The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is set to reject Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to raise the nation’s debt ceiling Saturday — partisan payback for the Democratic-controlled Senate’s rejection of Speaker John Boehner’s plan Friday night.
The twin votes are a likely prelude to a long weekend of furious back room negotiations between congressional leaders looking for a way to end a tense political standoff and avoid a potentially catastrophic federal default next week.
Bloomberg TV played this from time to time recently, and it helped a bit. Check it out–KSH.
If leadership is the capacity to take people where they need to go ”” whether or not they realize it or want it ”” then we’ve had almost no leadership in these weeks of frustrating and maddening debate over the budget and debt ceiling. There’s been an unspoken consensus among President Obama, congressional Democrats and Republicans not to discuss the central issue underlying the standoff. We’ve heard lots about “compromise” or its absence. We’ve had dueling budgets with differing mixes of spending cuts and tax increases. But we’ve heard almost nothing of the main problem that makes the budget so intractable.
It’s the elderly, stupid.
By now, it’s obvious that we need to rewrite the social contract that, over the past half-century, has transformed the federal government’s main task into transferring income from workers to retirees. In 1960, national defense was the government’s main job; it constituted 52 percent of federal outlays. In 2011 ”” even with two wars ”” it is 20 percent and falling. Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other retiree programs constitute roughly half of non-interest federal spending.
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops are urging the GOP-led House to reject a cuts-only approach to the budget as Washington tries to avert an unprecedented government default on its multi-trillion-dollar debts.
“A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons,” wrote Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif., and Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, N.Y., in a Tuesday (July 26) letter to House members.
That’s why the posturing about whether and how Congress should increase the debt ceiling by Aug. 2 has been a hollow exercise. Failure to increase the borrowing limit would harm American prestige and the global financial system. But that’s nothing compared with the real threats to the U.S.’s long-term economic health, which will begin to strike with full force toward the end of this decade: Sharply rising per-capita health-care spending, coupled with the graying of the populace; a generation of workers turning into an outsize generation of beneficiaries. Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Michael J. Boskin, who was President George H.W. Bush’s chief economic adviser, says: “The word ”˜unsustainable’ doesn’t convey the problem enough, in my opinion.”
Both bills cut discretionary spending by about the same amount, roughly $1.2 trillion depending on which benchmark is used. Both set up a bipartisan fiscal commission with special powers. Neither raises taxes, or significantly changes entitlement programs.
Mr. Reid’s bill contains a little bit more deficit reduction by cutting agricultural subsidies, selling radio spectrum licenses and improving I.R.S. enforcement. Its savings are also somewhat more front-loaded, with deficit reduction of $30 billion in 2012 as compared with $1 billion for Mr. Boehner’s, although the speaker’s bill is being rewritten.
Most of the difference in their price tags, however, has to do with the fact that Mr. Reid’s bill would count $1 trillion from the winding down of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as deficit savings, while Mr. Boehner’s would not ”” a matter of accounting rather than a substantive difference.
Should America embark on such fiscal contraction at a time when economic growth has already slipped to stall speed, and debt deleveraging continues with a vengeance, I would like to flee to Mars for safety.
Yes, there is such a concept as an “expansionary fiscal contraction”, as in Ireland (1980s), Denmark (1990s), arguably Canada (1990s), and the UK after both 1932 and 1993, but in every successful case this was accompanied by monetary loosening. That card has already been played this time.
Should America instead opt to evade these fiscal cuts by actually defaulting on debts accumulated by self-indulgent baby boomers, I would also like to flee Mars because such an outcome might be even worse.
Today’s spectacle of a dysfunctional Washington, unable to tend to even its most basic task of protecting the nation’s financial standing, may be appalling. It should not, however, be a surprise.
he inability, after eight months’ warning, to agree on any plan to deal with deficits and raise the nation’s debt ceiling isn’t some freak accident. Instead, it is the logical culmination of two giant trends in American politics: an unresolved debate over the size of government and the growing hyper-partisanship of Congress, particularly the House of Representatives.
Put those two together and you end up with leaders of the two parties speaking, as they were over the weekend, of the need to “defeat them,” as if the two parties were Cold War adversaries rather than partners in running the same nation. President Barack Obama, in a nationally televised speech last night, bluntly acknowledged how bad the picture looks to his countrymen, and to the world: “The American people may have voted for divided government,” he said, “but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.”
[In the 1950’s] the federal safety net designed for a time when unemployment was 20 percent and stockbrokers were jumping out of windows was still there. Not yet unmanageable, still a small fraction of the federal budget, still considered a lifeline for the desperate and a retirement income supplement for the rest.
Then along came the tumultuous, iconoclastic, game-changing 1960s….
In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid began paying medical expenses of the retired and those who could demonstrate “need.” Human nature being what it is, two things happened. First, those who could demonstrate “need” availed themselves of free medical care far beyond any level they would have used had they been required to pay for it. Second, given virtual carte blanche by the government, hospitals and other medical providers jacked up their prices in breathtaking fashion….
