Predicting political developments is a treacherous business. Social scientists like me turn out to be wrong all too often. Nevertheless, I will predict the outcome of the hectic negotiations on raising the debt limits -- and show why this is not much of a boast.
I predict that a deal will be reached and that it will focus on deficit reduction, at a time when the economy is limping and many economists hold that the government ought to spend more, not less. (I would add that Congress should commit itself irrevocably to deficit cuts -- to be activated once unemployment falls below 7 percent.)
Moreover, the deal will be at least two-thirds, more likely 80%, "Republican" and only the rest "Democratic." I mean the deal will largely reflect the Republican demand that government spending be cut -- and that it will contain only few revenue-raising features, which the Democrats favor.
Furthermore, the revenue-raising features will include few or no tax increases and will mainly take the form of reducing "tax expenditures" such as cutting subsidies, for instance to ethanol, and closing some tax loopholes.
Finally, the easiest and most distressing prediction of them all. Even if the deal pushes the economy into a second-dip recession, the Federal Reserve will not come to the rescue by restarting its economy-stimulating program (known as quantitative easing).
How can this be, given that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate (considered to be a heavier hitter than the House) and the president is a Democrat, while the Republicans have a majority only in the House? Why does it take very little clairvoyance to make these predictions?
Because contrary to the conventional wisdom, Washington is not gridlocked, but is dominated by what ought to be called the conservative party, the party that favors the kind of deal I just outlined. The conservative party (or block) draws on the fact that in the U.S. Congress, unlike many legislatures in other democracies, elected officials do not have to vote their party line. As a result, while practically all Republicans in the House and Senate support most conservative causes, a fair number Democrats vote conservatively as well. In contrast, what ought to be called the liberal party has next to no Republican members and encompasses only part of the Democratic elected representatives. Theirs is a minority party.
But what about the president? Cannot he change the course and come up with a less conservative deal? Part of the answer lies in the president's strong preference for consensus building. Part of the answer lies in the electorate. According to a December 2010 Gallup Poll, it includes two conservative voters for every liberal one. Hence, these days, conservatives usually get their way, and the debt ceiling increase deal will be no exception.
Those who write about gridlock or paralysis in Washington tend to forget that the Supreme Court is also in D.C. Far from deadlocked, it has a 5-to-4 conservative majority on many issues.
And then there is the Federal Reserve. Although theoretically it is an independent institution, its officials realize if they veer too far from the political majority, their cherished independence will be undermined. Conservative criticism of the Fed, especially its stimulus program and calls from the Tea Party to close the Fed down or at least audit it, got the Fed's attention. Hence one can readily predict that for now, unless the economy goes into a sharp nosedive, the Fed will stand down.
If these readings of the Washington tea leaves are correct, one can even predict the outcome of the 2012 elections. The next president may be a Republican or a Democrat, but he or she will not be a liberal, not even a moderate.
Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at The George Washington University and the author of New Common Ground (Potomac Books, 2009).
The voters, Americans now don't even know that the founders were Locke liberals fighting the Conservative Burke British multinational Empire. Americans don't seem to notice that Reagan and Grover have basically said that the Democratic Republic, the USA is the enemy, the beast and must be bankrupted, staved till the multinationals can buy it. Exactly what the US Founders were fighting against.
"When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." John Adams
"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands . . . the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard." Alexander Hamilton
Voter for the Progressive Caucus folks in the primaries and the Dems in the general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
http://www.dlc.org/
Versus the Real Progressives, the Liberals, the Progressive Caucus
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
Read their budget! It's the only one that solves the problems.
Why is it that the majority votes in Congress are supposed to reflect the 40% that claim to be "conservative," while ignoring all those policy positions that have much broader support?
I think you're wrong. The way Congress legislates has nothing to do with what the American people are or want. Congress has been bought by big money, and the MSM is beholden to that group to not report the facts that might undermine their agenda. Until we remove money from politics with public funding of campaigns, and end the era of the rule of a few giant media conglomerates by breaking up their monopolies, the governmet of the United States will continue to work against the wishes of the people.
To all but DU / DK cellar dwellers, this is not news.
In fact, it is not such a direct and intentional narrative as one party or another seeking to stall economic growth and social well-being in this country. Rather, it is a fear of spending away accumulated wealth because return on investment does not seem to already be guaranteed. There is no way to save your way out of a recession, because only operational investments spur growth, and the conservative hold to preserve wealth will only be lifted if another economic power makes the kind of investments we need in order to drive growth, or there is no choice but to abandon the view in the face of starving to death.
Fair point about NY. I will revise my statement to say that all Republicans in Congress fall in line. State lawmakers still sometimes think for themselves.
An economy with debts and deficits usually got there by spending more than they had. If you raise taxes to make up for the shortfall, it does nothing to change the way of thinking: politicians just spend more, leading to the same dilema. Economies that cut spending have real willpower, and tend to tow the line. Bond markets also tend to reward countries that reduce spending because it shows they can put their fiscal house in order, thereby reducing the cost to service their outstanding debt in a virtuous circle.
While proponents of more taxing and spending may want to ignore, this, one needs only cast your eyes to Athens to see where it leads. Proponents of more taxes also like to pretend that everything was fine before the recession, and that the revenue fall-off associated with said recession is being used as an excuse to raid programs. That argument is mis-direction; the country didn't have the revenue, even pre-recession, to fund the vast projected increases in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (let alone debt service). The recession brought the problem to bear much earlier by bringing huge deficits, but the problem was structural, not brought on by the recession.
Head on over to the OMB's website and take a look at our budget. Annual spending on treasury (debt service) and Social Security are rising over $600B/yr EACH, and HHS (Medicare and Medicaid) is well over $700B/yr. That's almost $2T (yes, that's a "T" for "Trillion") per year merely on those programs, whereas the war translates out to a mere $370B a year over the last 10 years (also note that a respectable chunk of that cost is speculative future cost, so it's even less than $370B/yr). Sure, it was costly, but it's literally an order of magnitude smaller than current spending on social programs.
Note that our current deficits are right around that same range, and don't seem to have much prospect of shrinking as more Baby Boomers retire and start cashing out Social Security and Medicare. Members of that generation and the one before it have managed to totally hose up this country's finances, and now members of the younger generations (X, Y, and Millenials) are expected to put up with the highest taxes in the country's history to pay for it. Note that we're not talking about "investing in infrastructure" here, we're talking wholesale transfer of wealth to the older generation.
So no, I didn't miss war spending in my analysis: it wasn't a big enough factor to worry about compared to the rest of the spending.
L...........C..........R
In USA:
..........................D.............R
And for good measure, Ron Paul:
...............................................RP
and the Republicans have become Far Right, Far Far Right, and Far White
I have the answer to that question. (he's afraid he WILL loose his seat), but I think he will gain more than he loose when it come to votes.I guarantee you, he'll get mine !!!
Non-voters have no right to complain