There is a grand tradition in Washington -- which is followed by both parties, at various times -- of avoiding big and politically delicate problems. This tradition used to be called the "blue-ribbon commission," although for some reason the "blue-ribbon" part isn't used much anymore. But whatever you call it, this political dodge is created for one purpose and one purpose alone: to waste time. To the best of my knowledge, no commission (blue-ribbon or otherwise bedecked) has ever come up with a solution to anything which has been thus implemented by the politicians (again, of either party) to solve a big problem (although you could make an argument for the base-closing commission, I guess). But virtually all of these commissions have succeeded wildly on their main objective of wasting as much time as possible.
So it comes as no surprise, really, that John Boehner has decided to punt the hard work of debt reduction to yet another commission. This time, he promises, the committee will have some teeth -- both in the form of triggers hanging over the group's head, and in the fact that Congress will vote on whatever they come up with, without being able to change the plan at all. We're supposed to be impressed by all of this, somehow.
Forgive me if I'm not impressed, Speaker Boehner. Because I've seen this movie before, and I know how it's going to turn out. Republicans will refuse to raise one thin dime of revenue, and Democrats will refuse to cut one thin dime from the social safety net. There will be a party-line vote, and no plan will gain enough votes to force Congress to act. The "triggers" will be ignored, or legislated out of existence, when the time comes. And we'll be right back where we started from, except that the Republican 2012 primaries will be taking place. The time-wasting goal of the group will be a resounding success, but the other goals (the ostensible reasons for creating the group, in other words) will simply not be met. The only real open question is how much of a "government shutdown crisis" will be taking place when this comes to pass.
You'll have to forgive my open cynicism, here. But what astonishes me is how any sane and rational individual (or, additionally, any member of the media) would foresee any different outcome. The battle lines in this fight are dug in deeper than a Word War I trench. They have been for quite some time now. Why nobody seems to have noticed this in Washington absolutely escapes me.
Republicans in Congress are just not going to vote for anything they (or, more importantly, Grover Norquist) labels a "tax hike." They're just not going to do it. Period. Ever since George Herbert Walker Bush betrayed his "Read my lips: No new taxes!" campaign pledge, I can't remember one single time when Republicans have voluntarily supported a tax increase. Perhaps my memory fails me, and perhaps there were a few Republican votes on raising taxes, but the general rule on the Republican side of the aisle since the early 1990s has been anti-tax in the extreme.
So why anyone thinks anything has changed now is beyond me. Especially since the Republican Party as a whole has actually become even more rigid on this issue -- with each passing year. The original slogan of at least some of the Tea Partiers was "Taxed Enough Already" (making them the "T.E.A. Party"). What this means now is that compromising on this particular issue is a good way for any Republican politician to incur the wrath of the most vocal part of his or her own base voters -- including a likely primary challenge in the next election.
Over 95 percent of Republicans in Congress have even signed a pledge not to ever raise taxes for any reason whatsoever. When the Republicans were in control of Congress, America started two wars, and -- for the first time in its history -- refused to raise the taxes necessary to pay for them. Raising taxes to pay for wars, historically, wasn't just a non-contentious issue, it was actually seen as downright patriotic. "Supporting the troops" used to mean precisely that, and not just spouting some campaign speech or donning a flag pin on your lapel. Those days, to put it mildly, are gone. If even America going to war isn't a good enough reason to get Republicans to raise taxes, then it is pretty safe to assume that nothing else will, either.
The media -- and many Democrats -- haven't quite come to grips with this bedrock fact, it seems. Even some conservative media types seems downright astonished that Republican officeholders aren't cutting a deal right now on the debt ceiling debate which includes increasing revenues. One wonders exactly where they've been, for about the past twenty years or so.
Even looking over the last two or three years, it's pretty easy to see Republicans cannot be convinced to change their position. The original idea for a debt commission which produced a plan for Congress to vote on -- without amendments -- was mostly a Republican idea to begin with. It was being pushed in the Senate by several prominent Republicans... right up until President Barack Obama got on board. Once Obama was for it, all the Republican sponsors of the bill immediately decided they were against it. Clearer evidence is hard to find in Washington that these commissions are primarily meant to be a waste of time. The merest hint that such a commission could lead to any sort of grand bargain between the parties caused the Republicans who came up with the idea in the first place to bolt for the exits.
