Here's what I don't want, and that is another iteration of same.
I'm already starting to hear it, and starting to see what the playbook will be, and the hypocrisy of it all turns my stomach.
The "iteration" has gone this way. The party in power runs the House and Senate like their own fiefdom, with stacked committee votes and a "suspension of the rules". This makes for starkly partisan bills which 50% of Americans not just oppose, but hate, and I'm talking about the 50%, since we are divided about 50/50, who are from or favor the minority party. If it's the Republicans in control, then inevitably there is the fiscal irresponsibility of tax cuts which are not offset by any budget cuts, i.e. any shrinking of the size of government, meaning that every dollar of "cut" is a dollar of additional "borrowing". You might even hear Republicans revive, "Read my lips - no new taxes," but you will never hear them say, "Read my lips - no new borrowing."
If it's the Dems who are in control, then inevitably there are more governmentally invasive solutions to national problems, some which require such invasion - arguably, something like the rules surrounding banks, investment banks, and derivatives following the financial crisis - and others which do not require such invasion, but where such invasion is simply the Dems preferred way of dealing with things (some would argue the healthcare bill meets this description). The Dems will vote to increase the benefits to - or at least not cut the benefits to - various entitlement programs, and yet they will not otherwise cut government to pay for the increases, or cut entitlement programs in order to make them more actuarily sound, favoring instead increases in entitlement taxes, which, of course, are transfers.
Dems will try to still beat their chest about being more fiscally responsible, and they will cite Bill Clinton. But following George W. Bush's presidency, and his runaway deficits, the Dems and Obama had an opportunity to become the party of fiscal discipline in the eyes of the American people for the next generation. And they blew it with the bailouts, the TARP, and their own lack of courage to cut government, seriously cut it, while putting the tax rates back where Bill Clinton had them, which was still lower than they had been for much of the nation's fiscally-sound history.
Basically, they have lost that claim with budget deficits which are now at levels George W. Bush never even contemplated (though a long way from exceeding George in total). And they are not going down. The Dems, further, are doing nothing to push them down, except initiate a commission to study the debt. Just WAIT till its recommendations come out. See if Pelosi and Reid (if they are still in charge) stick to their pledge to give whatever recommendations come out of that commission an up or down vote in the House and Senate. I bet they balk, and don't allow it. Or the Republicans balk, and try to stop it. Because those recommendations - I promise you - will recommend cuts EVERYWHERE to stem all the red ink. They will recommend an increase (and a significant one) in the qualifying age for Social Security. They will recommend an increase in the tax rate for Medicare, and a tightening of the qualifications for Medicaid. They will recommend significant weapons systems scrapped which the Pentagon has said for years they don't need, but whose congressmen and senators make sure continue to get their appropriation since made in their district. They will recommend a stark contraction of our military-base footprint around the globe, and just overall a defense budget which is no longer larger than all the other major military powers combined.
See if THAT gets an up-or-down-no-amendments-allowed vote in EITHER the House or Senate. If it does, I will buy you all dinner. Those of you who read and comment (haha..a shameless grab for commentors), the quality and actual delivery of such claim will come down to a certain geographical convenience and the size of my own deeply in-question budget. Ok, so there's probably no dinner. But, anyway, I don't have to worry, because it's not happenin'! Honestly, though, I hope it does. And I hope I'll be shelling out some dinner somewhere.
But I digress. And now I'm hungry.
My point is that the "iteration" is for the minority party to overblow the missteps and bad luck (Katrina, the oil spill) of the present time, claim that the majority is "out of touch" with the American people, and lastly, claim that "the majority is running this country into the ground with debt, and asking our grandchildren to foot the bill." Blech! I've heard that bullcrap SO many times. It alternates back and forth coming out of the mouths of either minority Republicans or minority Democrats. It's all bluster. It's all crap. And with each iteration, but for Bill Clinton, our debt gets worse, the bills which come out of Congress and get signed into law are to the liking of no more than 50% of the U.S. rather than 80% or more. And the majority treats our political institutions like their own little fiefdoms, while all along, centrists and reasonable thinkers retire and leave public life out of disgust and disenchantment.
I don't want the Republicans again in November. Are they going to fix anything? Why in God's name should I believe they will? I should much more likely believe that they will tax-cut us into deficits raging as furiously as are Obama's if not worse!
Both parties think borrowing is their own little perfect outlet! For Republicans, it means they can keep government humming and spending pretty much as it is without reforming anything and more importantly pissing anyone off with big cuts, while at the same time cutting taxes! It's their outlet for actually making that work while no checks bounce. Actually, fiscally, the Dems are still better than the Republicans, because they actually don't increase the size of government much more if any more than Republicans (Republicans expand government with defense spending, and Dems with social spending), but they also don't cut taxes, or not as deeply, so they thereby guarantee more of the federal government's spending is paid for, yet nowhere near enough.
