It seems that whenever Congress and President Obama cobble together major domestic legislation tailored to get bipartisan support the end result is a lopsided, so-called compromise victory for the GOP and the wealthy. This is the real outcome regardless of Democratic efforts to find some silver lining in the debt ceiling agreement. We hear some Democrats tout how they saved medicare, put the Pentagon budget on the line, and how they succeeded in avoiding another debt ceiling battle until after the 2012 election. But for the GOP, pushed by the tea party (TP) and fellow traveling kamikaze-like fiscal hawks, the victory was in the $2.1 - 2.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade while excluding any revenue increases by closing tax loopholes and tax give- aways to the wealthy and large corporations.
The last time "bipartisanship" blossomed so visibly was late last year in the special session of Congress following the huge GOP victory in the congressional elections which gave them control of the House and set the stage for this year's display of how broken the congressional branch of government really is. The 2010 special session preserved the Bush income tax cuts which particularly benefited the wealthy, along with aiding the wealthy in preserving the big benefits of the estate tax. This is not to say that President Obama and the Democrats got nothing out of the deal. The extension of benefits for the unemployed and the disguised stimulus of a one-year, 2 percentage point reduction in the social security payroll tax were also included in the fiscal package. Further extension of these Democratic pieces of the package were not included in the debt ceiling agreement just passed.
In this week's minimalist agreement the Democrats are quick to point out that tax reform and revenue increases are possible this fall. That's when a special 12-person "bipartisan" (again in quotation marks) congressional committee submits its vote-up-or-down proposal on a further increase of about $1.5 trillion to be added both to spending cuts and the debt ceiling This would be added to the approximately $900 billion provided in a two-step increase between now and the fall. Lots of luck. Any proposal from the special committee that includes new revenues that look like a tax increase has dim prospects of passing, at least in my opinion. As a side note, the establishment of a special committee further indicates how broken Congress is that it can't conduct its business through normal processes.
If the GOP could kill revenue increases in the deal just completed, there is no reason to believe it can't do the same this fall. Congressional rejection of the special committee proposal would trigger an across-the-board cut in spending, including a big reduction in the Pentagon budget but exclude cuts in medicaid and social security. The argument is made that the GOP may go for the special committee package to avoid cutting defense spending. But it should be noted that the tea party wants reductions in the Pentagon budget and the TP already has demonstrated how the TP tail can wag the GOP dog.
The upshot of the minimalist deal just signed into law is that it just kicks the can down the road. In 2013 this battle will have to be fought again and the President, whoever he or she may be, and Congress cannot continue to avoid the really big decisions needed to get the country's fiscal house in order. Such decisions could very well include ways to control social security and health care spending, as well as tax reform to increase revenues.
Also, keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012 which means a post-election lame duck session of Congress is again likely. The GOP will again seek to protect those in the top income brackets and the Democrats will take a stand on preserving the tax cuts for the middle class. The same positions were taken in the post-election 2010 special session and we saw how that turned out. The determining fact is that in these great taxing/spending battles, the GOP, stiffened by TP intransigence, seems willing to risk an economic debacle while the Democrats are not. Translated, this means the GOP can take a no compromise stand to get its way, maneuvering the Democrats into a so-called compromise that undermines the basic Democratic political ideology and alienates the progressive wing of the party while the GOP walks away with its ideology intact as it continues to pander to its extreme right wing base.
How many more "bipartisan" compromises can the Democrats afford?
This whole debacle has been tough to watch. But in the end neither side seems very happy with the results, but I guess that is the definition of compromise. In the end, I wonder where we stand. There is so much debate about whether we really do have spending cuts from the compromise bill and I'm hearing a lot about a second stimulus? More spending? Were the people not heard? Stop the out of control spending. Get rid of the duplication in government. We don't need 15 agencies all doing the same thing. And this whole thing will start again with the September 30th budget deadline debate looming.
ReplyDeleteAnd isn't it something that everything was "wrapped" up in time to save the 5 week vacation? Where did the August 2 deadline come from anyway? Wouldn't it have been more prudent to spend a few more days to have time to actually read the compromise bill? Harry Reid was more concerned about going home and seeing his pomegranate blossoms.
