Now that tax cuts have been pushed through Congress on partisan lines, the agenda for the upcoming legislative year is wide open. The logical next step for the GOP, after concocting a revenue plan that will demand cuts to entitlement programs in future sessions, is to address welfare reforms. This is a scheme Paul Ryan has waited for years to hatch, but an interesting opponent has arisen in the Senate.
According to this CNN report, the Senate Majority Leader has no intention of addressing welfare reform in 2018. It is an interesting move, given that part one of “starve the beast” has been signed into law by the president, but McConnell and Trump have both voiced interest in working with Democrats to complete bipartisan legislation. Entitlement cuts could be toxic, especially under a president with abysmal numbers already. Targeting those who will begin to draw benefits in the next decade or so would be self-defeating: 45-64 year olds consistently make up 40% of the electorate.
With entitlements remaining a third rail, it looks like the Senate GOP and White House want to tackle infrastructure. Both parties have shown an interest in pushing forward in that arena, and Democrats have already released details for a plan, just days after the inauguration in January. If the president had targeted infrastructure as his legislative goal, the political climate might be much different than it is now.
After the heavy losses for Republicans in the latest special elections, and the strictly partisan tax bill, I don’t see any room for Democrats to capitulate. Whereas early in his administration there might have been common ground, they’ve certainly smelled blood in the water and are eager to take on the GOP in November. Additionally, the type of voters who are coming toward the Democrats seem to be doing so in response to the Trump presidency. If the grassroots, progressive wing of the party is fired up and ready to impeach, while more moderate voters and independents are voting against the president in special elections, why would they work with him now?
For those reasons and more, I wouldn’t hold my breath on Democrats working across the aisle on infrastructure. Maybe partisans would yell that it’s because Democrats “hate America” or “don’t want to help Americans,” but that’s a silly and dishonest response. It’s the same attack leveled against their nay votes on the tax bill, but it’s easily answered: why would Democrats vote for something they don’t like, when they could likely push through their own agenda in less than a year?
If you truly thought that your party had better solutions for the problems facing our country, it makes more sense to hold off for a bit and offer a substantive policy as opposed to an apathetic compromise. That’s likely what Chuck and Nancy have in mind, with one or both of them in the hunt for majority leader of their respective chambers. They just need to ensure that their 2018 message emphasizes actual goals once in power, and not just “we’re not the other guy.” That didn’t work out too well in 2016.
Kirk Kovach is a native North Carolinian interested in writing about politics, communication and culture.
You think the Democrats “can push through their own agenda in less than a year”? So you are either prediction a veto proof Congress or you don’t know what the Constitution requires for a bill to become law.. It takes 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto and 60 votes to break a filibuster. You need a refresher course in PolySci 101.
A point that has not been mentioned in the push to improve INFRASTRUCTURE: All infrastructure is not created equal. If the Republicans design a comprehensive infrastructure program, more than likely they will let their ‘clean coal/global warming denying’ attitude influence what gets built vs a plan that will lead us into the future. Their over-tendency to privatize the world will also probably mean that a lot of the new infrastructure will end up in private hands. Democrats, if they support a program, need to make sure they get a lot of science-based input and a plan that serves the common good well into the future.
Kinda like they did with Obama’s stimulus program, right?
I agree that “science based input” would be enormously useful, but so far I don’t see any reason to expect the GOP legislators to agree. or the few that do to have any real influence. My expectation is that an infrastructure plan will be as much a hodge-podge as the tax legislation with just enough public hearings to claim that it was vetted. If an infrastructure bill can be passed in the Senate with 51 votes (and I have a vague memory that it cannot), then the Senate will be off the to the races. Ryan can follow or do nothing, but McConnell is not going to wait to try to follow up with his win. 2018 elections are too close.
The idiotic part of this is that a sound infrastructure bill actually has real bipartisan support, as well as a lot of support around the country. The needs are too obvious, and done properly it can be good for a lot of workers.
Entitlement reform? All I can say is Ryan should go for it. Especially in the spring on an election year with a lot of House seats up for grabs. Be fun to watch – sort of. (I really don’t enjoy watching so little get done. Reminds one of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.)
Kirk Kovach babbles idioticaly. This is the last time I waste my time reading something he’s written. Mr. Mills, please find someone who can at least be logically consistant!
Ad Hominem attacks are unconvincing and suggestive of a lack of reasoned counter-arguments on the part of the attacker. I find Kovach’s posts to be well-considered. Are there specific counter-arguments?