What should the Republican's do now?

Everyone and their uncle seems to be giving them suggestions. So why shouldn't we???

1. Repeal Obamacare


This is a very popular idea and one they will almost certainly do. However, Obama will almost certainly veto it. Then what next? The most effective thing they could do is to block bills that fund it etc doing what they can to delay any further implementation until after the 2016 election.


2. Avoid unforced errors


You know the stupid stuff that is politics 101. Now that they have majorities in both Houses in Congress, the left leaning media will be out for blood. They will have enough problems without doing stupid things.


3. Make a big point of paying attention to their home districts


Eric Cantor is a lesson that shouldn't be forgotten soon. There are NO safe districts for Republicans anymore. Moderate districts are in danger from Democratic challengers, conservative districts are in danger from Tea Party challengers. They need to pay attention to the fundamentals of politics 101, the voters elect you. They need to at least do a convincing job of pretending to care about them.


4. Pass the Keystone pipeline


There is enough Democratic support for this that with careful negotiation and compromises Republicans can form a veto proof majority. Democrats from oil states and union states have publicly supported Keystone in support of #3 in their own districts, those Democrats want a bipartisan bill to show their own constituents and are willing to work with the Republicans on this.

The opposition comes from the environmentalists in a true example of it sounds good it must be good regardless of whether or not it actually is good. They are blocking the pipeline in the belief that blocking it will magically make that nasty oil go away. What it has done in real life is to shift it rail transport, which to date has been far worse for the environment (spills, accidents etc) than a pipeline would be.

5. Block the EPA from issuing carbon regulations.


They actually don't have the authority to do this and are wasting government money getting sued. There is so much Democratic opposition from union states and coal states to these carbon regulations that there is 0% chance that the authority they need will actually pass congress under either Republican or Democratic control. So the Republicans should get together with the Democratic opposition and form a veto proof majority to tell the EPA to stop exceeding their authority and wasting money we don't have.


6. Don't touch comprehensive immigration reform with a 10 foot pole!


No matter what they do here, people are going to hate it. They'd be better off pretending to work on comprehensive immigration reforms, while actually only passing small immigration reform bills. Frankly I think comprehensive immigration reform is doomed to Obamacare overcomplexity failure syndrome and multiple small bills will probably be more effective anyway.


7. Fast track authority for trade deals.


That is currently stalled in congress and for good reason. They don't trust Obama's state department to effectively negotiate a decent trade deal with anyone. I agree entirely and in fact I would expand it from just Obama's appointees to State as a whole. Their past performance on trade deals under both Republicans and Democrats has resulted in the current outsourcing jobs crisis.

However a good trade deal could help the economy. So Republicans could work a deal with Obama to select someone outside of the Washington establishment to negotiate. Trade really isn't the area of expertise of politicians, they need an experienced, highly effective businessman that Obama would accept as an envoy. Warren Buffet or Bill Gates perhaps?


8. Vote down every single left wing judge Obama appoints


The judiciary is key to the future of the Republicans. Obama loves to appoint far left liberals. They Senate should vote every last one of them down. If by some miracle he actually appoints a moderate, they should vote that person up. By voting in favor of moderates but against liberals, they can make a very convincing case that they are not the party of no but merely want balance.


9. Reign in the power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau


The legislation that created this created a monster without checks and balances. It's new so that the power hasn't been abused yet... But this is Washington, it's only a matter of time. Congress needs to get those checks and balances in place now! Careful negotiation with Democratic Senators should be able to form a veto proof majority on this issue.


10. Pass the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act


This is another check and balance situation. Basically any regulation the executive comes up with that has an impact of $100 million or above needs congressional approval (yes or no, we approve or we don't).

Note that bill should be inflation adjusted to keep things from getting out of hand. Congress doesn't need to approve every little thing.


11. Work on easy regulatory reform


Regulations that are completely ineffective or outdated provide a compliance burden on US business an thus are an unneeded drag on the economy (and jobs). There are laundry lists of these regulations/laws all over the place. Every think tank has one or more. The GOP should take the easy win and get rid of these things. Most of them have small impacts, but each one adds up and frankly the economy could use all the help it can get! They might even be able to get a bipartisan veto proof majority.


12. Pass a budget and pass it on time


The democratically controlled congress could never seem to get this done. If the GOP wants to demonstrate competence, basics such as this are a good place to start. Of course Obama will veto anything they come up with, but they should do their job anyway.



