By Howard Foster -
Republicans have been in charge of both Houses of Congress for a year. The results: more spending, debt and as was reported on Friday, a doubling of the number of H-2B visas for foreigners. Not a single federal program has been cut. The leadership blames the President. Why bother passing laws that will be vetoed? Why, because that’s what you were sent there to do. That justification is also patently false. They have also taken the trouble to repeal Obamacare knowing full well that would be vetoed. The real reason: Republicans just don’t want confrontation. Had they repealed the Department of Education, for example, which the base would love to see happen, instead of renewing a modified version of No Child Left Behind, they would have to explain themselves to the rest of the country that believes the federal government has an important role in public education.
That would be a challenge and would surely alienate a significant portion of the electorate that is basically pleased with the role of the federal government, or if pressed, favors an expansion. It would make the 2016 campaign a real choice of two visions. The Republicans in power fear they will likely lose such a race. I can think of no other reason for what occurred in 2015. The leadership is right that cutting government programs is unpopular. Prior attempts in the Reagan and Clinton eras ended with shutdowns and Republicans depicted a s callous, etc.
But Sen. Ted Cruz wants the fight to be fought. He is proposing to eliminate the I.R.S. and the Departments of Education, Energy, H.U.D. and Commerce. https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/rein-in-washington/ No other candidate to my knowledge has made such a specific pledge. I’m not a social conservative, which seems to be the nature of the debate in Iowa. To my ears, Cruz sounds more like an evangelist than a politician at times. But when the candidates decamp for New Hampshire we will have a week focused on the role of the federal government.
Cruz’s manner is dour which seems to suit the mood of the country. Who can be optimistic about the future when 70% think we’re on the wrong track. Implicit n everything Cruz says is that we’re headed for catastrophe unless we elect him. Rubio has an intense but sunnier demeanor which appeals to more people. These two reflect the divide in Republican strategy. Cruz wants the fight. Rubio seems to understand electability is the highest priority. If the Republican electorate is as disgusted with the congressional leadership as it seems, then Cruz will emerge as the alternative to Donald Trump. I think Trump will be a disaster in the general election and want o cast my primary vote for whichever of these two can stop him. New Hampshire will make the decision for me.
