The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: bi partisan
Beneath Cheap Shots At Biden Lies Broad Consensus On Ukraine — And Putin

Beneath Cheap Shots At Biden Lies Broad Consensus On Ukraine — And Putin

Republicans and Democrats have deep and unbridgeable differences on a variety of issues, from vaccination mandates to immigration policy to the Iran nuclear deal. But when it comes to Russia's aggression against Ukraine, the differences are not detectable without a microscope. The fight going on now is a theatrical performance staged to conceal their fundamental agreement.

Republicans accuse Joe Biden of unforgivable weakness and appeasement, invoking the specter of the 1938 Munich deal. Democrats contrast Biden's blunt criticism of Vladimir Putin with Donald Trump's meek deference. What is most striking about this rhetorical battle, though, is how closely the two parties are aligned on the issue.

Trump is the exception, rushing to praise Putin for a "genius" move in recognizing two Ukrainian republics as independent. But his party's officeholders overwhelmingly part ways with him on this issue, as they did during his presidency. Nor do the likes of Tucker Carlson have much influence on either side of the aisle in Congress.

Pretty much no one thinks Putin has the right to seize Ukrainian territory, or approves of his efforts to intimidate Ukraine and NATO, or opposes the use of economic and financial sanctions to punish Russia.

Both parties, however, are willing to go only so far in supporting Ukraine. Neither favors sending American troops to fight the Russians. Trump approved "lethal aid" to Ukraine in the form of anti-tank missiles and other weaponry, and Biden has continued to do so.

Republicans demanded the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany — and, after meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in early February, Biden promised if Russia invaded, "we will bring an end to it." Sure enough, when Putin ordered troops into separatist regions of eastern Ukraine, Scholz called off the pipeline deal.

Yet Republicans claim that Biden brought this on by pulling out of Afghanistan. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise declared, "Weakness has consequences." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) claimed that "as a result of President Biden's weakness and appeasement, the Biden administration is in the process of abandoning Ukraine to Vladimir Putin."

Their verbal volleys bring to mind the psychological phenomenon Sigmund Freud referred to as "the narcissism of minor differences." Most of the partisan disagreements are petty quibbles over the extent and timing of sanctions. Pretending that Biden is to blame for the invasion is a crude political ploy.

Biden isn't to blame for the invasion. Even conservative commentator Walter Russell Mead of The Wall Street Journal grudgingly admitted last month, "There is only one option that would stop a Russian invasion — and that is the one that all the serious players in Washington say is off the table: dispatching an American and coalition force to defend Ukraine."

Maybe that deployment would stop Putin, or maybe not. NATO would be at a severe disadvantage fighting on Russia's doorstep, where the enemy has big advantages and a far greater stake. We would have the additional handicap of having to calibrate our military strategy to avoid precipitating a nuclear exchange. But there was never any chance that any president, Republican or Democrat, would go to war over Ukraine.

Republicans boast that Russia didn't invade Ukraine when Trump was president. But Trump was the guy who withheld military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to force President Volodymyr Zelensky to come up with dirt on the Bidens. An invasion would have been a poor way for Putin to repay his compliant friend in the White House.

What has always been clear is that the U.S. has a weak hand when it comes to Ukraine and no good way to play it. Putin has always known he could use force without facing military retaliation from NATO.

He may have hoped he could get away without paying a high economic penalty. If so, he has been unpleasantly surprised.

Instead of driving a fat wedge between the U.S. and its European allies, Putin has spurred a new spirit of unity. He has virtually guaranteed that NATO will increase its spending and bolster its forces in the countries geographically closest to Russia.

He's also managed, against all odds, to foster an effective consensus between Republicans and Democrats, who are united in seeing him as a brutal outlaw and a threat to the international order. It's a miracle that could only have been made in Moscow.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.com

Quiet Win For Boehner? Bending The Entitlement Curve

Quiet Win For Boehner? Bending The Entitlement Curve

By Matt Fuller, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — If the phrase “sustainable growth rate” sounds like it might be useful in putting you to sleep, you might have missed it.

Speaker John A. Boehner (R-OH) is quietly putting the finishing touches on a legacy item, a legislative accomplishment Hollywood is obsessed with and high school civics teachers insist is the third rail of politics: “entitlement reform.”

It’s no accident most Americans haven’t heard much about a potential deal eliminating SGR and making changes to Medicare. A long-term bill is still in question, and final details are still being hammered out. But every day there isn’t an uprising on SGR is a day closer to a deal.

