For more than three years, congressional Republicans have been eager, if not desperate, to push a simple message: the economy stinks and the public should blame President Obama.
Associated Press
Will GOP freshman Landry, Labrador, and others shift their party's 2012 economic message?
With the economy improving, however, some GOP lawmakers suddenly have a very different idea in mind for an election-year message.
In a break with party leaders, some House Republicans want the GOP to take credit for the improvement in the economy that has occurred under their majority.
It's an economic argument that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has thus far rejected, despite the fact that the unemployment rate has fallen by nearly a full percentage point in the nearly 15 months since Republicans took control of the House.
"I don't know why they don't make it, but I believe it's the truth," said freshman Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.). "I believe that if anybody's going to get a pat on the back for [lower] unemployment and the better economy, it's House Republicans, and not the president and not the Senate."
Landry's argument, giving House Republicans credit for the recent economic improvements, has apparently been endorsed by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and GOP economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, among others.
As a substantive matter, this pitch is rather silly, if not ridiculous. House Republicans haven't passed any major economic legislation, so there's nothing to take credit for, exactly. Indeed, throughout 2011, if one asked GOP officials why the economy was so weak, they'd point to taxes, "Obamacare," and regulations. But in 2012, tax rates remain the same; the Affordable Care Act remains in place; and the identical regulations are being enforced in identical ways. By Republican reasoning, the strengthening recovery should be literally impossible.
But even if we look beyond the substantive policy question, it appears congressional Republicans are approaching a fork in the road: do they embrace "the '96 strategy" or not?
Party officials appear divided on the question and there's no clear answer as to what they will, or even should, do.
The '96 strategy is pretty straightforward: in 1996, the congressional Republican majority decided it was more important to keep their majority than to fight an uphill battle to win the White House. George Will recently recommended the GOP pursue a similar, if not identical, tack in 2012 -- Barack Obama is likely to win a second term, he argued, so Republicans should focus on power on Capitol Hill.
If Republicans decide to shift their economic message -- from assigning blame for a bad economy to taking credit for an improving one -- it would be an explicit endorsement of the '96 strategy, effectively telling the GOP presidential ticket, "Good luck; you're on your own."
And why not? The prospects for Republicans winning the Senate are mixed, at best, and there's a chance Democrats can take back the House in November. If GOP lawmakers returned home and said, "Look at how much better the economy is now than it was a couple of years ago," Mitt Romney would be in a very difficult spot, but Republicans would probably improve their own re-election odds.
Indeed, there are already hints of a bizarre 2012 debate over who can credibly claim responsibility for the recent economic upswing: Democrats credit Obama; Romney credits Bush; and congressional Republicans want to credit themselves.
But if the national conversation accepts an economic recovery as a given, the only folks who'll struggle are those on the GOP ticket.
Leave a Comment:
I'm not sure Senor Etch-a-sketch would be disadvantaged by Republicans claiming credit for an improved economy. After all, Romney has acknowledged the improvement. His argument would merely evolve to "we need more (better targeted) tax cuts, even fewer public employees, fewer regulations, etc." He wouldn't need to do much sand-shaking to make that transition.
House Republicans are going to need to do a considerable amount of explaining just how they should be feted with appreciation for turning around the economy when this Congress has been the most unaccomplished and most inactive in decades. The House, controlled by John Boehner and Republicans, has passed no legislation and no substantive measures to boost the economy or create jobs. Their agenda has been to block President Obama's attempts at spurring economic recovery and job creation. So how should they get the credit? http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Only motivated voters will do the 'grunt work' to find out who is telling the truth, so unless the electorate votes the liars out, they have little motivation to tell the truth.
I know but, I wish people would realize how important this is. I think the people who were affected negatively by the GOP in 2008 are the ones who are doing the research. Others appear to be selfish. But, a lot of people don't like the constant arguing they hear which is why I beleive Obama ought to run as honest a campaign that he can. He should try not to have any negative ads. If he ran ads that reflected an America Dream that brought more hope rather than Doom and Gloom it would be beneficial. Think peace and positive messages..
You can't claim credit for the improving economy when you have passed no substantive economic legislation. They may try to claim the economy is bad because of Obama and it is improving because of the Republicans. They can't have it both ways. That inconsistency cannot be explained away to independent voters.
Nevertheless, they will try to have it both ways. They want to be rewarded for sitting on their hands, and the infuriating reality is that they will for the most part probably get that reward.
The only thing these GOPers have passed or proposed have been laws limiting what women can do for their personal health needs, and voter id laws. Please keep this in mind when voting for your favorite bullshooter.
I believe the GOP defense on their taking credit for an improved economy is that, just by being THERE, poised to roll back all the "damage" Obama has done, America is breathing easier. You know, like when you're on a subway next to some stranger wearing a hoodie and you just know he's up to know good, these effing goons always get away, and you don't have a gun to defend yourself, but then a couple of cops walk into the car, and you know you'll live to cower in fear another day. That's the GOP. According to the GOP.
I actually agree with that assessment, common sense aside.
Really, all the do-nothing GOP has to say is that by posturing, doing nothing, and otherwise threatening to shut down the government every six weeks, the GOP has restored "confidence" in "smaller government". Because Obama couldn't implement his job-killing, tax-raising, Anti-ChristRacialistKenyanCommieNaziIslamicist program, 'Merika has turned over a new leaf...
...Effed up, I know. But they gotta say somethin'...
The reason House Republicans cannot and will never be able to take any credit on this issue is because of the many, many times they doubled down with most Senate Republicans on fighting Obama on every single economic initiative he and the Democrats proposed. And did so in a very, very public way. Remember Senator Mitch McConnell: "Our primary goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term President".
Because House and Senate Republicans stood against everything so publicly, they could do nothing except propose outlandish things that could not and did not pass. And because they did nothing, President Obama moved to do the things he could.
Which means that he has done everything that has been done, and they have done nothing.
And they know it.
Maybe the way to point out the difference between Democratic control and Republican control is to list side-by-side not just all the legislation that became law, but ALSO all the bills passed which didn't make it past the Senate. People would be surprised at how much worthwhile legislation was obstructed by Republican filibusters, and how Republicans in charge were absentee legislators hardly worth their salaries, devoted to a few pointless symbolic bills to appease debase. So much for the "where are the jobs?" slogan that got them elected.
This is Deja-vu isn't it? I still hear Gingrich talk about him balancing the budget under Clinton. Are we expecting them to do any different this time around?