The changes to military retirement pay don't begin until Dec 2014. After the mid-terms.
The choice for Republicans and Conservatives, then, is to take the deal and enact a budget within its limits, thereby taking this distraction off the table and keeping the focus on Obamacare and Obama's failed economic policies--and Republican/Conservative solutions to these (they do have some, yes?)--or make this a deal breaker when the budget talks start, do another useless government shutdown, lose the mid-terms, and remain the minority, and impotent, party.
Down one path, they get to do actual corrective action, including regarding this matter. Down the other path, they get to stay helplessly but safely on the sidelines carping uselessly about those evil Democrats.
That's tactical. What bothers me is the picture whereby welfare and entitlement programs are essentially untouchable, but earned benefits for veterans who served are the first thing on the chopping block.
But the tactics matter. Obama taunted the Republicans a few weeks ago about having to win elections, but he's right.
Absent winning elections, the Republicans and Conservatives are just on the sidelines bleating helplessly and without effect. Thus, the first task is to win. Then--and only then--can change be effected.
This particular move has no long term meaning unless the Republicans and Conservatives figure out how to lose the Senate again, or if having gained control of the Senate fail to take corrective action vis-a-vis this tactical move, among other matters--like those entitlements, Obamacare and its ObamaMart, taxes, and actual spending cuts. And if they get vetoed (which is likely), that just isolates the Dems even more, no matter that Hillary parts the water so she doesn't have to dampen her pumps walking on it, making winning the White House more likely. By then, the COLA effects will have been in effect only two years, at the cost of beer and pizza money, and easily corrected and backdated.
It comes back to the need to win elections in order to effect change.
Life doesn't go forward with every step. Neither do politics.
We'll see in a couple of election cycles, assuming we win those cycles, whether the faith was broken, or a tactic employed to gain the wins needed actually to do something.
The major problem now is too many in the Tea Party caucus acting like Progressives with their "my way or the highway" attitude. Unfortunately, with a minority party, all that does is guarantee continued minority impotence. Minority parties never implement their principles, no matter how valid those principles.
Even with overwhelming victory, the right answer is not to ride roughshod over the Dems, but to give them some things to take home with them--leave them an honorable way off the battlefield, so they'll leave it more easily.
And to avoid misusing such large majorities. Obamacare is an object lesson in making too big a change too quickly that the Republicans and Conservatives need to take to heart. Shoot, look, shoot.
The thing I'm having trouble with in the 'first we have to win elections, so we have to let this go' argument is that too often in the past, the Republicans would get some power, and still not do anything to actually change the structure of the government as it stands now- the argument just changes from 'but we'll lose the election and fail to win the Senate' to 'but we'll lose the election and the Senate'. You have to stand somewhere, and it seems to me that your message is more likely to be heard when the other side is busy immolating their credibility and any facade of ability to responsibly govern.
Grim: War isn't about fair fights, war is about the utter destruction of the enemy so he never can attack you again. Anything less than that just exposes your people to further attack and destruction. That's murder of your own, and there's no honor in that.
Douglas: It is, indeed, a high risk move. The alternatives, though, are as I've said: win, and have the chance to do the change, or lose, and remain impotent. The Republicans--the RINOs--are doing as you and Grim say--ratcheting, and doing nothing useful for the country with their electoral victories. The Tea Party caucus--those mostly true conservatives--are where the victories actually can be made useful. But they need to lose their Progressive tactic, or they'll not win in sufficient numbers to gain political power and be able to effect the change they preach. If they get more tactically sound, then we'll learn the truth of them.
Regarding an honorable way off the battlefield, two things: one, I misspoke; I should have said face saving way off the battlefield. Two, the battlefield to which I was referring is not over with the present budget deal, that's just a skirmish; the battlefield is far larger than that. The battlefield is the budget, spending, taxing, Obamacare repeal and replace, regulation roll back and regulatory authority rescission that must ensue following a Republican Party victory in 2014 and 2016. And ensuing election cycles, since our desired changes mustn't be rammed through all at once, else we just get a Conservative (in the name of Republican) analog to Obamacare.
To achieve that sequence and give it durability, there needs to be minimized (albeit it'll remain significant) Democrat and Progressive resistance. That means letting them have their little victories, letting them have their minor amendments to get the larger bill passed with minimal fuss. That also puts their fingerprints on the actions, too, and it represents far more bipartisan cooperation than the Progressives have permitted in their hour.
Much is made, justifiably, that spending cut promises for the out years never are fulfilled when the out years arrive. With Conservatism in power through those election cycles, Conservatives get to be the ones making the changes as those out years arrive--which means those little victories granted, those minor amendments allowed, the Progressives to facilitate interim progress can be rolled back as the time comes.
"War isn't about fair fights, war is about the utter destruction of the enemy..."
Ymar used to say things like that. I used to chide him for not recognizing the distinction between what we are doing as a society at peace with itself, and what it would really mean to be at war.
Von Clausewitz said that war is politics ("Politik") by other means. I get the unity of the fields. If you're at war, though, you should start planning a broader effort.
You're free to chide me, too, Grim. We've done that a time or two, already. [g]
Are we a society at peace with itself? It seems to me our civil war started in the summer/fall of 2009. Also, keep in mind that there are more ways to effect the utter destruction of an enemy than the Carthage route.
Planning the broader effort, certainly. That's a major part of the beef I have with the current crop of Conservatives in the Congress--they're not yet thinking beyond their demands to how actually to carry them into effect other than through current obstructionism and ultimatums.
The changes to military retirement pay don't begin until Dec 2014. After the mid-terms.
