Country Thinker Exactly Who is Going to “Pull” Romney to the Right?

If you believe Romney is a fiscal conservative…

There is a fairly consistent narrative about Mitt Romney among conservative Republicans. Yes, he was uncomfortably liberal while in Massachusetts politics. Yes, he has vacillated on a lot of policy positions over the years. Yes, conservatives have had to pull him to the right throughout the campaign. But, it is argued, conservatives in Congress (particularly the House) will force conservative principles on Romney that he might not have otherwise. And, of course, he will be much better than Obama! (I have to cover my eyes and shake my head when I hear that claim.)

The biggest flaw in the narrative, though, is that Republicans in Congress will force conservative principles on Romney. In order for that to happen, the Republicans will themselves have to discover conservative principles first. They most definitely have not. They want to spend money they don’t have just as badly as Democrats; just on a different list of priorities. And, of course, Republicans want to run our healthcare system just as badly as Democrats; just on their own terms.

Sure, the House passed “cut-cap-and-balance,” but that was a dog and pony show if you’ve ever seen one. As I’ve written before, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell they would have passed it if they thought the Senate would go along. It was political theater to entertain GOP voters, and nothing more.

Consider that House Republicans recently voted to increase defense spending. As I’ve also written before, you cannot get anywhere close to balancing the budget without significant cuts to the defense budget. As Senator Jim DeMint—one of the few members of Congress who is getting better with age (because he finally started taking Ron Paul seriously)—has said there is a difference between defense spending and military spending. Fiscal conservatives focus on the former, most Republicans on the latter.

So which should we take seriously, the House vote on cut-cap-and-balance, or to increase military spending? You’re gullible if you believe cut-cap-and-balance represents the real heartbeat of the GOP-controlled House.

Not convinced? Consider House GOP Abandons Fiscal Conservatism from Richard Viguerie at Conservative Headquarters:

[T]he establishment GOP has abandoned any pretense of cutting spending . . . Witness this year’s Energy and Water Appropriations Act (H.R. 5325) which contains more spending than last year’s bill. Conservatives offered amendment after amendment to reduce spending in the bill, only to be shot down when the leadership would not support them.

So precisely who is going to “pull” Willard Mitt Romney to the right if he is elected? A handful of fiscally conservative Republican outliers who have 1% spending cuts shellacked 3-to-1 in the House vote? Or Spendicans like John Boehner and Eric Cantor? Given that Romney was campaigning with John Boehner in Ohio this weekend, we have our answer. Even if you’re a Republican loyalist you have to see that there will be no “pulling Romney to the right” from the House.

“But Mitt Romney has endorsed Paul Ryan’s budget plan!” some will plead. That’s my point exactly. As Matt Welch noted here, the Ryan plan raises spending from $3.6 trillion up to $4.9 trillion over the next ten years (this year’s dollars), and doesn’t come anywhere close to balancing the budget. Given that we’re at the edge of a fiscal cliff, it’s hard to call the Ryan plan anything other than completely inadequate.

And are things any better in the Senate? Not a chance. I once held high hopes that Marco Rubio would be a strong fiscal conservative in the Senate, but it took less than a year for him to be hopelessly corrupted by the Washington spend-fest. As The Wall Street Journal reported here, the freshman RINO Senator (along with 15 other Spendicans) voted with his Democratic colleagues for huge sugar cane subsidies, reflexively bowing to special interests like a good Republican.

And what about health care reform? There’s an urban legend that Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare, and some actually believe Romney when he says it. But as I have written before, Republicans—including Romney—are angling for incremental changes to the bill, not repeal. And voilá, The Wall Street Journal rides to the rescue again, reporting in its editorial GOPCare that much of the Republican Congress is in favor of exactly that:

A sizable cargo cult within the GOP wants to preserve some Affordable Care Act provisions and favors passing stand-alone bills reinstating them if necessary. Tom Price of Georgia and Phil Roe of Tennessee—both physicians among the House’s health-care leaders—held a press conference last week endorsing this “keep the good stuff” approach.[1]

In other words, one of the first Republican moves amid an historic constitutional ruling and thunderclap political victory would be the remarkable feat of protecting the entitlement they’ve now spent years castigating and promising to repeal in toto. Concessions on this scale make zero political sense—never mind the economics, which are much worse . . .

. . . Despite claiming that government mandates distort markets and drive up the cost of insurance, the GOP would resurrect the under-26 mandate. This was part of the party’s official “alternative” to ObamaCare in 2009 and some Members want to lift it to age 31—honestly.

Repealing ObamaCare was always going to be a huge political challenge. With many Republicans jumping into the “modify” bandwagon, there is no way the Romney could ever round up the votes to repeal even if he wanted. My guess is that he’s breathing a sigh of relief that he won’t have to pretend to repeal, and will move directly to modifying the existing law.

I believe actions speak louder than words. Based on actions, Congressional Republicans are no more fiscally responsible than their Democratic colleagues. And, based on the common narrative about Mitt Romney, these are the folks who are supposed to “pull Romney to the right” and force fiscal discipline on him if the unthinkable happens and he is sworn into office in January.

But first Republicans would need actually to be fiscally responsible. They most definitely are not.

As I’ve said before, this country is in deep trouble if either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama wins in November. If Governor Gary Johnson doesn’t have a chance, then November’s vote is just a matter of choosing who’s in control of the White House when the ship sinks.

End Note

Does Mitt Romney need to be “pulled to the right” fiscally? Undoubtedly he does. As Matt Welch observed in the artilce linked above:

Mitt Romney campaigned his way to the nomination not by embracing tough-minded fiscal reform, but by running to President Obama’s left on Medicare cuts, to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s left on Social Security, and to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s right on military spending. If you aren’t talking about the big three growth areas of the federal budget, you are not a credible budget-balancer, let alone a cutter. And if you can’t screw up the courage to discuss such things in a GOP primary campaign after nearly four years of calamitous and unpopular economic policy, when exactly are you planning to bring it up?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: With the anticipated makeup of Congress we can expect over the next four years, deficits will run higher under Romney than Obama, especially if Republicans gain control of the Senate.

This article is also published at The Country Thinker.