EGYPT AND POLITICAL INSTABILITY; DANTE AND THE BUDGET

Increasingly we read and hear that the Egyptian military which gained hero status in the ouster of President Mubarak has cooled toward the pro-democracy movement. It is increasingly seen as the protector of its own political dominance and biased toward more conservative political elements such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

But what else seems to be occurring, according to a recent column by David Ignatius, is increasing factionalizing of the country's politics. That is, the largest political block, the Brotherhood, is splitting into several groupings with different views on the role of Islam in national life and constitutional role. Likewise the pro-democracy movement is dividing into several parties in its fight against the Brotherhood. If Ignatius is correct, this factionalizing has a kind of "let a thousand flowers bloom" character to it and thereby strengthen Egypt politically through diversity.

But to this blogger there is a definite downside to such fragmentation of Egypt's politics. It lays the foundation for political instability, hardly what Egypt needs as the next stage in its revolution against autocracy. It would also be an obstacle to Egypt's need for economic recovery and growth.

A multiplicity of parties means government by coalition, which in and of itself sounds acceptable, but unfortunately often leads to instability in dealing with urgent national needs. Such factionalizing and instability was the core of France's governing problem after World War II with the 4th Republic which led to DeGaulle's own revolution to replace it with the 5th Republic led by a greatly increased power of the President. Having just gotten rid of an autocratic President, most Egyptians would hardly be ready for a presidential dominant system so soon. And it is difficult to keep count of the number of governments Italy has had in the post war period because of party splintering. Coalitions also may lead to governing control by the most extreme ends of the political spectrum. In Israel, for example. Prime Minister Netanyahu., himself a conservative, is pushed further to the right because his governing coalition is dependent upon the support from the small, most far right parties.

Given Egypt's need for internal political stability as a pre-condition for economic recovery and growth, it is difficult for me to see the plus side of so much factionalizing as described by Ignatius. Unsettled political conditions won't bring the tourists back and certainly won't attract needed foreign investment. Now to Washington.

-0-0-0-0-0

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Thus spoke Dante in the Divine Comedy: The Inferno regarding those at the threshold of entering hell. And thus it is with we mere mortals who seek to understand what goes on in Washington regarding the budget. Enough has been said about the pending final deal for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that this posting won't use the space for repeating the terms of the deal, except to say that the tentative agreement on a cut of $38 billion over the next six months is peanuts in terms of the overall problem of spending, deficits, and debt. Rather, this posting is to give just a glimpse into the hellish budgetary process and why the efforts of the average American to follow the action seem doomed.

As the Republican-Democratic bargaining proceeded much attention was given to the "riders" and the GOP's effort, urged on by the tea party and other spending hawks, to attach its social agenda to the budgetary process. This is hardly a new strategy but it became front and center because it was central to the Democratic strategy to blame the GOP for any government shutdown over social policy issues rather than spending itself. Boehner and the GOP countered with"nonsense". The central issue is that Democrats don't want to cut spending for their favorite programs. In fact, both parties are simply playing politically to their liberal-conservative bases. Now to a very arcane issue of the shootout.

There is an old saying that "all money is green". It never was and the current confrontation shows that there are shades of green. Dark green money is spending on the major entitlements of medicare, medicaid, and social security. For each the government will pay out whatever it costs to fund the retirement and health care programs. Then there is medium green money, so-called mandatory spending, which is money provided on a multi-year basis but with fixed amounts for each year. For example, federal aid for highways is mandated spending. That is, using hypothetical numbers, $5 billion is provided for year 1, $6 billion for year 2, and $7 billion for year three. The Democrats sought to load some of the cuts onto various mandatory spending programs. For example, cut $1 billion from year one of the highway as part of a package of reductions for the current fiscal year. But cutting that $1 billion leaves unaffected the $6 billion and $7 billion for years two and three. So the GOP pressed for more cutting from money that is light green -- the so-called discretionary funds that are provided on an annual basis. For example, cut the $4 billion community development block grant (CDBG) to just $1 billion. Thus, when CDBG funding is considered for the next year, the program base is just $1 billion with little prospect for getting more in a cut-spending atmosphere. More likely the next time the program would be ended completely.

The riders and medium green vs light green money is just part of the budgetary hell process and our ability to comprehend what's going on. The politics will become even more intense and vocal and public understanding more difficult when the spending issue turns to include finding a solution on how to cut the dark green money.

Sorry for the length of this posting, but the two subjects seemed to need some attention if only to add to the frustrations of trying to understand and judge what's going on in Cairo and Washington.