And voilá, our citizenry became entitled to medical care and a retirement income no matter what the cost. The more they got, the more they wanted…Now their time is up.
House Speaker John A. Boehner and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, were preparing separate backup plans to raise the nation’s debt ceiling on Sunday, after the leaders were unable to end an increasingly grim standoff over the federal budget.
The dueling plans emerged as lawmakers appeared to miss a self-imposed deadline of 4 p.m. Eastern time to cut a deal before markets open in Asia. And at about 6 p.m., President Obama began meeting with Mr. Reid and the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, in the Oval Office to discuss the Reid proposal.
Mr. Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat, was trying Sunday to cobble together a plan to raise the government’s debt limit by $2.4 trillion through the 2012 election, with spending cuts of about $2.5 trillion. He would seek to avoid cuts to entitlement programs, but it was unclear how those savings would be achieved.
House and Senate negotiators have not reached a deal that would lift the nation’s debt ceiling just hours before markets in Asia are set to open ”” a test of whether Washington political dysfunction is beginning to shake the global economy.
House Republicans are not able to reach a deal with Senate Democrats, said congressional sources, though staff-level negotiations are continuing.
And in a sign that talks with Republicans appear to be going sour, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) began to draft his own legislation Sunday that would slash at least $2.5 trillion to match an extension of the nation’s borrowing limit through the 2012 election, leadership aides said.
There is great disagreement in Washington over the meaning of last year’s midterm elections, but it’s almost certain that most Americans did not vote for the kind of paralysis that now surrounds the negotiations over the terms of raising the debt ceiling.
Americans voted for, or got, divided government because the public doesn’t fully trust either party with the reins of power. That means the only way out of this problem is through compromise, or what one administration official called “bipartisanship by necessity,” not by choice.
Up until now, enough lawmakers haven’t been ready to accept that in order for a deal to be struck. So the clock ticks.
This medicine is very hard for Americans to swallow, but the truth is, we can’t have it both ways. We want an arms-length relationship with the government in good times. In bad times, the cries go out to “do something,” even if it’s pay us to do nothing. We want a free-market economy during expansions, a nanny state in periods of recession. Privatized profits during the boom, socialized losses during the bust.
–Caroline Baum, in a Bloomberg News piece this week
Behind the paralysis in Washington and prevarication in Berlin lies a troubling thought. Political systems in thrall to 24-hour rolling news have lost the capacity to make difficult choices. Globalisation imposes wrenching change and simultaneously saps the ability of governments to adapt. Politicians find it easier to argue about taxing the rich or cutting Medicare and about central bank bond purchases versus default than to confront the consequences for western societies of the profound upheaval in the global economy.
So it is tempting to say all is lost ”“ that a political and economic model built on western primacy is cracking under the strain of the shifting balance of international advantage. The American dream and European welfare state are bending to the competitive winds of globalisation.
Tempting but premature. It is too early to despair. What makes the crises in Washington and Europe so infuriating is the fact that, for all they demand hard decisions, they are susceptible to political solution. The missing ingredient is leadership.
Americans haven’t been pleased by the political shenanigans they’ve seen in the down-to-the-wire talks over raising the federal debt limit.
Half of those surveyed in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say President Obama and Congress are doing a worse job than their predecessors in dealing with problems. Four in 10 call it the worst they’ve seen in their lifetimes. Thirty-four percent say current politicians are doing about as well as their predecessors; 13% say they’re doing better.
At least two-thirds say that congressional Republicans and Democrats are putting their political interests ahead of the country’s good. Just 7% see both sides as negotiating in good faith.
For years now, America has been spending more money than we take in. The result is that we have too much debt on our nation’s credit card ”” debt that will ultimately weaken our economy, lead to higher interest rates for all Americans, and leave us unable to invest in things like education, or protect vital programs like Medicare.
Neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this debt, but both parties have a responsibility to come together and solve the problem. That’s what the American people expect of us. Every day, families are figuring out how to stretch their paychecks a little further, sacrifice what they can’t afford, and budget only for what’s truly important. It’s time for Washington to do the same.
In short, to revive jobs and the economy, the federal government needs to do the opposite of what families should do in hard times: spend more money.
It’s true that doing this would increase the deficit, and it’s true that budget deficits ultimately need to be faced. But the deficit problem is far less urgent than most elected officials are letting on. In this weak economy with high unÂemployment, the deficit is a long-term problem, not a short-term one. The immediate issue is unemployment””a problem that calls for spending, not austerity. Along with improving people’s lives, more jobs mean a more robust economy””which will ultimately do more to reduce the deficit than anything else will.
President Obama and top House Republicans are deep in negotiations over a far-reaching plan to save $3 trillion over the next decade through sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to popular health and retirement programs, but without any immediate increase in taxes, Democratic congressional leaders reported Thursday.