13. Corporate Tax reform


There is support for this on both sides of the aisle as it should help jobs. Negotiate with Democratic Senators to form a veto proof majority in order to remove corporate tax loopholes put in over the years to benefit the crony capitalists, while lowering the nominal rate. Any bill should be designed to be revenue neutral.

Nice wish list. It would be nice if even a few of those items were properly addressed.

Unfortunately, Republicans also happen to be politicians, which means that they will likely interpret the election results however they want and pursue their own agendas regardless of what the electors really meant in this vote. In other words, business as usual.

Interesting wish list. Obviously the US government should do what it believes is best for the US.

From an outside perspective several points seem strange.

Number 8 of voting down every left wing judge that Obama appoints, begs the question of why would a centre right president appoint left wing judges anyway?

I agree with number 1 of repealing Obamacare, but only if it was replaced by a true government run universally run and funded health system.

I do agree with numbers 12 and 13, although the revenue neutral part would not address the deficit.

Good luck with your country's future.

pushmar wrote:Nice wish list. It would be nice if even a few of those items were properly addressed.

Unfortunately, Republicans also happen to be politicians, which means that they will likely interpret the election results however they want and pursue their own agendas regardless of what the electors really meant in this vote. In other words, business as usual.

They may well go crazy and try to enact every single thing on Ted Cruz's wish list, but I don't think so. Those senators up in 2016 where the map favors the Democrats aren't going to want to vote for anything that imperils their chances. And Obama will veto it anyway. They'd have a better chance with their wish list waiting until 2016 and a Republican president (history favors the Republicans under these circumstances).

In the meantime, they can do the symbolic Obamacare repeal that will get vetoed and work to get popular items like Keystone passed with veto proof majorities.

Limbaugh had an interesting tactic. He wants them to find every issue they can that Obama opposes but which has overwhelming public support and pass it for the sole purpose of having Obama veto it and make the Democrats look bad. He's forgetting something though. All those Democratic senators are done following Obama off a cliff, they are looking out for their own skins and if something is that popular in their own state, they won't uphold the veto. So his strategy will make Obama look bad but not Democrats as a whole.

My thoughts. Note that I am very much against political parties, but tend to agree with Democrats a bit more. The system is extremely broken right now and I know most politicians don't really want to fix it.

1. Don't do this without it being in the same bill as a new proposal to address the very real problems the ACA was designed to deal with. It may be better to just address certain problems while leaving the pieces people like intact.

2. They're politicians. Of course they'll make unforced errors.

3. That's what their job is supposed to be. Represent ALL of their home district, not just their party.

4. How will a pipeline to move Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico where it can be shipped overseas help make us more energy independent? A pipeline may be a good idea, but be careful of its route. I believe the original plan took it over the aquifer that provides most of the water to where we grow most of our food. Pipelines may be more reliable than other techniques, but consider both the possibility of accidents and the possibility of a terrorist attack/sabotage.

5. Don't know enough about this issue to address it.

6. Requiring eVerify would be a good starting point.

7. Another thing I don't know too much about, but if we do any trade deals, word them in such a way that businesses can't exploit them to outsource jobs.

8. I would prefer them working with the president to actually get judges appointed rather than just stalling. The sign of a good compromise is that neither side is entirely happy with the outcome.

9-10. Don't know enough about these

11. All regulations should have a sunset clause where they last for a decade or so, then have to be reapproved. There are a lot of regulations that do make sense, so do this with a scalpel, not a broadsword.

12. Agreed. But try to avoid including things that are more likely to draw a veto. There are plenty of budget items (entitlements, Social Security, and military, even though the latter might have an impact on my employment) that need reformed. Don't just gut the parts the Democrats like.

13. Make it at least revenue neutral. If they're serious about dealing with the deficit and debt rather than just using it as a talking point, it'll take both spending reforms and taxes. Any revenue increase in this should be marked to specifically be used to pay down the debt, not for any other use.

Daryl wrote:Interesting wish list. Obviously the US government should do what it believes is best for the US.

From an outside perspective several points seem strange.

Number 8 of voting down every left wing judge that Obama appoints, begs the question of why would a centre right president appoint left wing judges anyway?

.

Ummm Obama's not center right, he's a far left ideologue. He is a true believer and deeply believes in his far left ideology. And based on his post election press conferences, he is living in his own little bubble. He may be living on his own planet!

From Politico:

What he said: “So, to everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”

What he meant: Republicans, don’t even try to pull the ‘mandate’ card on me. Hardly anybody voted in this election.

