omnibus budget and the health-care
legislation—that prompted the tea party protests, alienated independent
voters, and caused the rapid decline in his popularity.

The test is whether Mr. Obama can restrain nondefense discretionary
spending. That's the spending over which Washington exerts the greatest
control. Even small cuts in entitlement spending are difficult to enact,
but the president and Republicans might reach agreement there as well.
That would be a political bonus for Mr. Obama, softening his image as a
tax-and-spend liberal. Again, this would be impossible if Ms. Pelosi
still runs the House.

Over the past 50 years, it should be no surprise which president has the
best record for holding down discretionary spending. It was President
Reagan. But who was second best? President Clinton, a Democrat. His
record of frugality was better than Presidents Nixon, Ford and both
Bushes. Mr. Clinton couldn't have done it if Republicans hadn't won the
House and Senate in the 1994 election. They insisted on substantial
cuts, he went along and then whistled his way to an easy re-election in
1996.

Here are the numbers: Average nondefense discretionary outlays per year
under Nixon and Ford increased 39.7% over those of Presidents Kennedy
and Johnson, followed by another 39% boost under Mr. Carter, a 14% drop
under Mr. Reagan, a 12% jump under the first Mr. Bush, a 7.6% hike under
Mr. Clinton, and a 31.2% increase under the second Mr. Bush.

Only four times in the past half century have nondefense discretionary
expenditures in real terms decreased in a two-year congressional cycle.
And only Reagan's first Congress—controlled by Democrats—cut more
(15.5%) than the Republican Congress that Mr. Clinton faced after the
1994 election (3.7%). The other two reductions came under Reagan (2.5%,
the 1986-87 budgets) and the younger Mr. Bush (.01%, the 2006-07 budgets).

If defense spending, which is also discretionary, is included, the
result is the same. Mr. Clinton, working with a Republican majority, is
second to Reagan. And in his new book, "Never Enough, America's
Limitless Welfare State," William Voegeli of the Claremont Institute
found that "welfare state" spending since FDR increased less under Mr.
Clinton than under any president except Reagan.

Let's assume Mr. Obama recognizes that the fiscal and economic peril
facing the country because of trillion dollar deficits is a problem for
him as well. At the moment, the 10-year deficit tab is pegged to be as
low as $6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office) or as high as $13
trillion (Heritage Foundation). Either way, the public is alarmed.

Mr. Obama's re-election to a second term is heavily dependent on his
ability to deal effectively with the fiscal mess. He could try to push a
big tax hike, like a value-added tax, through a lame duck Congress after
the November election. But that's very much a long shot. Besides, higher
taxes—on top of those from expiration of the Bush tax cuts—could
infuriate voters all the more.

For Mr. Obama, serious spending cuts are the only sensible means of
dealing with a potential debt crisis or at least an unsustainable fiscal
situation. However, he may not be able to rely on reductions in military
spending, as liberal Democrats usually prefer. Mr. Obama has already
included deep defense cuts in his budget, and Republicans are unlikely
to go along with even deeper cuts.

Mrs. Pelosi won't be any help. She's committed to enacting the
Democratic Party's entire liberal agenda, and next to the president she
is the most powerful person in Washington. When the president flirted
with scaling back his health-care bill last January, Ms. Pelosi
stiffened his spine, and the bill passed. As long as she is House
speaker, bucking her would be painful, especially if Mr. Obama proposes
to eliminate a chunk of the spending she was instrumental in passing in
2009 and 2010.

But if Republicans win the House, everything changes. Mrs. Pelosi's
influence as minority leader would be minimal—that is, assuming she's
not ousted by Democrats upset over losing the majority.

Mr. Obama would be in a position to make his long-awaited pivot to the
center. With Republicans in charge, he'd have to be bipartisan. He'd
surely have to accede to serious cuts in spending—even as he complains
they are harsh and mean-spirited. Mr. Obama could play a double game,
appeasing Democrats by criticizing the cuts and getting credit with
everyone else by acquiescing to them.

Mr. Clinton did this brilliantly in 1996. He fought with Republicans
over the budget, winning some battles, losing others, as he lurched to
the center. He twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills, then signed
a similar measure. He was hailed as the president who overhauled the
unpopular welfare system.

In recent months, the president has met repeatedly with Mr. Clinton. We
can only guess what they talked about. But given Mr. Clinton's own
experience, I suspect he suggested to Mr. Obama that Republicans could
be the answer to his political prayers. In 1994, Republicans freed the
president from the clutches of liberal Democratic leaders in Congress.
In 2010, they can do it again.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********