A situation that should have gone off without a hitch has now demonstrated the US Congress is an utter joke, completely unable to govern: The debt ceiling debate should have been a non-starter -- a simple voice vote in the House where everybody realized voting for the increase was in the nation's financial self-interest. Instead, we've seen the most ridicules ideas rise to the top of the political debate.
There is no leadership: Boehner has no control over the Tea Party Wing and Reid has little real power. Pelosi -- who does seem to have more control over the more liberal house elements -- has been left out of negotiations. Obama has become more adept at using the bully pulpit, but doesn't seem to have the nuanced negotiating skills necessary for intricate negotiations. As such, there is no figure who can ram something through at the last minute.
There is every indication the economy is slowing: The consumer is trimming his expenditures, investment is weaker and manufacturing growth is slowing. The only component of the GDP equation that can increase growth right now is government spending. And yet we're talking about massive cuts large enough to send the economy into a mild recession. Why don't we ask England how their experiment with austerity is going? Or Ireland? And then there is this observation regarding austerity:
Lagarde also urged caution in adopting large deficit-reduction measures, saying that “the impact is likely to be negative” in the short term. “Our research has found that a 1 percentage point cut in the deficit could lower growth by about one-half percentage point over two years,” she said. “This is why measures that are legislated now — but only reduce deficits in the future, when the recovery is more robust — would be particularly helpful.”
There is no acknowledgement of the real problem: when was the last time anyone in Washington talked about unemployment? 'Nuff said.
There is no talk of a real solution: if you want to balance the budget, you have to talk about tax increases. The gap between revenues and expenditures is simply too large to consider any other option. And yet, those are off the table -- despite the fact the overall tax burden is the lowest it's been in nearly 50 years. This is amazingly stupid.
I have called the culture in Washington the "Washington Lobotomy Factory" for a reason: there is no mention of logic or facts; instead, everything is pure politics. No one wants to solve a problem; everyone wants to score political points, and nothing more.
As such, let them bear the fruit of their actions -- or in-actions. Shut the government down from sheer stupidity. Let the economy take a hit and contract for at least a quarter and probably two. And then vote all of these idiots out of office.
14 comments:
Efforts MUST STILL be made to spare the most vulnerable and least fortunate in our society from bearing the full consequences of Washington's failure to properly steward the nation's economy.
I agree. Let the current politicians bear the fruit of their actions -- and subsequently hold them to account. However, no one should take this to mean that they can wash their hands of the whole mess.
On the economic stuff, this place rocks. On the political stuff like "Obama has become adept at using the bully pulpit", they are pulling the wool over your eyes.
Check this video from this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks#p/u/23/ZuekVufDBNc
He has the same kind of insight in political matter as you have in economic.
While agree with a lot of your analysis, your pox on both houses is wrong. In this case, Paul Krugman has it absolutely right - the House Republicans are almost totally to blame for this. And I say this as someone who has worked in Congress.
Obama has offered them a deal that they probably couldn't have gotten from George W. Bush and they have said NO. I am not sure what else he could have done. He has met them 75% of the way. Reasonable Republicans like David Brooks and Bruce Bartlett are in shock that the House Repubs have said no.
In the Senate, Reid and McConnell have both made it clear that they want a deal and if one were made I have no doubt they would be able to pass it.
The problem is the House partly b/c of the rules structure and largely b/c the House Republicans made a deal with the devil to get back into power. The rules basically make Nancy Pelosi a non-entity b/c the Speaker controls everything including the ability to amend bills. All the minority can do is yap.
Boehner's b/w a rock and hard place b/c he made a deal with the devil to get back into power. The vast majority of 87 freshman Repubs are from the far right wing of their party and have made it clear they are ideologues. These are not people serious about governing and I am not sure they are really about scoring political points. One thing I do know is they are about ideological purity.
Boehner could probably structure a deal that would bring along 30-40 Repubs and the House Dems but he would be bounced out of the Speakership so he is loath to do so.
So this is where we sit today largely b/c one House of Congress is not serious about the role they have been elected to do.
While agree with a lot of your analysis, your pox on both houses is wrong. In this case, Paul Krugman has it absolutely right - the House Republicans are almost totally to blame for this. And I say this as someone who has worked in Congress.
Obama has offered them a deal that they probably couldn't have gotten from George W. Bush and they have said NO. I am not sure what else he could have done. He has met them 75% of the way. Reasonable Republicans like David Brooks and Bruce Bartlett are in shock that the House Repubs have said no.
In the Senate, Reid and McConnell have both made it clear that they want a deal and if one were made I have no doubt they would be able to pass it.
The problem is the House partly b/c of the rules structure and largely b/c the House Republicans made a deal with the devil to get back into power. The rules basically make Nancy Pelosi a non-entity b/c the Speaker controls everything including the ability to amend bills. All the minority can do is yap.