What he said: “Everybody in this White House is going to look and say, all right, what do we need to do differently? But the principles that we’re fighting for — the things that motivate me every single day and motivate my staff every day — those things aren’t going to change.”

What he meant: Thanks for your advice, everyone. I’m good.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/p ... z3IOGE09jJ

So Obama has no intentions whatsoever of working with Republicans, after all he is Christ reborn and if those foolish peasants who voted don't see that, they have been deceived by the forces of evil. With that attitude he's very likely to continue to attempt to appoint far left judges etc, if anything he'll go more far left than he's been previously.

And he's been hinting that he's just going to unilaterally start running the government King style, since all this Democracy business hasn't been working for him. Over the past few decades power has been drifting toward the executive from the legislative branch. This may motivate the legislative to start pulling it back. Right George III?

I do agree with numbers 12 and 13, although the revenue neutral part would not address the deficit.

Revenue neutral is about the best we can hope for with these clowns in Washington.. What has happened in the past with reform efforts is that the rate cut gets passed by all the crony capitalist exemptions etc that are supposed to pay for it stay in place. Basically someone has bribed (sorry not a bribe a campaign contribution) a powerful congressman or 10 to put it in there in the first place. If that entity still wants it, they just bribe (sorry, donate) again.

Starsaber wrote:My thoughts. Note that I am very much against political parties, but tend to agree with Democrats a bit more. The system is extremely broken right now and I know most politicians don't really want to fix it.

1. Don't do this without it being in the same bill as a new proposal to address the very real problems the ACA was designed to deal with. It may be better to just address certain problems while leaving the pieces people like intact.

They campaigned on Obamacare repeal in all 50 states, so they basically have to make the attempt. It will be purely symbolic though as they'll never be able to get enough votes to overturn a veto

In 2016 though, your strategy could work. The repeal and replace strategy would also work. They both wind up in the same place. I tend to favor the later as Obamacare was so poorly written that it would be a mess to fix every single spot that is bad. It'd be easier to write a set of new bills. I also prefer a set of bills to comprehensive bills due to overcomplexity failure syndrome.

2. They're politicians. Of course they'll make unforced errors.

True

3. That's what their job is supposed to be. Represent ALL of their home district, not just their party.

True and it's about time they learned that.

4. How will a pipeline to move Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico where it can be shipped overseas help make us more energy independent?

Canada is better than Saudi Arabia. Also there is a new proposed route that goes through our Montana/North Dakota oil fields as well.

The refineries are there. They are expanding refinery capacity in Billings MT etc, but most of the refinery capacity for the entire country is in the gulf.

I believe the original plan took it over the aquifer that provides most of the water to where we grow most of our food.

That is an important point. If there are problems with the route, the design should be changed.

Pipelines may be more reliable than other techniques, but consider both the possibility of accidents and the possibility of a terrorist attack/sabotage.

Terrorists etc are a risk no matter what method we use. Imagine the catastrophe if they set off an IED under the engine of one of those mile long oil trains.

6. Requiring eVerify would be a good starting point.

Agreed, assuming the IT types have gotten the bugs out of the system.

7. Another thing I don't know too much about, but if we do any trade deals, word them in such a way that businesses can't exploit them to outsource jobs.

The past performance of State on job preservation is poor at best, which is why I'd want any deal to be negotiated by someone who actually understands business and whose mandate is primarily job preservation.

8. I would prefer them working with the president to actually get judges appointed rather than just stalling. The sign of a good compromise is that neither side is entirely happy with the outcome

That would work if Clinton was president. But compromise requires 2 sides and Obama will never compromise with the Republicans.

11. All regulations should have a sunset clause where they last for a decade or so, then have to be reapproved.

I like that idea!

There are a lot of regulations that do make sense, so do this with a scalpel, not a broadsword.

Those will be harder to fix and will take more time. And congress (either party) doesn't seem to be too interested in doing this. I fixed a dozen minor problems in legislation XYZ doesn't play nearly as well with the constituents as the grandstanding they usually do.

13. Make it at least revenue neutral. If they're serious about dealing with the deficit and debt rather than just using it as a talking point, it'll take both spending reforms and taxes. Any revenue increase in this should be marked to specifically be used to pay down the debt, not for any other use.

Given the past performance, I'd be happy with revenue neutral. It'd be nice if it was a revenue increase but given their past performance chances of that are slim and none.

What should the Republican's do now?

