GOP: Playing “Dangerous Games” With The Debt Limit
The debt limit is supposed to make Congress think twice before passing tax cuts or spending increases that add to the national debt. Instead, lawmakers routinely support policies without paying for them — like the Bush-era tax cuts and two wars — and then posture and protest when their decisions require raising the debt limit.
So it will be once Congress returns from its spring recess. The debt limit — $14.3 trillion — will be hit as early as mid-May. If it is not raised in time, the government will have to use increasingly unorthodox tactics to meet its obligations, which would disrupt the financial markets and the economic recovery.
Default is theoretically possible, though public outrage over the mess would likely compel Congress to raise the debt limit before then. The best approach, the most sensible and mature, would be to pass a clean and timely increase.
However, nothing sensible or mature is on the horizon. Republicans have vowed to extract more heedless spending cuts in exchange for their votes to raise the debt limit. To that end, they seem likely to demand changes to the budget process, like a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or spending caps.
Such reforms have a glib appeal — who can oppose something as prudent-sounding as balanced budgets? In fact, they are a dodge, because they cut spending broadly without lawmakers having to defend specific cuts. They are also often wired to block tax increases, without which deficit reduction efforts are not only unfair, but also will not succeed.
Take, for example, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that Senate Republicans recently endorsed. By rigidly requiring a balanced budget each year, it would deepen recessions by forcing tax increases or spending cuts in a weak economy.
Worse, the amendment would hold annual spending to 18 percent of the previous year’s gross domestic product, a formula that works out to about 16.7 percent in the proposal’s early years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That is a level last seen in 1956 — a time before Medicare, before the interstate highways, when many baby boomers were not yet born, never mind aging into retirement.
Sharply lower spending would, in turn, allow for big tax cuts. Those tax cuts would be virtually irreversible, since the amendment calls for a two-thirds vote of both houses to raise taxes.
Another bad idea is the spending cap proposed by two senators, Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, and Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. It would cap spending at around 21 percent of G.D.P., compared with about 24 percent now — which would require deep cuts like those in the House Republican budget plan. With its emphasis on spending cuts, the cap also seems intended to reduce the deficit without tax increases.
In the successful deficit reduction efforts of 1990 and 1993, budget process reforms were helpful. The key, however, was to first enact credible deficit-reduction packages — with spending cuts and tax increases — and then impose rules, like pay-as-you-go, to prevent backsliding. Process reforms alone avoid the hard work. Still, they can exert powerful political pull.
The White House and Congressional Democrats must not allow themselves to be taken hostage again.
By: The New York Times, Editorial, April 22, 2011
Is Grover Norquist’s “Sharia Tax Law” Causing The GOP To Rethink It’s “Pledge”?
Senator Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma, has had the good sense to demand an end to the $5 billion annual tax credit to makers of corn ethanol, a wasteful subsidy to farm states that is also dubious environmental policy. For his outspokenness, Senator Coburn was pilloried by anti-government activists of his own party who cannot stand the idea of more revenues flowing into the federal Treasury. But he and a few others in the Senate are holding fast, suggesting that at least some Republicans are willing to break with party orthodoxy to reduce the long-term budget deficit.
The loudest criticism came from Grover Norquist, whose group, Americans for Tax Reform, is the author of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that has become a sacred covenant for virtually anyone wishing to run as a Republican. More than 95 percent of the Republicans in Congress have signed it (including Senator Coburn), as have many Republican governors and state lawmakers.
The pledge is often thought of as an agreement never to vote for raising taxes for any reason, but it goes even further than that. Those who sign it also vow never to eliminate any tax deductions or credits (like the handout to ethanol makers), unless the resulting increase in revenues is offset, dollar for dollar, by further tax cuts.
The pledge is really less about keeping taxes low than it is about holding down government revenues, which prevent the growth of government services. Mr. Norquist has famously said his goal is to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Mr. Norquist can afford to be candid about his fierce aversion to government services, since he does not have to run for office with the votes of people who like those services. The Republican lawmakers who have joined his congregation, however, are less forthright about the effect of their policies. They go around lulling constituents with phony mantras like “Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem,” as if cutting spending is the only conceivable solution to lowering the deficit.
This purity finally ran into a tough-minded pragmatist in Senator Coburn. Though his zeal to eliminate many worthy government programs is still excessive, he is right to see the wastefulness in the ethanol giveaway — and the extremism of Mr. Norquist’s position. Senator Coburn’s spokesman has even described Mr. Norquist as “the chief cleric of Sharia tax law.”