Boehner's b/w a rock and hard place b/c he made a deal with the devil to get back into power. The vast majority of 87 freshman Repubs are from the far right wing of their party and have made it clear they are ideologues. These are not people serious about governing and I am not sure they are really about scoring political points. One thing I do know is they are about ideological purity.
Boehner could probably structure a deal that would bring along 30-40 Repubs and the House Dems but he would be bounced out of the Speakership so he is loath to do so.
So this is where we sit today largely b/c one House of Congress is not serious about the role they have been elected to do.
It's hard to negotiate with people who want you to fail. John Boehner's pitch today to get conservatives to vote for his plan? Obama hates it.
That's the logic now. Whatever Obama is for, we're against. The House GOP isnt a rational group that you can go to and say, "Okay, I'll give you more in spending cuts for a little more in tax revenue."
And yet, he has to deal with this group. They control the House of Representatives.
"...manufacturing growth is slowing...
Other than the defense industry (which makes its own market, thanks to those same Washington legislators), what segment of US manufacturing has grown over the last 5 years?
Offshore manufacturing, I'll readily agree has slowed growth, but it's still growth.
Obama's problem is that he has an accomodating negotiating style, while the Republicans have a competitive negotiating style. Accomodaters like to make early concessions in negotiations to bring out goodwill among the parties and start a smooth give and take bargaining process. Often times, the establishment of a good relationship is more important than the final deal itself.
On the other hand, competitors negotiate according to textbook bargaining theory. They bargain to win. They follow the rule, start high, be firm and use leverage.
From a societal point of view, its better if both sides are accomodaters. A fair deal can be reached quickly. However, competitors will always bully accomodaters because they view the goodwill gestures as a sign of weakness. Thus, by waiting, and waiting without giving anything up, they can win the negotiation.
Although competitors usually defeat accomodaters during negotiations, they do have one big trap they must avoid. If they overreach and pass up on a very good deal thinking that they can make the other party completely surrender, they can lose the goodwill of the accomodater and the deal collapses. That's what happening right now. The GOP has defeated Obama in every negotiation they've ever done with him. Obama is beginning to realize this, and the atmosphere has become poisoned.
Last May, I said that a double dip recession was becoming more likely. Now, I say that economic catastrophe is now a good possibility, and Obama is looking more like a one term president.
I believe this episode demonstrates the Hillary Clinton would have made a better president than Obama. She would have been tougher and said to the GOP a long time ago, try to default on the debt, and I'll use the 14th. This would have wrecked the GOP's leverage. They could have tried to file a law suit in court to force a government default, but they wouldn't have because that would look bad. They probably would have tried to impeach her, but impeachment would have failed and the GOP would have lost big.
The debt ceiling debate is just part of the 20 year plan to reduce government to bare bones and get rid of all government social programs. The core group leading this has been focused and methodical, especially the last several years. They are close to carrying out their plan. Do you really think they would give up now when they are so close? The flock follows along because they believe they get leftovers. My ultimate fear of the impacts of a default is fascism.
Interesting article: "Mr. Obama's Scare Tactics to Get Democrats to Vote for His Republican Wall Street Plan," by Michael Hudson -- research professor of Econ at U. of Missouri and research assoc at the Levy Economics Instit of Bard College
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/michael-hudson-mr-obama%E2%80%99s-scare-tactics-to-get-democrats-to-vote-for-his-republican-wall-street-plan.html
Tea Party ideologues may just get the kind of country they are demanding -- limited government, minimal or no safety net, increased crime and corruption throughout the society -- however, I doubt even they are going to like living in it. I would like to think that in the end they will realize they caused a mess and apologize; unfortunately, ideologues tend not to recognize themselves in the mirror.
Obama should have said, "I don't negotiate with economic terrorists." Obama should have held firm and refused to sign any budget bill linked to the debt ceiling.
Republicans are like sharks. They have no compassion for the weak. Rather they see the weak as food. That is why Obama's "bipartisan" approach or more appropriate, Policy of Appeasement has failed. If he were tough, he'd win the GOP's respect and ironically find it easier to come up a deal with them that is even more favorable to progressives than the deal he offers now.
I am starting to wonder if the debt limit/budget/tax issue will be solved during the current Congress, let alone in the next week.
At some point, countries can collapse of their own inherent self-contradictions, as the Soviet Union did, and one could make a case that we are looking at our own collapse, not with a bang but with a whimper.
One of the difficulties is that there are analyses based on 'there are two political parties in Congress', when there are three, and it is an accident of our ballot access laws that the mainstream conservatives and the staunch tea party conservatives are in the same party.
George Phillips- completely agree with you about the Republicans being 2 parties - the business conservatives/libertarians and the fundamentalist Christian/tea partiers. This has been an unholy alliance for close to 30 yrs.
The business conservatives are the main funders of the party and now that their $$ isn't buying them what they want I wonder how long it will be b/f they take their marbles and form a third party. Not too long is my prediction.
Post a Comment