White House officials insisted that Obama remains committed to including revenue increases in any comprehensive deficit-reduction package as the two sides seek an agreement that would also raise the federal borrowing limit in the face of a looming Aug. 2 deadline.
But congressional Democrats were furious over what they described as the latest twist in White House talks, which they said now appeared to taking an unacceptable turn.
It’s not that Republicans needed to tug their forelock and go along with whatever grand bargain the White House whipped up. But to win the endgame, they needed something they were willing to concede, something they could tout in public as an example of meeting the Democrats partway.
Their inability to make even symbolic concessions has turned a winning hand into a losing one. A majority of Americans want to close the deficit primarily with spending cuts ”” which is to say, they’re primed to side with conservatives in the debt-ceiling debate. But in trying to turn that “primarily” into a “completely,” the right has squandered this advantage….
In February, President Obama submitted his budget. The CBO reported that it would steeply boost the national debt.
In April, the president released a revised deficit-reduction plan so short on detail that the CBO deemed it too vague to evaluate.
Also in April, the Senate unanimously rejected the president’s February budget. Since then, the Democratic leadership in the Senate and the White House have put forward no clear budget approach….
…a quick, informal selection of voices from across the country over the weekend found both pessimism and cynicism about the state of negotiations in Washington, resignation about the partisan jousting and more confusion than conniption about what exactly will happen if the president and his Republican opponents cannot make a deal to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2.
And neither side, they say, looks good.
“They’re all boneheads,” said Steve Ruzika, 55, an entrepreneur from Boca Raton, Fla., who added that while he is politically conservative, he is fed up with both ends of the political spectrum.
“This has been brewing for a long time,” Mr. Ruzika said. “They should have solved it before now.”
….Americans are skeptical with good reason and that level of distrust will not go away if all we get is another bipartisan approach to kicking the debt problem down the road. In case you have forgotten, we raised the debt ceiling as recently as February 2010.
When will we gain control of our budget? We routinely hear about trillions in spending cuts, yet we spend more and more each year. Lip service is paid to cutting back, but we all know that spending cuts never, ever happen in Washington DC.
With a slowing economy, the argument is often made that government has to step in and do something. As you can see from the list above, our government has been doing exactly that. Yet, those policies have been ineffective so far.
DJN: *DJ S&P: At Least 50% Chance Of Lowering US L/T Rtg Within 90 Days
*DJ S&P: US S/T Rtg Watch Reflects View Of Significant Uncertainty Of US Creditworthiness
Ugh.
The U.S., rated Aaa since 1917, was put on review for the first time since 1995 on concern the debt limit will not be raised in time to prevent a missed payment of interest or principal on outstanding bonds and notes even though the risk remains low, Moody’s said. The rating would likely be reduced to the Aa range and there is no assurance that Moody’s would return its top rating even if a default is quickly cured.
“It certainly underscores the importance of passing the debt ceiling and not putting us in default status, and making sure there’s a longer term fiscal plan to contain spending and the deficit we’ve been running up over the last few years,” said Anthony Cronin, a Treasury bond trader at Societe General SA in New York, one of the 20 primary dealers that trade with the Federal Reserve. “Maybe it’s the impetus to say we’ll need more of a concession.”
Yuck. Read it all and there is now a lot more there.
Overall, the proposal would cut Social Security benefits by $112 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would cut government pensions and veterans’ benefits by $24 billion over the same time period if adopted for them.
Reaction from the president’s own party was swift Thursday, raising questions about whether Obama can keep Democrats on board if he agrees to cuts in Social Security. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said her caucus won’t support any package that includes Social Security cuts.
“Do not consider Social Security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country,” Pelosi said. “We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors.”
Mormon officials are telling their top, full-time leaders that they and their spouses should not participate in political campaigns, including making donations or endorsing candidates.
However, part-time leaders””including local and regional congregational leaders””are still allowed to do that, but are cautioned to make clear they are acting as individuals and do not represent the church.
Local leaders are also told not to engage in political fundraising or campaigning focused on members of congregations they oversee.
It’s a sad mark of the times to have to point this out, but “averting calamity” doesn’t suffice as governing strategy. It’s not what more effective public sectors in places such as Singapore or Finland, or even China, are doing.
[BOB] ABERNETHY: But all the moral debate has not made compromise easy.
[MICHAEL] GERSON: I think moral motivations in politics are very important. But when you claim that your own views somehow have a divine sanction, you’ve cut off all political argument. This should be an argument about outcomes, what is really best for the justice and decency of a society. I think a limited government is important to that, and I think a government that provides some of the most basic needs for the most vulnerable people in society is important to that as well. That’s where a lot of Americans are.
ABERNETHY: Alan Simpson thinks his former colleagues will head off a national crisis and that their constituents will accept the need for sacrifice.
[ALAN] SIMPSON: I think there are a lot more heroes in Congress than we recognize.