Senator Coburn is also a member of the “gang of six” senators that has been trying to find a bipartisan way to reduce the nation’s debt. He and the two other Republicans in the group, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Michael Crapo of Idaho, say they are opposed to raising tax rates but hope to rewrite the tax code in a way that brings in more revenue by eliminating many unnecessary tax breaks and broadening the tax base.
That, at least, represents the beginning of a useful conversation. It could very well mean that the rich would pay more in taxes. Which is why Mr. Norquist, in full grand-inquisitor style, has demanded that Senator Coburn drop out of the gang.
His influence, happily, seems to be on the wane. The three senators have reminded Mr. Norquist that their highest oath is not to him or some abstract pledge, but to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By: The New York Times, Editorial, April 21, 2011
In Politics Of Temper Tantrums, Washington Post As Spineless As GOP In Debt Ceiling Debate
Yesterday, The Washington Post editorial page turned into Springfield, circa 1991. Not Springfield, Illinois or Springfield, Massachusetts. That more famous Springfield. The one that’s home to the Simpsons.
You see, 20 years ago Lisa Simpson wished for a world in which every nation laid down its arms and there was peace. And it was done. But then two crafty aliens landed in Springfield and took over the earth, armed only with a slingshot and a club.
What does that have to do with The Washington Post? Well, we’re just days into the debate about raising the debt ceiling and they’ve already given up.
Here’s what I mean:
Every politician knows that voting to raise the debt ceiling, particularly in an electoral environment like this one, is dangerous. Large swaths of the electorate are opposed. And the most angry and energized conservatives have made it an article of faith to punish legislators who facilitate more government spending. Voting to raise the debt ceiling is a tough vote–politically.
But on the merits, it’s got to be one of the easiest votes ever. Everyone from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich agrees that we must raise the debt ceiling. That’s true of just about every economist of every political stripe, too. They say that if we don’t it will lead America, and perhaps the global economy, to literal economic ruin. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Democrats are on board. They’re pushing for a “clean” vote on the debt ceiling—an up or down vote on that issue alone. In essence they’re saying: let’s do what needs to be done and get it over with. Then we can move on to the myriad other pressing matters confronting the nation.
Republicans are in a different place. They’re making increasingly belligerent demands to tie various kinds of “reforms” to the debt ceiling vote. Deep spending cuts. A balanced budget amendment. Caps on future spending. All sorts of things that may or may not have merit, but which are also deeply partisan and political. And they say they won’t vote to raise the debt ceiling unless their demands are met—if they vote for it at all.
Their position in a nutshell: I’m a Republican and I’m not going to prevent economic ruin unless I get these other things that I really, really, really want. It’s the politics of temper tantrum. Only this time the baby’s got his finger on the nuclear launch codes.
Cue the media. There’s a reason “freedom of the press” is enshrined in the First Amendment. It’s because the Founding Fathers envisioned a Fourth Estate that held government accountable at times just like these.
Instead, we get this: buried in the sixth paragraph of yesterday’s editorial about Standard and Poor’s, the Post dismisses the idea of a “clean vote” saying it’s “unrealistic as a political matter” because “you couldn’t get enough Republican votes in the House to increase the debt limit without some spending cuts attached.”
Well, I guess that’s that. The Republicans have rattled their slingshot and the Post editorial page has fled for the hills.
What’s even more galling is that you needed look no further than the front page of yesterday’s Post to see just how political the issue has become for Republicans. There, Philip Rucker told the sad story of Arizona freshman Republican Rep. David Schweikert. Schweikert concedes that failing to raise the debt ceiling will cause economic chaos, but then he surveys the angry faces of his Tea Party constituents in town hall after town hall and wrings his hands. Destroying the economy on one hand and lessening my chances for reelection on the other…oh what is a Republican to do!
Here’s an idea: suck it up and do the right thing. Vote for the bill and, if you lose your re-election, well, at least you have the comfort of knowing that you didn’t help ruin the world’s economy. Isn’t that what we say we want from our leaders? To take tough votes and put aside personal, ideological, or political goals when the nation’s interest calls for it?
Of course, as much as I would like to think otherwise, my saying so probably won’t encourage Republicans to do much of anything. If only there were an influential, well-respected, credible voice with a broad reach whose job it was to offer opinions like that… Sigh.