Carole
ReplyDelete"Debacle" indeed. The biggest thing we seem to agree on is that Congress apparently was more interested in its vacation than doing the right thing about the debt ceiling. What we needed was what Obama called the "grand bargain" which called for a longer term deal with much bigger cuts, along with new revenues to give some balance to an agreement. Instead Congress chose its usual route, politics before policy.
As to a new stimulus package, believe we part company on this. We desperately to get more money into the economy to create jobs if we are to avoid a second recession. There are two simple ways a stimulus could be put forth. One is the route that just ended with the Federal Reserve Bank buying up bonds to keep the interest rates low in hopes that would stimulate spending. No one can tell whether it worked or not. The other approach is for Congress to actually put up some money for an infrastructure program to directly create jobs. This take a while to get the effects and while it does create jobs, it is difficult to tell how much relief it gave. The argument is that the infrastructure stimulus used was not enough money, keeping in mind that of the $800 so-called stimulus package that was passed, only about a third of it went to infrastructure.
Don't ever think that Congress pays much attention to public opinion. The tea party types say that their election was the voice of the people demanding reduced spending and a smaller government. But polls over the summer clearly indicated that the public wanted a balanced approach on the debt ceiling bill; that is, cut spending but also raise revenues through tax increases, reform, or whatever you want to call it. The point is that lawmakers of both parties choose to interpret public opinion in whatever way it supports their own political choice.
And now we have the FAA debacle with Congress going on vacation and to hell with the 74,000 people who are out of work and lost revenues of about $1 billion a month because Congress didn't do its job before heading for the beach or going home to raise campaign money and politik.
Don't think a compromise by extortion is really compromise. The TP has taken Congress to a new low.
ReplyDeleteCosmo
ReplyDeleteIn this case compromise meant the Democrats gave away something big, revenue increases, while the Republicans gave away something small, not having another debt ceiling vote until after the presidential election. In any case, should have put "compromise" in quotation marks like I did "bipartisanship".
I have to say I am not happy with this administration and congress. How many times and for how long have we heard Obama say that he is going to focus on jobs? And then there is congress which goes on vacation without resolving the FAA problem. When is the leadership of this country going to stop worrying about their re-elections and time off and start focusing on the needs of this country? There are people who have been collecting unemployment for almost two years. We have more people on food stamps then at any other time in this country's history. Stop
ReplyDelete1. the political pandering
2. worrying about self-interests
3. the blame game
and start leading!
dpchuck
ReplyDeleteThe polls show you are not alone in your unhappiness, particularly with Congress which has the lowest approval rating since the question was asked -- 18 percent. And nothing could make it (meaning Congress) look worse than going on vacation while 74,000 people were out of work because Congress failed to do its job. On the FAA issue, my ideological persuasion has me putting most of the blame on the Transportation committee which wrote the House version which seemed clearly to be picking a fight with their opposite numbers from the Senate committee. But the Senate did not exactly cover itself in glory when it initially left the issue to be dealt with after the vacation. It was the pressure from Obama and Transportation Secretary LaHood, coupled with a public outcry, that forced them to complete the work. And then, as one more illustration of how the Congress operates through arcane rules, it took only two Senators to return to Washington to get the bill passed, at least a bill that will fund the FAA only until mid-September when the issue will come up again. The core issue is a dispute over labor rules on how to count the votes at elections to organize unions. The GOP, with its anti-labor stand, chose the usual path to solving congressional disputes, do it our way or else.
Congress is pathetic. Work on your final part. You may have the basis for several good bumper stickers.
We need to embrace Jeffersonian democracy - smaller government. There are over 600 federal agencies. Way too many! Carole must be right about all the duplicity.
ReplyDeleteDesertGirl
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how many agencies disappear in the spending cuts. Don't expect such during this round of cuts; maybe when they really do some serious cutting this will occur but whatever happens, remember, every agency represents someone's special interest so there will be great outcrying.