Instead of a commission empowered by Congress to offer up unamendable bills for up-or-down votes, President Obama was left to name his own "presidential" debt commission instead. It would have no such power, but hopefully everyone would get on board with whatever they agreed upon. And, as a bonus, it would waste almost an entire year.
The "Bowles-Simpson Commission" (or, to save typing, the "B.S. Commission") was launched. It wrangled over the federal deficit, debt, and taxes. It came to the conclusion that almost every single economist under the sun (Democratic and Republican both) who had ever looked at the problem had agreed upon: you can only truly solve the problem with a combination of raising taxes and cutting spending. Our spending is at a historically-high level of gross domestic product -- but our taxing is also at historic lows, measured by the same yardstick. The only real answer is to get both back closer to historic norms.
The Republicans on the commission refused to vote for the plan. It didn't get enough votes to even be approved by the commission itself -- which meant there was precisely zero chance it would ever be enacted by Congress. These days, in an extraordinary display of chutzpah, Republicans berate President Obama because he "didn't get behind his own debt commission's plan." Well, perhaps that was because he knew it was a completely dead issue -- as the Republicans had already proven by their "nay" vote.
As a result of the commission's abject failure to forge consensus, six senators began meeting to hammer out their own plan, along the general lines of the B.S. Commission's report. This became known -- in the juvenile insistence of the press that any such group immediately be called a "gang" -- as the "Gang of Six." The Gang of Six spent a lot of time meeting, and a lot of time bragging about their efforts on television. No plan emerged as a result (to be fair, they were extremely good about not leaking any of the private discussions to the press), for months. When they (down now to a "Gang of Five," because one Republican had walked out of the negotiations) finally did offer up their plan, it proved to be not detailed enough to write into legislation to meet the debt ceiling deadline -- meaning their ultimate goal of running out the clock had successfully been met.
The White House, a few months back, began their own series of meetings (headed by the Vice President) with the leadership of both parties from both houses of Congress. These meetings reportedly agreed to about one trillion dollars in budget cuts (some put the number as high as a trillion-and-a-half). But then when the discussion turned to the tax side of the equation, Republican Eric Cantor bailed out of the meetings. The Biden commission talks were dead, but they had managed to waste quite a number of months, to be fair.
President Obama then got involved, and began holding his own meetings with various members of the congressional leadership. Speaker John Boehner and Barack Obama have now managed to waste a full month on these talks, when both of them knew heading into it that no matter whether Boehner himself agreed to any plan with "tax hikes," his Republican caucus in the House simply was not going to pass it no matter what he told them to do. Boehner, at this point, is looking over his shoulder at Cantor, who seems increasingly tempted to make a play to wrest the Speakership from Boehner. This means Boehner has no incentive right now to compromise with Democrats in the slightest. In fact, he's now walked out of the talks twice.
The position we now occupy is a direct result of the Republicans (especially those in the House) going back on a campaign promise they made last year. From their "Pledge To America" campaign document, here is the relevant passage:
Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.
If they had kept to this promise, there would be a separate bill for the rise in the debt ceiling, with no deficit-cutting involved. Instead, we have a "must-pass" bill which has been packaged with an issue the Republicans dearly care about. Strange how the same Republicans who signed this pledge aren't talking about how they're now "circumventing the will of the American people," isn't it? I guess Grover Norquist's pledge was more important, in the long run.
But however we got here, here we are. Heading into the final week of negotiations before America defaults on her obligations, Speaker Boehner has decided to punt the hard stuff to yet another commission. This group will be a joint committee between the House and Senate which will have the power to offer a plan which must simply be voted upon by both houses, up or down, without amendment. This is, it should be pointed out, Congress itself declaring to the world that it is broken. Both houses of Congress will be, in essence, stating that they simply cannot get anything done. To solve this problem, they are going to throw up their hands and let others deal with it. This is very similar (if not quite as drastic) as the plan Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been pushing -- which would entirely abdicate Congress' power, and just hand it over to the executive branch. McConnell, even more than Boehner, is admitting "Congress doesn't work" and thus voluntarily giving up congressional power. But even Boehner's committee idea is nothing more than punting responsibility. Call it a shorter punt, if you will, but it is still a punt nevertheless.
