Today’s New York Times has a great piece by Carl Hulse that spells this out, albeit politely. He pinpoints the root of today’s dysfunction: many Republicans “hope Yes,” but “vote No.” They were constrained by incentives from voting for the debt limit hike, even though they knew it was right for the country and their party:
Most Republicans badly wanted the debt limit to be raised…They just did not want their fingerprints on it.
The implications for governing are obvious. If many lawmakers are unwilling or refuse to vote for legislation that they understand to be necessary, and even beneficial, out of fear of retribution from an empowered and outspoken wing of their party, reaching agreement on major policy like immigration becomes difficult if not impossible.
“The incentives are not aligned,” one House Republican acknowledged…Reinforcing the point about perverse incentives, House Republicans who managed to vote against a debt limit increase that they sincerely wanted to pass could be rewarded by avoiding a primary challenger fueled by the debt issue. They are also likely to earn higher ratings on conservative scorecards that severely penalize lawmakers who back a debt increase.
That’s it in a nutshell. The next place where it will come into play is immigration.
Hulse’s piece gets at the basic reality of the current situation in a way many have refused to reckon with. On many major issues, there is probably a majority consensus in Congress behind a solution. But at the same time, there are few if any solutions the Tea Party will support that can also be supported by Dems and signed into law by Obama. That’s because most accommodationist solutions — even ones that give mainstream conservatives some, but not all, of what they want — are unacceptable to the Tea Party by definition. Therefore, with many mainstream conservatives secretly willing to enter into such compromises, the only route to resolution is for GOP leaders to accept the need to cut the Tea Party loose and endure the consequences.
The debt limit hike is a unique case, because it’s something that has to happen, and raising it doesn’t require concessions from either side. Immigration reform, by contrast, requires many difficult policy compromises. It is not a “must pass.” But there is a real route to a deal, if Republicans cut loose the right, and the notion that they have the luxury of waiting is an illusion. It will only get harder next year, and the price of inaction will only grow. The question is whether GOP leaders will decide that paying that price is worse than overcoming the “perverse incentives” Hulse spells out.
* ALEX SINK LEADS IN SPECIAL ELECTION: Via Taegan Goddard, a new Tampa Bay Times poll finds Dem Alex Sink ahead of GOPer David Jolly in the special election in Florida’s 13th District, 42-35, with the voters split on Obamacare. The outcome will be widely seen as a harbinger of the political environment this fall, but whatever happens, I’d caution against reading too much into the results.
What this shows is what we’ve long known: the electorate is polarized over the ACA, but it is not a wedge against Dems. Indeed, Sink is ahead even as she’s running ads defending the law and attacking the GOP repeal stance directly.
This vote, like many before it, proved that there is a moderate governing majority in the House. It could work its will again and again if only Boehner were willing to put bills on the floor and give practical-minded Republicans a chance join with Democrats to enact them.
This proposition deserves a test on immigration reform. Supporters should be thinking about a discharge petition to force Boehner’s hand — or maybe even to allow him to do what he’s said privately he’d like to do. If a majority of House members signed it, there could be a successful vote for the immigration bill the Senate already passed.
Industry experts and insurance officials say that the reality is murkier than either party wants to admit, and that the numbers at the heart of the national political debate are largely meaningless outside Washington’s overheated environment. The determination about whether the law works from an economic standpoint will not be clear for years, when individual insurance companies are finally able to tell whether their expectations about the health of their customers — and the premiums they set for coverage — were accurate.
Keep in mind that this is coming from people who have a tremendous stake in the law over the long term. Meanwhile, Republican claims the law has already failed are about creating a favorable political narrative for 2014, but also about actively dissuading signups in order to push it towards failure.
* DEMS WON’T TAKE BACK THE HOUSE: Political scientist Alan Abramowitz explains why:
Democrats would need a very substantial lead on the pre-election generic ballot surveys, something in the vicinity of 12 to 14 points, to have a good chance of gaining the 17 House seats needed to regain control of the chamber. At this point, that appears highly unlikely — no nonpartisan poll in the past year has shown a double-digit Democratic lead on the generic ballot. Moreover, no party holding the White House has gained anywhere near 17 seats in a midterm election in the past century. It seems highly unlikely that 2014 will see such a result. On the other hand, it also appears highly unlikely that Republicans will be able to significantly increase the size of their House majority in November. Right now, the most likely outcome of the House elections would appear to be a near standoff.