It’s interesting to see the Republican leadership of the House crowing about how they achieved near-unanimity from their caucus in support of Paul Ryan’s budget plan. I do understand that significant dissent on the budget plan would cause certain problems for the leadership as well as make it easier for the Democrats to level their criticism. But the truth is that everyone who voted for Ryan’s budget voted to destroy Medicare at the same time that they voted to give the rich another massive tax break. I haven’t seen any polling that indicates that these are safe positions to take. Quite the contrary, actually.
Something similar happened in the Democratic caucus in the last Congress. For some reason, Nancy Pelosi insisted on whipping her caucus to vote for a Cap and Trade bill that had no chance of passing through the Senate. This made a lot of members needlessly vulnerable. If they had somehow succeeded in creating a carbon tax, they might have come out roughly even, as they could take credit for doing something about climate change. But they didn’t excite their own base by casting a symbolic vote that accomplished nothing. All they did was vote for a tax, which was then exploited by relentless anti-Cap and Trade messaging by the Republicans and their astroturfing outfits.
The thing is, though, that Cap and Trade is a complex issue that relatively few people understand well enough to be passionate about. Medicare is a relatively simple program that a significant percentage of the population understands through direct experience. Medicare isn’t the only vulnerability created by this budget, but it is the biggest one.
Now, some people will say that the Republicans passed this budget to shore up their base and keep them excited. But 2012 isn’t going to be a base election. It’s a presidential election year, and the battle is for the middle. I noticed only one Republican who seemed to understand this. Rep. Danny Rehberg (R-MT) is running for Jon Tester’s Senate seat and he voted against the budget because it raised too many questions about the future of Medicare. Rehberg wisely decided that he didn’t want to campaign statewide in Montana with the destruction of Medicare hanging around his neck.
Nate Silver noticed two other members with a sense of self-preservation:
Of the six Republicans who either voted no or did not vote, only three appeared to do so for reasons of electoral strategy. Dave Reichert, a Republican from suburban Seattle whose district leans Democratic, declined to vote on the bill. Denny Rehberg of Montana, who is running in a highly competitive Senate race against the Democratic incumbent Jon Tester next year, voted no, as did David McKinley, a freshman Republican from a poor district in West Virginia.
Here’s the most important part:
But of the 60 Republicans who come from districts where President Obama won at least 50 percent of the vote in 2008, 59 voted yea, the only exception being Mr. Reichert.
That’s 59 Republicans who basically decided to play Russian Roulette with their political careers. If I were a member of the House Leadership who had an interest in staying in the majority, I would not have wanted so many backbenchers demonstrating a death-wish. They just created a needless headache for themselves.
And I don’t think the danger from this vote is limited to districts that Obama won last time around. Voting to destroy Medicare is deeply unpopular in almost every district in the country. It might even be unpopular in every district in the country.
The whole spectacle is confusing. What are they applauding about?
