Washington Post (Right Turn)
By Jennifer Rubin
April 2, 2014
With
the odds rising that the Republicans will capture the Senate majority,
you hear voices on the right and the left bemoan the potential change in
majority as a sort
of political white elephant. “Ah, they’ll let the crazies loose,”
predict liberals. Meanwhile, conservatives fret: “What if all we do is
fight?”
We
start with the simple premise that it is always better to win than lose
in politics. It may soothe one’s bruised ego or calm jangled nerves to
think otherwise, but
with victory comes the opportunity to govern, shape the political
landscape, change the direction of the debate and lay the groundwork for
future elections. And while Congress often finds it difficult to seize
the spotlight the moment the 2014 election is
over — most especially if it is another “shellacking” of the Democrats
by a revived GOP — President Obama turns from a weak and damaged leader
to an irrelevant lame duck.
Aside
from blocking unqualified and partisan judges and conducting vigorous
oversight, a GOP Senate majority would have an immediate impact on
foreign policy. Winning
the Senate means the possibility for a severe sanctions regimen for
Iran when the interim deal runs out in July, more robust funding of
national security, action against the pro-Castro and repressive
Venezuela regime, a series of measures to reaffirm and strengthen
our ties to Eastern Europe, and reexamination of our policy (or lack
thereof) in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. Could the president
veto legislation? He could try, but many positions and concerns voiced
by Republicans about the Obama foreign policy
are shared by Democrats. Some action would survive a presidential veto
and, in any event, action on all these fronts would push the
administration to beef up its approach to national security in its last
two years.
On
the domestic front, the challenges are greater, but with the ability to
steer legislative outcomes more to its liking, the GOP would be able to
pass wildly popular
measures (e.g. domestic energy development) and a slew of commonsense
pro-jobs measures that already have passed the House (e.g. job training
reforms, labor regulation tweaks to allow flexible work schedules). It
would also allow the party to take on more
controversial topics. Surely, the House and Senate could come up with
an Obamacare alternative and a select list of immigration reforms (e.g.
border security, visas for high-skilled workers, legal immigration
reforms and even legalization short of citizenship)
that could preserve GOP unity, demonstrate that the GOP has a proactive
agenda and put Democrats in the hot seat.
A
Senate majority would demand Republican restraint, discipline and
prioritization, all of which have been in short supply at critical
times. An inconclusive fight over
tax reform, an attack on domestic discretionary spending (which is a
pittance compared with entitlement spending) or pursuit of extreme and
partisan entitlement ideas (e.g. private accounts for Social Security)
would be a poor use of time and only give the
Democrats ammunition for 2016. In the broadest terms, Republicans
should steer clear of “take your medicine” legislation and pursue
pro-growth, positive items that will appeal to a broad cross-section of
voters.
A
Senate majority would be an opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate
they do have policies to reform health care and education, increase
upward mobility, spur job
growth and fix the immigration system. It is true that first the GOP
must win, but shortly thereafter it must successfully govern. It would
behoove elected leaders and policy wonks on the right to start thinking
seriously about an agenda that would be the
best opportunity in years to reintroduce and revitalize the GOP.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment