The New Republic Daily
Report
06/08/11
For Republicans, Do the Benefits of Fanaticism Outweigh the Costs? Jonathan Chait
Remember when Democrats swept the 2006 elections, then
stormed into Washington demanding national health care reform and the repeal of
President Bush’s upper-bracket tax cuts as a condition for keeping the
government open? Right, me neither. Yet somehow the Republicans, controlling
just one house of Congress—unlike the two held by Democrats in 2007—have
completely seized control of the political agenda. President Obama has given up
even on seating well-qualified nominees in his administration, let alone
advancing his own policy preferences. The only question is not whether but how
far Republicans will yank the direction of government their way. This is not a
complaint—at least not a complaint against Republicans, who have demonstrated an
admirable willingness to accept risk in order to achieve their goals. The point
is merely that the two parties now operate in completely different
ways.
A spate of recent budget votes in Congress underscores the radically different levels of political risk-aversion between Democrats and Republicans. In the House, Republicans voted for Paul Ryan’s budget, even with massively unpopular features that include a huge tax cut for the affluent along with a plan to privatize and then slash the value of Medicare. More shocking still, they did this despite knowing that it stood no chance of becoming law in this session of Congress.
Continue reading "For Republicans, Do the Benefits of Fanaticism Outweigh the Costs?"
Six Economic Disasters That Have Yet to Strike—But Still Could Bradford Plumer
Libya Dispatch: The Rebels Need Better Trainers, Before It’s Too Late Barak Barfi
06/08/11
For Republicans, Do the Benefits of Fanaticism Outweigh the Costs? Jonathan Chait
Remember when Democrats swept the 2006 elections, then
stormed into Washington demanding national health care reform and the repeal of
President Bush’s upper-bracket tax cuts as a condition for keeping the
government open? Right, me neither. Yet somehow the Republicans, controlling
just one house of Congress—unlike the two held by Democrats in 2007—have
completely seized control of the political agenda. President Obama has given up
even on seating well-qualified nominees in his administration, let alone
advancing his own policy preferences. The only question is not whether but how
far Republicans will yank the direction of government their way. This is not a
complaint—at least not a complaint against Republicans, who have demonstrated an
admirable willingness to accept risk in order to achieve their goals. The point
is merely that the two parties now operate in completely different
ways.A spate of recent budget votes in Congress underscores the radically different levels of political risk-aversion between Democrats and Republicans. In the House, Republicans voted for Paul Ryan’s budget, even with massively unpopular features that include a huge tax cut for the affluent along with a plan to privatize and then slash the value of Medicare. More shocking still, they did this despite knowing that it stood no chance of becoming law in this session of Congress.
Continue reading "For Republicans, Do the Benefits of Fanaticism Outweigh the Costs?"
Six Economic Disasters That Have Yet to Strike—But Still Could Bradford Plumer
Libya Dispatch: The Rebels Need Better Trainers, Before It’s Too Late Barak Barfi