Stop behaving like spoiled children? Ie. quit ruining the US economy just to make sure looks even worse than he manages perfectly fine himself?

12. Pass a budget and pass it on time

13. Corporate Tax reform


There is support for this on both sides of the aisle as it should help jobs. Negotiate with Democratic Senators to form a veto proof majority in order to remove corporate tax loopholes put in over the years to benefit the crony capitalists, while lowering the nominal rate.

Remove tax loop holes? Republicans? Are you joking or something?

Right now the republicans essentially live by the orders of the "crony capitalists". Oh there´s several reps that want otherwise, but they´re so far from a majority they´re going to need most of the dems in support, even if they come up with the best "fix" anyone ever seen that´s not likely to happen.

Any bill should be designed to be revenue neutral.

Why? US national finances are a total disaster, you either start fixing them soon or there will be no way to fix them EVER.

And that means either cutbacks the like USA has never seen before(which USA cannot afford because this craps economic activity), or increased taxes.

1. Repeal Obamacare

That would be stupid, UNLESS they produce an alternative. And eh, the reps coming up with a better system for ~public healthcare?
Nah, not bloody likely(which is weird since on local/regional scale, there already are some functional systems suggested/running coming from republicans, but apparently, getting to national scale suddenly makes any such suggestions pariah).

the left leaning media will be out for blood.

What left leaning media? USA only has rightwing and extreme rightwing, with a few small splatters of relatively neutral/centrist.

3. Make a big point of paying attention to their home districts


Eric Cantor is a lesson that shouldn't be forgotten soon. There are NO safe districts for Republicans anymore. Moderate districts are in danger from Democratic challengers, conservative districts are in danger from Tea Party challengers. They need to pay attention to the fundamentals of politics 101, the voters elect you. They need to at least do a convincing job of pretending to care about them.

Says a bit on the level of expectations even a fairly hardcore supporter like you have on them.

5. Block the EPA from issuing carbon regulations.

Ignore a problem and hopefully it goes away by itself. Oh right, you continue to make the problem worse so it most definitely wont go away on its own. Great thinking.

Just blocking something like that without doing something else instead is ostridgestyle stupid.

You can argue the fine points and details as much as you want, but simple facts is that pollution is seriously hurting the environment, and USA stands to loose anything from 20-50% of its agrarian output in just the next few decades if aridification continues as it has been going.

However a good trade deal could help the economy. So Republicans could work a deal with Obama to select someone outside of the Washington establishment to negotiate. Trade really isn't the area of expertise of politicians, they need an experienced, highly effective businessman that Obama would accept as an envoy. Warren Buffet or Bill Gates perhaps?

And when was the last time USA actually even tried to get a GOOD trade deal?
If the politicans rule, you MAY get something good for the nation, if the businessmen rule, you MAY get something good for business, but you can betcha that that business isn´t going to bring money to USA.

8. Vote down every single left wing judge Obama appoints

And this is one reason the US political system is sooo damn broken. Sheesh, it´s like something taken from a really bad novel about political intrigue in a fictional dystopia.

Getting GOOD judges appointed, oh who cares as long as we get OUR judges there so we can push our own agendas even more extremely.

It´s sickening actually how partisan your system is.

10. Pass the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act

That may sound like a great idea, but i would be very wary. Last place i saw something similar made law, administrative costs skyrocketed, spending that needed to be done quickly was often delayed(increasing final costs, sometimes drastically) and generally causing far more problems than its worth.

11. Work on easy regulatory reform

Oh definitely YES. Don´t expect it to really happen though(or at least not to happen in a generally good and sweeping way). Too much of that stuff is more or less linked to stuff aiding in tax evasion and in getting around limits and restrictions or even to avoid prosecution.

And to make matters worse, there´s lots of politicians on BOTH sides that gets funding or support from people who want their little pet regulations kept.

It might still be doable, but chances are not great.

Tenshinai wrote:

Any bill should be designed to be revenue neutral.

Why? US national finances are a total disaster, you either start fixing them soon or there will be no way to fix them EVER.

And that means either cutbacks the like USA has never seen before(which USA cannot afford because this craps economic activity), or increased taxes.

We're so far down the hole at this point that it's going to take both, and neither side seems willing to accept that.

Any bill should be designed to be revenue neutral.


Why? US national finances are a total disaster, you either start fixing them soon or there will be no way to fix them EVER.

And that means either cutbacks the like USA has never seen before(which USA cannot afford because this craps economic activity), or increased taxes.

