What do Republicans want?

[JoeTheJuggler]

On Election Day, Missouri voters passed a state law preventing the Governor from setting up our state's health insurance exchange. Since the deadline to act is this Friday, this measure effectively meant that the federal government will set up our state's health insurance exchange.

Originally, Republicans in the state legislature were in favor of a state-run health insurance exchange. And I think this is true of conservatives nationwide who saw it as a step away from the "public option" (and a step away from federal control) as a way to help make insurance affordable to those for whom group insurance plans aren't available (self employed) and for whom insurance simply isn't affordable. It was seen as a market-based solution that left regulatory control in the hands of the state rather than the federal government.

Just last year, the Republican controlled Missouri House unanimously passed a bill to set up our health insurance exchange. It was defeated in the state Senate for one reason only: it was seen as an endorsement of the ACA ("Obamacare"). Votes on this bill have been the subject of a crapload of political ads (so-and-so voted to support Obamacare, sort of thing).

So even though their ideology puts them in favor of this measure, their partisanship puts them against it--even to the point of ceding much authority to the federal government.

I understand now the legislature is saying that after the federal government establishes our health-insurance exchange, there may be a way for Missouri to take back control of it. But will they risk leaving themselves open to claims that they embrace Obamacare? Or will they give up trying to paint Obamacare as the end of civilization and realize that it's here to stay?

But I guess the broader question I have is, how can you be so committed to partisanship that it even makes you act against the very ideology that party espouses?

We see much the same thing with Republicans in Congress and their Norquist Pledge. They seem willing to allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire (something that runs contrary to their ideology) by rejecting the possibility of a compromise that would entail only allowing some of those tax cuts to expire.

How long can they make political decisions that can only be described as contrarian?

 

[Kestrel]

It seems the legislature wanted a ballot question expressing opposition to the socialist takeover of medicine by the evil Obama. A bit of flag waving for the conservative cause.

All they really did was assure that the Missouri will not have any input into how the exchange is set up.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It seems the legislature wanted a ballot question expressing opposition to the socialist takeover of medicine by the evil Obama. A bit of flag waving for the conservative cause.

All they really did was assure that the Missouri will not have any input into how the exchange is set up.

Exactly. They're working against their own ideology in the name of their ideology.

Don't they realize this? Or is it so important that they stay opposed to Obamacare that they don't mind working against their own ideology?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But I would very much like to hear from Republicans on this issue--especially, of course, on the national issues.

For example, how do you defend commitment to the Norquist Pledge that seems to be a willingness to take ending all the Bush tax cuts rather than accepting a compromise deal that would extend most of them?

Is it *just* clumsy posturing?

 

[Unabogie]

But I would very much like to hear from Republicans on this issue--especially, of course, on the national issues.

For example, how do you defend commitment to the Norquist Pledge that seems to be a willingness to take ending all the Bush tax cuts rather than accepting a compromise deal that would extend most of them?

Is it *just* clumsy posturing?

There's a commenter on some of the blogs who said it best:

"Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily."

 

[hgc]

But I would very much like to hear from Republicans on this issue--especially, of course, on the national issues.

For example, how do you defend commitment to the Norquist Pledge that seems to be a willingness to take ending all the Bush tax cuts rather than accepting a compromise deal that would extend most of them?

Is it *just* clumsy posturing?

In order to save the pledge from oblivion, Norquist will back the compromise. Lots of circuitous explanations will keep everyone's heads from exploding.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In order to save the pledge from oblivion, Norquist will back the compromise. Lots of circuitous explanations will keep everyone's heads from exploding.

[ETA: Actually, I think what is more likely, they'll allow all the tax cuts to expire and then accept a Democratic proposal to re-instate tax cuts on all but the top bracket. The result is the same as taking the deal, but they can claim they did not support anything that can be construed as a tax increase.]

I hope you're right, actually. And that at least makes more sense than remaining so committed to the pledge that they allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire (what happens if no deal is made).

But then I hope they'll figure out that this sort of a pledge is not in fact in the best interest of America at large or even their own ideology.

Politics is the art of the possible. We really don't need strong ideologues unwilling to work with others in Congress right now.

But I'm still interested in hearing Republicans (or at least Republican apologists) give their take on this. How do you defend the position GOP leaders in Congress have clung to so far?

We can't really believe that they'll refuse an offer for extending most of the tax cuts which would allow all of the tax cuts to expire.

Is "my way or nothing" really what you want out of your party's leaders in Congress?

 

[Unabogie]

[ETA: Actually, I think what is more likely, they'll allow all the tax cuts to expire and then accept a Democratic proposal to re-instate tax cuts on all but the top bracket. The result is the same as taking the deal, but they can claim they did not support anything that can be construed as a tax increase.]

I hope you're right, actually. And that at least makes more sense than remaining so committed to the pledge that they allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire (what happens if no deal is made).

But then I hope they'll figure out that this sort of a pledge is not in fact in the best interest of America at large or even their own ideology.

Politics is the art of the possible. We really don't need strong ideologues unwilling to work with others in Congress right now.