Perhaps I'm being too hard on Republicans, here. I really didn't write this to blame any particular party -- just to point out the insanity of expecting anything different in five months under Boehner's proposal, from either party. Democrats certainly have shared in the time-wasting aspect of the situation themselves. The Senate, in particular, punted on passing a budget last year. When Democrats held an overwhelming advantage in the Senate (although not, since Scott Brown was elected, a filibuster-proof edge in numbers), they could have made their budget priorities plain and clear. They could have introduced the Democratic budget to solve all the nation's problems -- even if it was filibustered to death. They could even -- as late as December of last year -- have just gone ahead and raised the debt ceiling until after the 2012 elections. They did not do so. They -- again, I single out the Senate in particular -- punted. They punted to a Congress which is much more Republican, and now they are paying the price for not doing their job in the first place. In other words, if it's a blame-game you're interested in, there is plenty of blame to shovel around on both sides of the fence.
The outcome of Boehner's proposed committee, though, is now all but certain (if it does indeed pass, which is doubtful at this point). Assumably, there will be some Democrats on Boehner's committee, and some Republicans. It's an iron-clad guarantee that the Republicans on this committee will not vote for any tax increases, in any way, shape, or form. Meaning the committee will not approve much of anything (see: B.S. Commission, mentioned above). Democrats are not going to vote to gut Social Security and Medicare, and Republicans are not going to raise a penny in revenues -- so why bother to even have the commission in the first place?
Well, it would waste a bunch of time. I guess there's always that.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Benjamin R. Barber: We're Number 34!
Debt Ceiling Primer | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Cut, Cap, and Balance | Republican Study Committee (RSC)
House GOP Policy Committee Chair: We're Gonna Tie Health Care To ...
House Committee Passes Increase in Debt Ceiling - New York Times
The very last thing that I wanted our conversation to devolve to, Rob, was a back and forth over dueling numbers and links. That is often not very productive.
So, Iet's just boil it down to what changes can be made to the budget that would do the most to bring the deficits and debt back to sustainable and manageable levels ... which, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong - is the whole point of this debt ceiling exercise.
I'll start off by saying that one significant set of factors contributing to the burgeoning deficits and debt are the Obama/Biden/Geithner tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans (formerly known as the Bush/Cheney era tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans) that are "set to expire" anyway at the end of 2012, along with the companion middle tax cuts. They're a matched set, as you know.
Under more benign economic conditions, it would be my judgement to allow ALL of these tax cuts to expire, on schedule, next year. That would constitute part of a very balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction providing an incredible amount of savings that would almost, in and of itself, put the entire US fiscal position on a sustainable footing.
...continued...
...continued...
However, considering that the economic recovery has been less than robust in the wake of the most destructive financial crisis since at least the Great Depression, another extension of the middle class tax cuts may be in order for a reasonable period of time - I dunno, say until the end of 2013. By the way, I think Obama is STILL talking about these middle class tax cuts as being permanent. In my view, it’s irresponsible for the president to be taking that tack.
I’d say that would be a good start to reducing the deficit and debt. Where would you take it from there?
Oh, I heartily agree:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/06/29/no-budget-no-paycheck-2/
-CW
Thank you for the kind words, although in all fairness I do have to admit that I spew party talking points here, every Friday:
www.fridaytalkingpoints.com
So I'm not altogether blameless, myself.
:-)
-CW
I have to vehemently disagree!
While I guess it's true enough for you to say that you "spew party talking points" and are "not altogether blameless" - and, I still find the term to be extremely cringe worthy - the points you consistently make in your weekly FTP columns are ALWAYS firmly rooted in reality, steeped in context, and based on the facts of the matter, without fail.
When most people refer to talking points they do so in mostly derrogatory terms and, for good reason.
Your FTP columns, on the other hand, give talking points a good name and indeed elevate them to a platform of respectability and credibility. And, may I say, no one does it better!
This would be just so precious, on any number of levels, if it wasn't also so dangerously irresponsible and hopelessly incompetent behavior of the sort that should simply not be tolerated.
