In a previous post about Congress and Parkinson's Law, the point was made that Congress seemed to be filling in the extra time it has to deal with the debt ceiling issue by playing "gotcha" partisan politics. That is, both parties, in order to embarrass the other side, have been playing to their voter bases by forcing votes on proposals that have little or no chance of becoming law.
But Congress may be forced to confront some real issues before it takes its month-long summer vacation beginning August 8.
Both Democrats and Republicans, with some GOP exceptions, are in general agreement that the debt ceiling will have to be raised above the existing $14.3 trillion cap in order to avoid a federal financial default and bring on another worldwide financial crisis. A week ago the issue seemed to be safely in the hands of Vice President Biden and a bipartisan congressional group, the objective being to work out a mutually acceptable deal. The group includes House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. The general outline of a deal that seemed to be evolving was that the debt limit would be raised, but without a fixed figure stated as yet; an agreement to do some more spending cuts, also undetermined at this early stage of negotiations; and a longer-term framework for deficit reduction.
This would moot important parts of the so-called Ryan budget for fiscal 2012 which begins Oct. 1 and was passed by the House last month. That budget called for about $5 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years with major savings coming from the restructuring of medicare and medicaid which account for much of the government's red ink. There was no prospect that Ryan's budget would get Senate approval and would certainly never escape a presidential veto. Also, over the Easter recess Republican lawmakers were backing away from the Ryan plan after getting an earful of opposition back home from the elderly and elderly to-be about the GOP plan to get rid of medicare as it now operates. With such dim prospects for the GOP budget plan, it seemed that the Biden group would stick with the debt level-spending cuts as stated above, leaving the big decisions on health care to be taken up after the 2012 presidential election.
Into this seemingly agreeable atmosphere of conflict resolution stepped House Speaker Boehner who threw a grenade that has the ability to resurrect the bitter partisanship we experienced in early spring when Congress finally dealt with closing out the fiscal 2011 budget, six months after the budget year began. What Boehner did was, in effect, to say "Whoa, slow down," we're not going to accept any deal on increasing the debt limit unless it includes TRILLIONS of dollars in spending cuts, without specifying the time frame for the reductions.
To do this would require Congress and President Obama to deal with the big ticket health care programs now, not after next year's elections. This could be finessed by dealing with these issues as part of the 2012 budget rather than be part of the debt ceiling issue. If Boehner's declaration becomes the operational GOP map for resolving the debt ceiling issue, then we are in for some very bitter politics in the weeks ahead. The expanded time contemplated in Parkinson's Law will be filled with clash and clang, to the barricades politics not the "gotcha" game that is now underway.
The first question is, however: Is Boehner serious or is he once again playing to the fiscal conservatives/tea party element of the House GOP. He did this before with the 2011 budget fight so a reprise of that political ploy would come as no surprise. Boehner said some time ago that it was essential to raise the debt ceiling to avoid the really bad fiscal consequences of not doing so. So once again, the question: "Will the real John Boehner please stand up?"
While Boehner is talking trillions in spending cuts, the Democrats have targeted big oil for a $21 billion tax increase, a proposal that runs directly counter to the bedrock GOP philosophy of opposition to any tax increases. And the Democratic Senate may again try to put immigration reform on the legislative calendar, an issue the GOP would like to avoid since their basic anti-immigration reform stand jeopardizes any chances they may have for picking up Hispanic votes.
As said in several previous postings on various subjects -- stay tuned.
Sounds like election year politics, all right. Play for the peanut gallery; the country be damned.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cosmo. It is funny that important issues like Medicaid reform are held off until after the 2012 elections. If that does not scream politics before the country I do not know what does. Done right I think immigration reform could help whichever party tackles it. The border does need to be closed but beyond that reform is about fixing the sysrtem to create a better visa program and enable immigrants to get jobs. I heard Senator Kyle of Arizona describe the immigration situation as a whole bunch of faucets and pipes leaking in your house. You do not go grab towels first to clean it up. First you fix the leak.
ReplyDeleteCosmo
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay in responding but we were on the road.
I'm shocked, shocked that you would think Congress would play politics while the country burned.
Jeffrey
ReplyDeleteLike I told Cosmo, we were on the road so there was a delay in responding.
It could turn out the Congress and the administration will confront medicare and medicaid before 2012 but I'm doubtful. The problem is that there is always an election just two years off and it becomes the serial excuse for doing nothing. But both are problems that require attention now, now after the next, or the next, or the next election.
As to immigration, I would like to see both the comprehensive reform and DREAM acts put into law but it seems unlikely that both will happen and perhaps a long shot that DREAM will get done. Obama was right when he said no how much you do to add border guards and spend more money, there will always be those opposed to immigration reform who will scream for protecting the border first. When Kyl says something you can be sure there's another side to the story. He's a "protect the border" guy who simply doesn't want to do any kind of immigration reform. The saving grace is that he is not seeking re-election next year.
I certainly don't think that the new health care law is going to help the budget and maybe we should get rid of it. How great can it be when 20% of last months waivers came out of Nancy Pelosi's district, an avid supporter of the health care law. If it is so great then how come everybody wants to get out of having to comply with thse waivers.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the border needs to be secured before immigration reform can be seriously addressed otherwise you just keep having more illegal immigrants flooding into the country and nothing ever gets solved.