It looks increasingly likely lawmakers will agree to ditch the yearly fixes to the payment formula for Medicare doctors and pay for it — at least some of it — by making changes to private Medigap plans and by forcing wealthier seniors to pay more.

“In budget after budget, Republicans have offered real, structural reforms to strengthen the Medicare program for seniors,” Boehner said in a statement to CQ Roll Call on Wednesday. “This is an important opportunity to start getting some of those reforms enacted into law for the benefit of generations to come.”

Close Boehner-ally and fellow Ohio Republican Pat Tiberi told CQ Roll Call Boehner has always wanted to accomplish “big things.”

“This framework would certainly fall into that category,” Tiberi said. “Speaker Boehner has made entitlement reform a priority over the years because he knows it would have the largest impact on solving our long-term fiscal problems. If the framework of this deal is enacted, Speaker Boehner would and should consider it a major win for taxpayers.”

Yes, Boehner has long argued for an entitlement overhaul. He’s been talking about it since he came to Congress in 1991. And it was a major part of his campaign to be majority leader in 2006. And yet there really hasn’t been much movement on the issue since the ’90s, when Congress passed a welfare overhaul in 1996 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That’s how difficult the issue is.

Of course, the “fixes” being discussed now aren’t the most ambitious changes ever. But they are “changes” adjacent to the word “Medicare.” Sources close to the negotiations say most of the real savings would come from lowering income thresholds for aspects of Medicare that are already means-tested, such as prescriptions and doctor visits, or by increasing the percentage that these wealthier seniors have to pay for their premiums. Currently, means-testing on Medicare kicks in at $85,000 per year for individuals and $170,000 for couples.

Democrats in recent years have insisted any real changes to entitlements be coupled with tax hikes, but they’ve dropped that demand with SGR. And that could be a breakthrough for future negotiations.

Such negotiations aren’t likely to happen while Boehner is speaker. And, of course, this deal could fall apart. But GOP leadership is pushing the yet-to-be-released bill as a win for conservatives, particularly when the long-term savings are considered. Leadership acknowledges the deal would add to the deficit over the next ten years. But proponents say skeptics should look further out and measure the proposal’s long-term savings against the fact that Congress typically doesn’t pay for SGR anyway.

Democrats have stayed mostly silent on the negotiations. Boehner and Ways and Means Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) told the GOP Conference Tuesday they’d been working with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to jam the Senate into taking the House-passed bill.

That bipartisan angle may be part of the problem for conservatives, who would prefer Boehner try to pass legislation with all Republican votes before consulting Democrats.

“He was sitting down with Nancy first,” Representative Tim Huelskamp (R-KA), said of Boehner Tuesday, “and then he’s going to come back to conference and say, ‘Hey, we got the votes. I’m going to ram it through, and together, we’re going to jam the Senate.’

“No, it’s to jam the House Republican conservatives.”

Huelskamp predicted a majority of the GOP conference wouldn’t vote for the long-term deal. “But if he’s got Pelosi and her crowd, and he’s got 30 of the Tuesday group, he’s got her done,” he said.

Expect a lot more than 30 Republicans to vote for a deal. The doctor’s lobby has been all over Congress on this issue, hitting up Republicans and Democrats. And even some of the most conservative voices in the House see merit to a long-term deal.

“This is one that I’m going to take the leap of faith,” conservative Arizona Republican Paul Gosar told CQ Roll Call. “We got to do something.”

If Gosar is in, plenty more conservatives — not to mention rank and file — could join him.

“Democrats aren’t stupid,” Heritage Action Communications Director Dan Holler told CQ Roll Call in an email. “If they’re in on the deal, it is because it serves their long-term interests. Heck, a Democrat leadership aide is touting this as a ‘very big accomplishment’ for the minority!”

Holler went on to say that if Republicans wanted to vote for $130 billion in new deficit spending, that was their decision. “But they shouldn’t pretend they’ll be sneaking something by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid (D-NV), and Barack Obama,” he said.

Indeed, Democrats could be waiting until the bill is passed before sending out a round of self-congratulatory news releases. Most of these changes were included in President Barack Obama’s own budget. And even the changes that could affect less wealthy seniors, such as alterations to the supplemental coverage of Medigap, are pretty modest. Negotiators are discussing having seniors pay a deductible of less than $250 before their coverage kicks in. But the more significant changes — at least from a pay-for perspective — are the means-testing provisions.

With years before many of those changes ever take hold, Democrats could be paying for the so-called “doc fix” for free if they’re able to undo the modifications — or just delay them until Congress becomes accustomed to the idea of not doing it.

Sort of like what happened with SGR in the first place.