Just on the face of it, that statement is wildly outrageous and demonstrably false.
How much did Bowles-Simpson want to cut the military? Because, former SecDef Gates already cut it by $400 billion before the president tasked him to cut another $400 billion.
In other words, your conclusion about what motivates Obama is, once again, not factually-based.
This is another case where the republicans say that they want a smaller government but they want a bigger government who will do their jobs and push there agenda. As long as you promote for others to enforce your beliefs, you are advocating for a bigger government. The different between the two parties is that democrats want a government that protects its people and the republicans want a government that penalizes its people for their beliefs.
If we're talking about reality-based political commentary - which is what we always get from Chris, in spades - then there can never be enough text! I mean, seriously, snap out of it!
Besides, this ain't Twitter, you know.
It is congress job to come up with ways to cut the deficit. They want to assemble a group of bipartisan congressmen/women from both the house and Senate to come up with a plan to cut the deficit and then have Congress vote on cutting the deficit.
Yet you see that as pushing the responsibility onto others? Exactly who are these others?
Where do you get the idea in any of this that Republicans want Bigger Gov? They are trying to cut the size of Gov.
Just sayin...
For all intents & purposes, Cantor has pushed Boehner in front of the bus & John is just trying to survive at this point.
Boehner is the swimming dog, calm & cool on the surface, paddling like hell underneath. It's gonna' get ugly for the Republican leadership. This internal conflict has so overtaken that reality no longer applies, it's all about who controls America's conservatives.
Everyone else doesn't exist.
Oh, now THERE is fodder for a very, very lengthy piece here ... much, much longer than this one, even. :)
And, HuffPost would be the perfect place to publish such a piece ... if you know what I mean and I'm not sure that you do.
Not nearly as hard as Republicans are being on America's Middle Class--and those who aspire to join it or remain in it.
I thought that the President's statement tonight eloquently set out a way for America to graciously accept what the Republicans want. Boehner merely stated, in effect, that as long as the President stands to get any credit for helping to give the Republicans what they want, then Republicans want even more (and, preferably, a renewed debt ceiling crisis immediately before the 2012 election).
Bernie Sanders strikes me as the only elected official in Washington who's managed to clearly and publicly articulate an inherently traditional Democratic viewpoint in all this. Remarkably, he's not an actual Democrat and sadly, he needs to stand for re-election to the Senate next year: two reasons among many why he isn't standing for the Democratic nomination in challenge to Obama. Which is a great pity, IMHO.
Just wanted to say, this is one of the most polite comments I have ever seen, in my five-plus years of blogging here. Well done!
-CW
Good point. Dig up the end segment to CBS' "Face The Nation" from yesterday -- you'll love it. Bob Scheiffer points out that the FAA has just shut down due to Congress' bickering. His solution? If Congress is stuck on "my way or the highway" then let's give them exactly that -- they can't fly home until they fix the FAA's budget. Put them on Greyhound.
It's a hilarious segment, and worth digging out. The man's got a point.
-CW
What type of social contract are we going to have with each other from here. The current social contract isn't sustainable. Great changes are coming whether we like it or not.
Mathematics and actuarial tables can be a bugger that way. We can no longer borrow what we need to maintain our current levels of government activity, taxation and wealth transfers. We must begin to live within our means. This will mean making difficult choices.
1. How much do we want to spend to defend ourselves and maintain influence over seas? What is the best way to go about doing that?
2. What level of social safety net are we willing to provide? How much health care for the elderly? How is it to be provided?
3. How much of the economy are we going to allocate to government? What is the fairest way to raise that allocation in light of the growing chasm between the rich and the poor?
These are the great questions of our time, and there is no better way to deal with them than to have an election. Put the questions in front of the voters and let them decide.
There are thoughtful voices on all sides of the issues.
What do you think are the chances that the media will engage us on these or any other significant questions? I think the chances are extremely slender. And that is at least part of the problem facing our nation. A people dedicated to democracy needs to be educated on the issues. Thirty second sound-bites or bumper sticker thinking is not what we need.