We're so far down the hole at this point that it's going to take both, and neither side seems willing to accept that

I'd prefer increased revenue as well. But based upon past performance of BOTH parties it is incredibly unlikely to happen. Revenue neutral is the best we can realistically hope for.

The big problem with the corporate tax structure is the unfairness of the system. We have the highest nominal rates in the developed world. However companies never pay the nominal rates, they use deductions, exemptions etc to pay a much lower rate. Big companies with the ability to hire fantastic tax accountants and the ability to bribe (sorry, donate to the campaigns of) politicians get a significant reduction in the actual rate. While smaller corporations without those resources pay much closer to the nominal rate. That tends to disadvantage small corporations relative to large ones. Revenue neutral corporate tax reform, merely evens the playing field.

Remove tax loop holes? Republicans? Are you joking or something?

Right now the republicans essentially live by the orders of the "crony capitalists". Oh there´s several reps that want otherwise, but they´re so far from a majority they´re going to need most of the dems in support, even if they come up with the best "fix" anyone ever seen that´s not likely to happen.

Actually your info is a bit outdated. Republicans used to be the party of crony capitalists. However the Democrats have now taken over that position. Basically, the Democrats favor big government and the crony capitalists want to misuse government in an anti-competative fashion. The bigger the government, the easier it is to do this. So the crony capitalists and the Democrats both have a mutual interest in maximizing the size of government.

1. Repeal Obamacare


That would be stupid, UNLESS they produce an alternative. And eh, the reps coming up with a better system for ~public healthcare?
Nah, not bloody likely(which is weird since on local/regional scale, there already are some functional systems suggested/running coming from republicans, but apparently, getting to national scale suddenly makes any such suggestions pariah).

Ummm. You realize that Obamacare isn't anywhere close to single payer, right? I know you don't like US healthcare but Obamacare is a horrible mess that actually makes US health care WORSE than it was before it was implemented. .

the left leaning media will be out for blood.


What left leaning media? USA only has rightwing and extreme rightwing, with a few small splatters of relatively neutral/centrist.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN lean left
MSNBC, NPR, NY Times are very left
FoxNews, Wall Street Journal lean right
Most talk radio is very right

Relative to the positions of the US electorate.

However a good trade deal could help the economy. So Republicans could work a deal with Obama to select someone outside of the Washington establishment to negotiate. Trade really isn't the area of expertise of politicians, they need an experienced, highly effective businessman that Obama would accept as an envoy. Warren Buffet or Bill Gates perhaps?


And when was the last time USA actually even tried to get a GOOD trade deal?
If the politicans rule, you MAY get something good for the nation, if the businessmen rule, you MAY get something good for business, but you can betcha that that business isn´t going to bring money to USA.

The past performance of the politicians has been lousy, so I certainly don't want THEM in charge, as you yourself noted "when was the last time the USA even tried to get a GOOD trade deal".

Buffett and Gates have reputations of caring for people. Both have spent 100s of millions doing so. And both are proven successful businessmen that understand business and who will understand the job implications of every line in a trade treaty. With them or with someone like them in charge maybe we'll get a decent deal for a change. But we need to be careful who is picked, I wouldn't trust Jack Welch for example.

8. Vote down every single left wing judge Obama appoints


And this is one reason the US political system is sooo damn broken. Sheesh, it´s like something taken from a really bad novel about political intrigue in a fictional dystopia.

Getting GOOD judges appointed, oh who cares as long as we get OUR judges there so we can push our own agendas even more extremely.

Ummm. You seemed to miss the part about APPROVE any MODERATE judges Obama appoints.

11. Work on easy regulatory reform


Oh definitely YES. Don´t expect it to really happen though(or at least not to happen in a generally good and sweeping way). Too much of that stuff is more or less linked to stuff aiding in tax evasion and in getting around limits and restrictions or even to avoid prosecution.

And to make matters worse, there´s lots of politicians on BOTH sides that gets funding or support from people who want their little pet regulations kept.

It might still be doable, but chances are not great.

Some reform is more difficult than others, due in part to the reasons you cite. However some is outdated enough that it's supporters no longer care. Republicans might as well get rid of those easy wins.

Look, they'll almost never be able to do anything major while Obama is president. They can only do things with such overwhelming approval that they can get veto proof majorities. Realistically there are very few big policies (Keystone being an exception) that have that level of bipartisan support. So they need to focus on what they can do.