ReplyDeleteThe choice for Republicans and Conservatives, then, is to take the deal and enact a budget within its limits, thereby taking this distraction off the table and keeping the focus on Obamacare and Obama's failed economic policies--and Republican/Conservative solutions to these (they do have some, yes?)--or make this a deal breaker when the budget talks start, do another useless government shutdown, lose the mid-terms, and remain the minority, and impotent, party.
Down one path, they get to do actual corrective action, including regarding this matter. Down the other path, they get to stay helplessly but safely on the sidelines carping uselessly about those evil Democrats.
Eric Hines
That's tactical. What bothers me is the picture whereby welfare and entitlement programs are essentially untouchable, but earned benefits for veterans who served are the first thing on the chopping block.
ReplyDeleteBut the tactics matter. Obama taunted the Republicans a few weeks ago about having to win elections, but he's right.
ReplyDeleteAbsent winning elections, the Republicans and Conservatives are just on the sidelines bleating helplessly and without effect. Thus, the first task is to win. Then--and only then--can change be effected.
This particular move has no long term meaning unless the Republicans and Conservatives figure out how to lose the Senate again, or if having gained control of the Senate fail to take corrective action vis-a-vis this tactical move, among other matters--like those entitlements, Obamacare and its ObamaMart, taxes, and actual spending cuts. And if they get vetoed (which is likely), that just isolates the Dems even more, no matter that Hillary parts the water so she doesn't have to dampen her pumps walking on it, making winning the White House more likely. By then, the COLA effects will have been in effect only two years, at the cost of beer and pizza money, and easily corrected and backdated.
It comes back to the need to win elections in order to effect change.
Eric Hines
You think so? I think they've broken faith.
ReplyDeleteLife doesn't go forward with every step. Neither do politics.
ReplyDeleteWe'll see in a couple of election cycles, assuming we win those cycles, whether the faith was broken, or a tactic employed to gain the wins needed actually to do something.
The major problem now is too many in the Tea Party caucus acting like Progressives with their "my way or the highway" attitude. Unfortunately, with a minority party, all that does is guarantee continued minority impotence. Minority parties never implement their principles, no matter how valid those principles.
Even with overwhelming victory, the right answer is not to ride roughshod over the Dems, but to give them some things to take home with them--leave them an honorable way off the battlefield, so they'll leave it more easily.
And to avoid misusing such large majorities. Obamacare is an object lesson in making too big a change too quickly that the Republicans and Conservatives need to take to heart. Shoot, look, shoot.
Eric Hines
Is this an honorable way off the battlefield? To let them walk over our veterans?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the game is so rigged that the right answer is not to play anymore.
The thing I'm having trouble with in the 'first we have to win elections, so we have to let this go' argument is that too often in the past, the Republicans would get some power, and still not do anything to actually change the structure of the government as it stands now- the argument just changes from 'but we'll lose the election and fail to win the Senate' to 'but we'll lose the election and the Senate'. You have to stand somewhere, and it seems to me that your message is more likely to be heard when the other side is busy immolating their credibility and any facade of ability to responsibly govern.
ReplyDeleteOne-way ratchet, as Tex said recently.
ReplyDeleteGrim: War isn't about fair fights, war is about the utter destruction of the enemy so he never can attack you again. Anything less than that just exposes your people to further attack and destruction. That's murder of your own, and there's no honor in that.
ReplyDeleteDouglas: It is, indeed, a high risk move. The alternatives, though, are as I've said: win, and have the chance to do the change, or lose, and remain impotent. The Republicans--the RINOs--are doing as you and Grim say--ratcheting, and doing nothing useful for the country with their electoral victories. The Tea Party caucus--those mostly true conservatives--are where the victories actually can be made useful. But they need to lose their Progressive tactic, or they'll not win in sufficient numbers to gain political power and be able to effect the change they preach. If they get more tactically sound, then we'll learn the truth of them.
Eric Hines
Regarding an honorable way off the battlefield, two things: one, I misspoke; I should have said face saving way off the battlefield. Two, the battlefield to which I was referring is not over with the present budget deal, that's just a skirmish; the battlefield is far larger than that. The battlefield is the budget, spending, taxing, Obamacare repeal and replace, regulation roll back and regulatory authority rescission that must ensue following a Republican Party victory in 2014 and 2016. And ensuing election cycles, since our desired changes mustn't be rammed through all at once, else we just get a Conservative (in the name of Republican) analog to Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteTo achieve that sequence and give it durability, there needs to be minimized (albeit it'll remain significant) Democrat and Progressive resistance. That means letting them have their little victories, letting them have their minor amendments to get the larger bill passed with minimal fuss. That also puts their fingerprints on the actions, too, and it represents far more bipartisan cooperation than the Progressives have permitted in their hour.
Much is made, justifiably, that spending cut promises for the out years never are fulfilled when the out years arrive. With Conservatism in power through those election cycles, Conservatives get to be the ones making the changes as those out years arrive--which means those little victories granted, those minor amendments allowed, the Progressives to facilitate interim progress can be rolled back as the time comes.
Still: shoot, look, shoot.
Eric Hines
"War isn't about fair fights, war is about the utter destruction of the enemy..."
ReplyDeleteYmar used to say things like that. I used to chide him for not recognizing the distinction between what we are doing as a society at peace with itself, and what it would really mean to be at war.
Von Clausewitz said that war is politics ("Politik") by other means. I get the unity of the fields. If you're at war, though, you should start planning a broader effort.
You're free to chide me, too, Grim. We've done that a time or two, already. [g]
ReplyDeleteAre we a society at peace with itself? It seems to me our civil war started in the summer/fall of 2009. Also, keep in mind that there are more ways to effect the utter destruction of an enemy than the Carthage route.
Planning the broader effort, certainly. That's a major part of the beef I have with the current crop of Conservatives in the Congress--they're not yet thinking beyond their demands to how actually to carry them into effect other than through current obstructionism and ultimatums.
Eric Hines