Anyway, correct me if I am off-base on any of that. But I have seen this predictable cycle for so long...it goes all the way back to Reagan in '80. That's 30 years of this! It should look predictable by now!
The only fix for this is a constitutional amendment, a federal balanced-budget amendment. It would resemble balance-budget amendments for all the states which mandate that government be paid for with collected tax revenues except for a state of emergency declared by the governor. In this case, it would be a national emergency declared by the President. Well, needless to say, in the Supreme Court, very few things for which the federal government borrows currently would meet that test.
It's the only solution for both parties. Both need it. Both have shown they need it. America's fiscal future will look so much like Greece's or like Brazil's used to if we don't pass such an amendment. I am for whichever candidate or candidates campaign for such an amendment, for whichever party champions it. That will be my party, right there.
I'm already starting to hear it, and starting to see what the playbook will be, and the hypocrisy of it all turns my stomach.
The "iteration" has gone this way. The party in power runs the House and Senate like their own fiefdom, with stacked committee votes and a "suspension of the rules". This makes for starkly partisan bills which 50% of Americans not just oppose, but hate, and I'm talking about the 50%, since we are divided about 50/50, who are from or favor the minority party. If it's the Republicans in control, then inevitably there is the fiscal irresponsibility of tax cuts which are not offset by any budget cuts, i.e. any shrinking of the size of government, meaning that every dollar of "cut" is a dollar of additional "borrowing". You might even hear Republicans revive, "Read my lips - no new taxes," but you will never hear them say, "Read my lips - no new borrowing."
If it's the Dems who are in control, then inevitably there are more governmentally invasive solutions to national problems, some which require such invasion - arguably, something like the rules surrounding banks, investment banks, and derivatives following the financial crisis - and others which do not require such invasion, but where such invasion is simply the Dems preferred way of dealing with things (some would argue the healthcare bill meets this description). The Dems will vote to increase the benefits to - or at least not cut the benefits to - various entitlement programs, and yet they will not otherwise cut government to pay for the increases, or cut entitlement programs in order to make them more actuarily sound, favoring instead increases in entitlement taxes, which, of course, are transfers.
Dems will try to still beat their chest about being more fiscally responsible, and they will cite Bill Clinton. But following George W. Bush's presidency, and his runaway deficits, the Dems and Obama had an opportunity to become the party of fiscal discipline in the eyes of the American people for the next generation. And they blew it with the bailouts, the TARP, and their own lack of courage to cut government, seriously cut it, while putting the tax rates back where Bill Clinton had them, which was still lower than they had been for much of the nation's fiscally-sound history.
Basically, they have lost that claim with budget deficits which are now at levels George W. Bush never even contemplated (though a long way from exceeding George in total). And they are not going down. The Dems, further, are doing nothing to push them down, except initiate a commission to study the debt. Just WAIT till its recommendations come out. See if Pelosi and Reid (if they are still in charge) stick to their pledge to give whatever recommendations come out of that commission an up or down vote in the House and Senate. I bet they balk, and don't allow it. Or the Republicans balk, and try to stop it. Because those recommendations - I promise you - will recommend cuts EVERYWHERE to stem all the red ink. They will recommend an increase (and a significant one) in the qualifying age for Social Security. They will recommend an increase in the tax rate for Medicare, and a tightening of the qualifications for Medicaid. They will recommend significant weapons systems scrapped which the Pentagon has said for years they don't need, but whose congressmen and senators make sure continue to get their appropriation since made in their district. They will recommend a stark contraction of our military-base footprint around the globe, and just overall a defense budget which is no longer larger than all the other major military powers combined.
See if THAT gets an up-or-down-no-amendments-allowed vote in EITHER the House or Senate. If it does, I will buy you all dinner. Those of you who read and comment (haha..a shameless grab for commentors), the quality and actual delivery of such claim will come down to a certain geographical convenience and the size of my own deeply in-question budget. Ok, so there's probably no dinner. But, anyway, I don't have to worry, because it's not happenin'! Honestly, though, I hope it does. And I hope I'll be shelling out some dinner somewhere.
But I digress. And now I'm hungry.
My point is that the "iteration" is for the minority party to overblow the missteps and bad luck (Katrina, the oil spill) of the present time, claim that the majority is "out of touch" with the American people, and lastly, claim that "the majority is running this country into the ground with debt, and asking our grandchildren to foot the bill." Blech! I've heard that bullcrap SO many times. It alternates back and forth coming out of the mouths of either minority Republicans or minority Democrats. It's all bluster. It's all crap. And with each iteration, but for Bill Clinton, our debt gets worse, the bills which come out of Congress and get signed into law are to the liking of no more than 50% of the U.S. rather than 80% or more. And the majority treats our political institutions like their own little fiefdoms, while all along, centrists and reasonable thinkers retire and leave public life out of disgust and disenchantment.