We elect our legislators based on name recognition and 30 second attack ads. Half of the republican field looks like they should be on a reality show, not a serious presidential run. Leaving it up to ourselves is pretty scary....
...but it's the only choice we really have.
Our best hope is the wisdom of the crowd.
"Oh, yes ... let's disparage the Democrats! That is so par for the course around HuffPost.
I don't suppose you have anything to say about the kind of nonsense the Republicans are engaged in, do you?
Or, better yet, have you sent in your emails to all of your reps to voice your support for the responsible and balanced approach to all of this that Obama/Biden/Geithner are taking? If you're gonna do that, by the way, you better hurry as time is of the essence ... if it's not already too late."
====================================================================
Jeeez, LizM - I thought disparaging against Repubs goes without saying. However, if it needs to be spelled out so that you won't feel outraged, then fine, here you go:
1. Republicans want to take this country down after they're done looting it.
2. The Tea-Party are 'tards, and Ann Coulter, Rush, Beck and FOX pander to idiots.
3. Anyone who obsesses about gays are closet-cases.
4. Minorities who join the Republicans are self-hating, including Republican women.
5. Religion sucks, and Right-Wing Christo-Fascists suck almost as bad as Islamo-fascist.
Is that enough for you? Now can you take a deep breath and calm down?
Yes, I do send emails, of course I do, but that's not really what's getting you wound up, is it? It's that you think Obama should be supported unquestioningly, like the Fox Sheeple did with Bush.
Anyway. I do agree with the headline. Yet another commission? Don't make me laugh. Not only is it time wasting but kicking the can even further down the road. I don't like how this "Super Congress" will exclude debate on the floors of both houses, and make its deliberations behind closed doors. It seems somehow both creepy politically and un-American. But that's just me.
What I don't understand is why can't Boehner go back to his and Obama's first agreement to both increase taxes and cut spending? (Actually I do understand why -- the bases of both parties would revolt and such a bill would die instantly.) This original proposal would have made everyone unhappy; that's how equality works, unfair to everyone equally.
Yeah, well, touché. I wrote the whole thing (up to that penultimate paragraph), and then realized that while I was meaning to vent on the entire Washington nonsense, I had come off as partisan. So I stuck a few raps in there for Dems.
What I didn't realize, when I wrote this, is that Harry Reid's proposal has almost exactly the same "commission" within it. If I had known that before I wrote this piece, it would have spread my wrath around a bit more equally, I promise.
:-)
I liked your last line, that's an excellent point in general.
-CW
"If they had kept to this promise, there would be a separate bill for the rise in the debt ceiling, with no deficit-cutting involved."
The only problem with that, is ceilings get raised now, but spending never gets cut later.
These folks simply can't be trusted, and at least some of them admit to it. The only way to get this to stop is a balanced budget amendment. I firmly believe that has to be part of any deal to raise the deficit.
It's about principles, Mr. Weigant. Mine is that government is a neccesary evil, and the smaller it is, the easier it is to control. At this juncture, no one can actually control it. Unless we say "NO MORE!" and stick to it, all is lost.
Where to start cutting? I'd start here: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/
Ah, but a balanced budget amendment is just another way of saying "Congress is broken -- we can't do our jobs!!" There is absolutely nothing stopping Congress from passing a balanced budget, say, tomorrow. Eric Cantor's budget proposal, however (just to use one example), relies on trillions in deficit spending, and that's just in the first decade. So why didn't he put a balanced budget forward for next year? Political cowardice?
And any amendment would take, roughly, a few years to be enacted. So that's just another way of punting, when you get right down to it.
(I do have to commend you on your first paragraph, though, as that's a pretty good line.... Nice turn of phrase, there.)
-CW
And when it comes to the budget, again we can't be trusted. I've heard from more than one freshman in Congress say from day one he gets pressure from all sides and all constituencies for what? Favors. Favors cost Mr. Weigant. We've made it the price of admission to Washington.
We ourselves are as much to blame for telling our representatives to balance their books, AFTER they take care of our little baileywick.
Congress IS broken because WE are broken, Mr. Weigant.
I might be accused (and guilty as charged) of my Christian fundalmentalist perspective about this, but the evidence lay before our feet, everywhere we turn. Until that changes, we need laws and amendments.