Other days he simply channels Democrats' talking point du jour.
Today, for instance, he marks the failure of the congressional super committee. On the left side of the panel stands . . .
. . . an anthropomorphic donkey, his face showing puzzlement. El burro's hand is stretched toward the humanoid elephant on the right side of the panel, as if to negotiate. But the elephant refuses, saying, "I can out-negotiate you with both hands tied behind my back."
The joke is that the elephant's hands really are tied, by a diminutive human figure wearing a button that identifies him as Grover Norquist. Mr. Norquist is holding a document titled "No Tax Pledge."
The intended point is that the Democrats on the committee were ready to deal, but the Republicans were blocked by the nefarious Mr. Norquist and his famous tax pledge.
Where to begin?
The only folks on the committee who made a firm offer -- one that included higher tax revenues -- were Republicans. Mr. Norquist and Tea Party types objected mightily, by the way.
Democrats made demands but made no offer or counteroffer of their own, keeping with Senate Democrats' refusal -- 900 days and counting -- to pass a federal budget. The open secret is that they could not agree, even among themselves, on a plan to reduce the deficit.
Mr. Anderson's point, in other words, is based on a false premise. To compound the offense, his cartoon is not funny.
As on so many issues, the thing to read is today's Wall Street Journal editorial on the failure of the committee. It starts by responding to the reliable left's Norquist talking point:
So it's all Grover Norquist's fault. Democrats and the media are singing in unison that the reason Congress's antideficit super committee has failed is because of the conservative activist's antitax spell over Republicans.
Not to enhance this Beltway fable, but thank you, Mr. Norquist. By reminding Republicans of their antitax promises, he has helped to expose the real reason for the super committee's failure: the two parties disagree profoundly on a vision of government.
Democrats don't believe they need to do more than tinker around the edges of the entitlement state while raising taxes on the rich. Republicans think the growth of government is unsustainable and can't be financed no matter how much taxes are raised.
Sounds like we need an election.
From there, it just gets better. A couple of snips:
The abiding reality of American politics is that substantial change in Washington is impossible without Presidential leadership. And Mr. Obama does not want to lead on reforming entitlements or reducing the deficit. He is making clear he is running for re-election on a platform of conslidating the expansion of government of his first two years and raising taxes to finance it.
. . . . Mr. Obama knew that Republicans couldn't agree to [$1 trillion in tax increases] after winning election on a promise not to raise taxes. But $1 trillion became the marker that Democrats on the super committee insisted was the price of admission for all but token spending cuts. . . .
As for the alleged tyranny of Grover, Republicans on the committee explicitly risked his wrath by putting tax revenue increases on the table. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey offered $500 billion in revenues . . . but cutting deductions mainly for the wealthy.
Democrats rejected the offer . . . .
In the end Republicans had to choose between a $1 trillion tax hike that would hurt a sputting economy while splintering the GOP less than a year before a huge election, or let an automatic spending cut of $1.2 trillion over 10 years begin [read beginning] in 2013. The sequester is the better option.
. . . .
Much of the world, and especially the press corps, will look at this failure and wail about the "dysfunction" in Washington. And it is pathetic that Congress couldn't agree to cut even a single dime from the projected $45 trillion in spending over 10 years. But this is the product of divided government and a clash of political visions. Unlike Bill Clinton in 1996, President Obama is unbowed by his party's defeat in 2010 and is determined to reclaim his mandate to expand government next year.
Democrats are confident they can blame Republicans for the failure and ride their president's class war campaign to victory. Republicans have to counter with a message of economic growth and sensible reforms of our government institutions so the U.S. [read United States] doesn't end up like Europe.
This is for voters to decide. Let's have it out.
(Editorial, "Thank You, Grover Norquist," Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2011 (emphasis added))
The editorial is good, but it's hard to beat this from John Podhoretz, which comes to the same conclusion:
The supercommittee wasn't a failure. It was a success, despite what everybody has said, is saying and will continue to say.
The supercommittee triumphed in accomplishing what it was truly intended to accomplish.
It was created to kick the can down the road. The only thing that mattered was that it come into existence, and it did. Its invention made increases in the debt ceiling possible through the end of President Obama's term.
Oh, the supercommittee's putative purpose was to find massive spending cuts and tax hikes acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans. . . .
That scenario was a transparent absurdity. Indeed, it was so absurd that committee members couldn't even go through the motions of pretending to fulfill it. Politico's Mike Allen informs us that the supercommittee never actually met during the month of November.
Let me repeat that: As the deadline of Thanksgiving rapidly approached, the supercommittee members couldn't be bothered to sit in the same room together.
. . . .
That debate is not something 12 members of Congress can resolve, even if they lock themselves in a small room for months on end. It is a matter for the American people to resolve. And resolve it they will. Next year.
(John Podhoretz, "They didn't fail -- they succeeded in doing nothing," New York Post, November 22, 2011)
Comments