I don't want the Republicans again in November. Are they going to fix anything? Why in God's name should I believe they will? I should much more likely believe that they will tax-cut us into deficits raging as furiously as are Obama's if not worse!
Both parties think borrowing is their own little perfect outlet! For Republicans, it means they can keep government humming and spending pretty much as it is without reforming anything and more importantly pissing anyone off with big cuts, while at the same time cutting taxes! It's their outlet for actually making that work while no checks bounce. Actually, fiscally, the Dems are still better than the Republicans, because they actually don't increase the size of government much more if any more than Republicans (Republicans expand government with defense spending, and Dems with social spending), but they also don't cut taxes, or not as deeply, so they thereby guarantee more of the federal government's spending is paid for, yet nowhere near enough.
Anyway, correct me if I am off-base on any of that. But I have seen this predictable cycle for so long...it goes all the way back to Reagan in '80. That's 30 years of this! It should look predictable by now!
The only fix for this is a constitutional amendment, a federal balanced-budget amendment. It would resemble balance-budget amendments for all the states which mandate that government be paid for with collected tax revenues except for a state of emergency declared by the governor. In this case, it would be a national emergency declared by the President. Well, needless to say, in the Supreme Court, very few things for which the federal government borrows currently would meet that test.
It's the only solution for both parties. Both need it. Both have shown they need it. America's fiscal future will look so much like Greece's or like Brazil's used to if we don't pass such an amendment. I am for whichever candidate or candidates campaign for such an amendment, for whichever party champions it. That will be my party, right there.
Joe -
Good article (as usual). Your balanced budget solution makes perfect economic sense.
But what do you suggest we do when the response to reduction or elimination of generous entitlements is riots and mayhem? What happens when we inform police and fire fighters that their unrealistic, unsustainable salaries and pensions will have to be significantly reduced?
How do we justify a balanced budget that almost certainly will have a disparate impact on certain subgroups within society?
How do we change an entitlement mentality that has been nurtured by the government (here and in Europe) for several generations?
If you have no answers to these questions or are unwilling to suggest answers, then you should run for political office.
Paul M.
Posted by: Paul M | June 03, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Clever, and point taken. Those are deep socio-governmental questions you pose.
I think some attempt at prediction though can be gleaned from other moments in history when entitlements were cut or altered significantly.
President Reagan, working with Speaker Tip O'Neill, in the 80s sometime, worked out a compromise to put Social Security on an actuarially sound footing (for a while). Part of that compromise was an increase in the retirement age for full benefits, and a cut in benefits for those who retired early. At the same time, it raised the payroll tax, and increased the amount of income eligible for the tax, i.e. the Social Security "threshold". So, with that compromise, the pain was spread around - cuts in benefits, a later retirement age, and a tax increase. And with that the program was solvent until relatively recently.
During the Clinton presidency, Welfare was slashed really quite dramatically. Welfare rolls plummeted. Benefits ran out after a certain amount of time in the manner of unemployment insurance, and I believe ran out even more quickly if you couldn't show proof that you were looking for a job.
No riots or civil protests in either of those cases. With Social Security, everyone seemed to grasp that either the parameters of the program were to change or there was to be no program. And with Welfare, there seemed to exist an acknowledgment that people were using that program as a means and excuse not to work at all. Even some black leaders at that time expressed concern that the program was creating a dependent class, and if not reformed, could do more long-term harm than good, particularly to inner-city blacks, and in disproportionate numbers.
Again no riots.
But the kinds of deep program and budgetary cuts (watch out "military industrial complex" - Eisenhower will finally be heeded!), along with tax increases, which the Debt Commission is almost sure to propose, I believe will make Reagan's Social Security compromise and Clinton's Welfare reform appear minor.
So, again, I hope I will be buying someone dinner when it gets an up or down vote, no amendments. I'm actually laughing to myself, because I hope it happens, but know it won't.
And when that fails, as it will, then and only then do I think a groundswell will begin, around the country and across parties, to rein in federal appropriations power constitutionally, with a balanced-budget amendment, the ultimate fiscal check-and-balance on a representative form of government which shockingly but consistently has proven incapable of making the budgetary choices which both keep a minimum social safety net available and funded, and the federal budget in the black.
Posted by: Joe Intili | June 04, 2010 at 06:47 PM
Hey Joe, You know all those crazy Tea Party folks that you bemoan? Well they are what's known as a groundswell; and they will be the reason you buy me dinner.
MVL1
Posted by: Marty Lynch | June 05, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Sir, I will happily. Including the excessively pricey Irish Whiskey shot of your choosing.
Posted by: Joe Intili | June 06, 2010 at 06:30 PM