The vision thing

Looking towards the November elections, noted political watcher Charlie Cook predicts "there is a wave out there" and that "for Democrats, the House is, at best, teetering on the edge." Ragin' Cajun James Carville grimly warns that for Democrats to keep the House will require "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." Even Official Spinmeister Robert Gibbs concedes Republicans taking the House is a distinct possibility. And last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Republicans could even capture the Senate.

As someone broadly opposed to the Democratic/Obama agenda this should put a big smile on my face. But it doesn't, for at least two reasons:

• It doesn't much matter.

• The Republican leadership appears to lack any real vision, simply desiring power for its own sake.

With regard to the first point, Democrats have already passed the lion's share of their agenda with the $800+ billion stimulus package, health care legislation that takes a giant leap towards complete socialization of our health care system, and a byzantine finance reform bill which further empowers bureaucrats. While having Republican control of Congress is all well and good to help counter a Democratic President, it's a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

The bigger problem, however, is a myopic Republican leadership which defines itself chiefly in terms of its opposition to President Obama rather than through its own ideas. They are almost the exact definition of reactionary. The latest example of this inability to articulate an agenda comes courtesy of Talking Points Memo:

In a meeting with several reporters this afternoon, House Minority Leader John Boehner outlined the top three measures he'd pursue if he becomes Speaker of the House next Congress to create new jobs. But, those who thought he'd outline specific programs and how they would create jobs were disappointed with a familiar litany of wish-list items: repeal health care reform, eschew climate legislation, and renew the Bush tax cuts.

In other words, repeal a program that largely hasn't yet taken effect; prevent new legislation that is also not in effect; and keep a current tax structure in place. Step four: profit. Or jobs.

Is their assessment of Boehner wrong? He presents no fresh ideas, instead simply desiring a return to the status quo circa 2008. That's fine if you think that time period represented some pinnacle of public policy perfection, but I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of the country would disagree.

While the policy prescriptions offered by the Democrats may be stunningly awful, one cannot deny that they were a response to problems that are very real. Health care is a non-sensical mess with spiraling costs. The economy really is in the tank. The financial sector meltdown could have been avoided through better policy.

Where are the policy measures to address these issues? Where is the vision? Where is the alternative agenda?

What's utterly maddening is that it isn't as though solutions based on limited government -- the very thing which is supposed to differentiate the political right from the left -- don't exist. Plenty of ink has been spilled by various think tanks on how to boost economic competitiveness or improve health care. Individual Congressmen have even put forth proposals of their own, such as Rep. Shadegg's call for interstate competition in health insurance or Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to reform Social Security and Medicare.

Until the leadership gets on board with a commitment to smaller government and concrete steps of how to get there, however, none of this really matters. Instead they are content to simply point across the aisle, say "We're not them" and expect to be swept back into office. But what is the point of regaining control of Congress absent any ideas for moving the country forward? (Don't get me wrong, a do-nothing Congress has its virtues, but we have sauntered way too far down the statist trail to be content with the status quo)

Here are but a few ideas for getting the country back on the right track:

• Health care reform based on patient choice and the use of markets, along with a diminished role for insurance and elimination of the linkage between health care and employment.

• Privatization of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both of which played contributing roles in the financial crisis. A closer look should be taken at the role of regulation, such as licensing of the rating agencies and Basel requirements, with an eye towards their repeal.

• Tax reform based on a scrapping of the tax code and starting all over again. Pair the reduction of tax rates with the elimination of loopholes which distort economic decision-making and cost revenue.

• Pursue a broad agenda of deregulation and privatization where possible. Potential areas include scrapping the Jones Act, privatization of air-traffic control and deregulation in the airline industry, privatization of Amtrak and the US Postal Service to reduce travel and transportation costs and boost economic competitiveness.

• Ending all subsidies to energy companies while letting states decide whether to engage in offshore oil exploration. Eliminate all agriculture subsidies.

• Repeal CAFE standards in exchange for an increase in the federal gas tax.

Rather than engaging in a serious discussion of the very real challenges facing this country, however, we are simply treated to an exposition on why the other guys are wrong, along with trivial proposed spending cuts that are no more than rounding errors. While the Democratic agenda may prove to be so spectalularly misguided that voters revolt in favor of the Republicans in November, absent a competing vision it will simply be a bump in the road we are currently heading down.

Related: Chris Stirewalt says Republicans need to show the beef while Tad DeHaven notes attempts to co-opt the anti-spenders.