Perhaps not all is lost. In the aforementioned Simpsons episode the aliens are eventually vanquished when Moe the bartender hammers a nail through a board and chases them with it. There are a couple months to go in this debate. There’s still time for the Post to find its spine. Someone get them a nail and a board.
By: Anson Kaye, U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 2011
John Boehner Thinks We’re “Broke” But He’s Willing To Splurge
When the Obama administration announced that it no longer considers the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional, and would stop defending the law against court challenges, officials told Congress it could step in and defend DOMA if it wants to. Soon after, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the House would gladly to just that.
Yesterday, Boehner’s office announced it has hired former Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the discriminatory law, which seems like a wise choice. Clement is an accomplished attorney with extensive experience who’ll no doubt do a capable job.
But Clement is also a very well paid D.C. attorney, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would like to know what Boehner expects this little culture-war endeavor to cost. For that matter, Pelosi found it curious that the Speaker hired an attorney to represent the House, but hasn’t shared the contract with other congressional leaders.
Today, the picture started coming together.
House Republicans plan to pay former Solicitor General Paul Clement and his legal team from King & Spaulding as much as $500,000 of taxpayer money to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of House of Representatives, according to a document obtained by the Huffington Post.
“The General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all contractual services rendered a sum not to exceed $500,000.00,” the Contract for Legal Services obtained by The Huffington Post says. The cap could be raised “by written agreement between the parties with the approval” of the House, the document states.
The hourly rate that King & Spaulding will be receiving is $520 per hour — which could actually be considered a deal. Some reports say that the firm’s top attorneys receive as much as $900 per hour.
Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill told Amanda Terkel, “The hypocrisy of this legal boondoggle is mind-blowing. Speaker Boehner is spending half a million dollars of taxpayer money to defend discrimination. If Republicans were really interested in cutting spending, this should be at the top of the list.”
That seems more than fair. After all, Boehner has been running around for months, falsely claiming, “We’re broke.” It’s how he justifies proposed cuts in critical areas like education, medical research, infrastructure, job training, and homeland security, even if it makes the jobs crisis much worse.
But if we’re actually broke, shouldn’t House Republicans want to save $500,000 of our money, and not give it to one high-priced lawyer to defend an anti-gay law?
By: Steve Benen, Washington Monthly, Political Animal, April 19, 2011
Tea Party: The Welfare State Is Out Of Control But Leave “My” Medicare Alone
About a month ago, Politico ran a much-discussed piece, insisting that the Republican Party and its base have become “fanatically anti-spending.” Tea Partiers, the article added, are obsessed with “cut, cut, cut,” and “taking a cleaver to government spending.”
I’ve pushed back against this, but a new Marist poll out today makes this much easier. The poll asked respondents:
“Do you support or oppose doing each of the following to deal with the federal budget deficit: cut Medicare and Medicaid?”
Among all registered voters, 80% opposed these cuts. Among self-identified Tea Party supporters, 70% opposed these cuts. Among self-identified Republicans, 73% opposed these cuts.
We’re talking about taxpayer-financed, socialized medicine, which Tea Partiers should oppose reflexively if they’re desperate to “cut, cut, cut.”
Except, they’re not.
When pressed on the radical nature of their agenda, congressional Republicans consistently claim the “American people” are on their side, even suggesting they have a popular mandate to pursue drastic policy measures that voters didn’t know about last year. But the data is hard to ignore — not only does the American mainstream oppose GOP cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, but even the Republicans’ own base isn’t on board.
I often think of this piece from Matt Taibbi, who attended a Tea Party rally last summer.
After Palin wraps up, I race to the parking lot in search of departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. I come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views.
“I’m anti-spending and anti-government,” crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. “The welfare state is out of control.”
“OK,” I say. “And what do you do for a living?”
“Me?” he says proudly. “Oh, I’m a property appraiser. Have been my whole life.”
I frown. “Are either of you on Medicare?”
Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
“Let me get this straight,” I say to David. “You’ve been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?”
“Well,” he says, “there’s a lot of people on welfare who don’t deserve it. Too many people are living off the government.”
“But,” I protest, “you live off the government. And have been your whole life!”
“Yeah,” he says, “but I don’t make very much.”
The point is that congressional Republicans are desperate to make devastating cuts, and think they’re on safe political ground. GOP officials might be surprised to learn just how many Americans rely on government spending, and want to keep the benefits that apply to them.
By: Steve Benen, Washington Monthly, Political Animal, April 19, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 