But I'm still interested in hearing Republicans (or at least Republican apologists) give their take on this. How do you defend the position GOP leaders in Congress have clung to so far?

We can't really believe that they'll refuse an offer for extending most of the tax cuts which would allow all of the tax cuts to expire.

Is "my way or nothing" really what you want out of your party's leaders in Congress?

I have more than one Republican friend who thinks that Obama is about to sign a treaty banning all guns in the US. They also think that he very likely (for reasons unknown) let those people in Benghazi die on purpose. In light of the complete disconnect that many rank and file Republicans have with reality, why should you expect them to take into account such things as how a stance today might lead them to something they like less than the status quo, tomorrow? If they literally can't rationally assess the status quo, then how could they (or anyone) assess the consequences of actions that would affect it?

Liberals used to laugh at the rubes living inside Fox News bubble, until the candidate for President and his whole campaign staff was revealed to be in there too. Monica Goodling is turning out to be the norm, not the exception.

So what do they want? They want, as I said above, whatever liberals don't want today.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have more than one Republican friend who thinks that Obama is about to sign a treaty banning all guns in the US. They also think that he very likely (for reasons unknown) let those people in Benghazi die on purpose.

I don't think this reflects the position of Republicans in Congress. Nor do I think it's even typical of most Republicans.

I'm not interested in the way an extreme and irrational version of a Republican justifies what the GOP leaders in Congress (or those in the Missouri legislature) are doing.

And I admit what I'm really after is some indication from thoughtful and reasonable Republicans that they are unhappy with this Norquist Pledge stuff.

As I pointed out on another thread, they can't blame this on the Religious Right's influence over their party.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't think this reflects the position of Republicans in Congress. Nor do I think it's even typical of most Republicans.

Not all of them. But certainly some of them. Michelle Bachmann, for instance, certainly holds wacky views fed to her by right wing blogs. Mitt Romney bought into several conspiracy theories and false rumors during the election, not the least of which was that the polls were being skewed by liberals.

I hope you're right. But I fear that the answer to your question is that many of the Republicans in Congress have begun to drink their own kool-aid and the Republicans you are looking for have been drummed out of the group.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What do Republicans want? Gift ideas for Republicans : hydrofoils, pugs, ornamental basketry, fancy watches, iPads.

For Democrats : helicopters, festive gourds, designer jeans, smartphones, Amazon gift cards.

For Green Partiests: pinatas, colorful scarf, Wii.

For Libertarians: nothing. They should earn their own things and die giftless if they fail.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Ponies

They all want ponies.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I suppose it's no big surprise that no Republicans (or Republican apologists) are willing to answer these questions. . . .

 

[Spindrift]

More white people. (And no gay ones and not too many girls).

 

[xjx388]

I read it as a complete rejection of Obamacare and Federal intervention in what should be the State's business. The voters of Missouri obviously don't want Obamacare in their State and aren't willing to spend State money on it. Perhaps the message is, "If the Feds want this, let them set it up and pay for it."

 

[Alareth]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I read it as a complete rejection of Obamacare and Federal intervention in what should be the State's business.

Except that's not what it does. It in fact allows the federal government to establish and run Missouri's health insurance exchange.

I hope voters in Missouri aren't so ill-informed as to think you can overturn federal law through a state vote on a proposition that limits what the governor of the state can do.

The voters of Missouri obviously don't want Obamacare in their State and aren't willing to spend State money on it. Perhaps the message is, "If the Feds want this, let them set it up and pay for it."

The feds would have paid for it. The federal government made federal funds for establishing the exchange available to the state some months ago.

And the federal government will pay for it anyway.

ETA: Here's the ballot language of Missouri's Proposition E:

Shall Missouri Law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature?

No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from this proposal. Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal funding, avoided implementation costs, and other issues are unknown.

Yes (For)
No (Against)

According to the map on this page, Missouri already received its $20 million federal grant to establish our state's insurance exchange.

And this news outlet reports the same but specifies that the federal grant Missouri received was $21 million. (I assume these two sources are simply rounding differently, and the actual amount is somewhere between $20m and $21m.)

 

[Spindrift]

I read it as a complete rejection of Obamacare and Federal intervention in what should be the State's business. The voters of Missouri obviously don't want Obamacare in their State and aren't willing to spend State money on it. Perhaps the message is, "If the Feds want this, let them set it up and pay for it."

That's exactly what's going to happen. If you by 'them' you mean the taxpayers of the United States, yes they are going to pay for it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's exactly what's going to happen. If you by 'them' you mean the taxpayers of the United States, yes they are going to pay for it.

And in fact, already did. Missouri received this federal grant in August. (See my ETA above.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At any rate, xjx388, your response to my question doesn't explain why the GOP controlled Missouri House last year voted to establish the health exchange.

My point is that they supported it as a conservative solution the problem of the difficulty of people who don't get insurance through their employer, but they rejected it only because it suggests endorsement of "Obamacare".

Like it or not, Obamacare passed. How long can Republicans act against their own ideology in order to pretend that it will go away (and that it's the worst. thing. ever.)?