It is amazing what a deadline can do to focus the hearts and minds of our government. In the final days of the lame-duck session, Congress passed and sent to the president a major piece of tax and economic stimulus legislation, including the extension of unemployment benefits; the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' the nearly 20-year old Pentagon policy; historic food safety legislation; and the landmark START Treaty on nuclear weapons reduction. Most importantly, all were passed with bipartisan support. Maybe one of the lessons of all of this is to shorten the congressional session to one month per year. All kidding aside, it does demonstrate that the calendar, coupled with a historic election, can act as a catalyst for Congress and the president to get things done for the American people with a cautious but healthy move towards bipartisan agreements. Reading the tea leaves, Congress obviously recognized that the American electorate was demanding progress in a variety of areas affecting their day-to-day lives.
Nevertheless, the rush towards bipartisan nirvana is likely to be a very rocky one. The most bearish scenario is that the House Republican majority and an energized Senate minority will work to block President Obama's initiatives for the rest of his first term, and the political gamesmanship and hyper-partisanship on both sides of the political aisle will impede any meaningful progress on a variety of issues, especially our growing national debt. On the other hand, I prefer to believe that divided government will force the parties to reach consensus more often, spurred by an electorate that is becoming increasingly frustrated with the current economic anxieties and continued loss of jobs. There are major initiatives in agriculture, energy, education, and homeland security, issues that have historically resulted in both political parties coming together for the public good, and we could see progress in these areas during the next two years. Of course, many of the issues that drive and divide us are real and significant, and the solutions difficult and tricky.
But the real test of bipartisanship lies in the ability of our political system to address the most pressing of all problems, the national debt, in a fair and meaningful way. Congress, the president and the American people must recognize, as the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin debt proposals demonstrated, that only with sensible domestic spending reductions, entitlement reforms, and tax changes, which increase federal revenues and provide tax reform to all Americans without harming the economy in the process, can any effective debt reduction proposal take shape. Ultimately, by addressing this national challenge, America will see its strength and job producing capabilities reinforced, restoring its place of leadership in the world.
It is easy to be bipartisan when benefits are being added and the American people don't feel any sacrifice, as occurred in the recently passed tax bill. In the case of serious deficit and debt reduction, it is harder to call efforts like this a "win/win" for America in the shorter-term. But if history is any guide, both political parties will likely work with their respective bases to fight anything which jeopardizes them in the next election. The simple truth is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to develop a fair and sensible formula to solve our nation's debt crisis. Solutions exist that don't cause gratuitous pain and hurt, but require some collective sacrifice -- nothing that the country can't bear either in the short or long term. The question is whether there is the leadership in our political system to help deliver all of this for the American people. Without bipartisan leadership, there are no bipartisan solutions.
Over two hundred years ago, in his farewell address, George Washington called for men to put aside (political) party and unite for the common good. In the address, Washington was rather clairvoyant in describing excessive adherence to political party as destructive to the nation. We should heed his advice today. The alternative is a weaker America, both domestically and internationally. We cannot let that happen. And, realistically we will never find nirvana, but America as a "shining city on the hill" is not a bad second choice if we seek common ground.
Robert J. Elisberg: The Real Nuclear Option
Oh I forgot, the answer is in the middle. The South Park fallacy.
Of course, you don't believe what you say, as the Bipartisan Policy Center is a corporate-backed power brokerage, and austerity would provide a windfall in the ensuing rush to privatize what's left of the public sector.
The truth is that the most pressing issue right now is the economy as a whole; the debt is one part of that, but it is not the overriding part--unemployment is. If we can begin ending this recession and making the proper cuts in the proper places (the military) then the debt will be made very manageable in quite a short time. If policymakers focus solely on our national debt, they will mis-direct their efforts and the nation's resources on reducing spending by any means necessary, which can only prolong the recession, and ultimately, increase our national debt. It is a paradox, but in order to bring our debt down we may very well have to spend more on deficit. I just hope that the President and the administration are able and willing to do that.
For an individual, it is totally logical to reduce spending/increase revenue when you are in debt. The government is not an individual though. Right now, we are in a recession because aggregate demand is in the doldrums--middle class consumers aren't buying, they're paying down their debt or saving their money. Because of this, businesses aren't hiring, people aren't getting employed, and it constitutes a vicious cycle. Some entity has to spend in order to provide the demand 'spark' to break the cycle, and get people employed again--the only entity capable of doing this is the government.
Now, let's look at the situation from your view. You clearly feel that the govt. should start paying off its debt now, and reduce spending. We could demand, if we wanted, that the govt. stop all social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, etc. tomorrow; if they did so, the debt would disappear in quite a short time, but the economy would collapse. That's an overly dramatic example, but the point is that cutting government spending in the middle of a recession leads to proven disaster.
What? What? In the latest "test of bipartisanship", our government passed a bill that in and of itself added one trillion dollars to the US deficit. That's "trillion" with a "t" and an "r". You're right, it is a test of bipartisanship, because if there's one thing both sides readily agree on, it's strapping more debt onto the back of the American public. And because this bill isn't going to fix this economy anymore than bloodletting would fix anemia, they're gonna do more debt, and more debt, and more debt, until ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE. What's going to stop that scenario? How is re-passing the Bush tax cuts--which every single person who looked at it in any way says "dropped our economy into the toilet"--how is re-passing those tax cuts now going to magically fix the economy? How can anyone even think this? What is the matter with people? This tax cut debt bill is a proven disaster--it has already soundly failed. So let's do it again!
They're going to keep running up the debt until the currency is worth less than toilet paper. And they're going to call it a "compromise" when, in fact, it's the only thing they all agree on.
Instead I suggest we call it the buzzer-beater session of congress.
That's not who things were done for.
I am very glad that the New START Treaty was ratified. It will significantly reduce the number of nuclear warheads and launchers that the United States and Russia can deploy. Also, I think it is especially important that inspection and monitoring will resume.
This "bipartisanship," however, came at a substantial price, literally. I think it is unfortunate that President Obama needed to commit (or thought he needed to commit) more than 84 billion dollars to the "modernization" of our nuclear weapons program. I wonder to what extent this was influenced by pressure from the arms industry.
President Eisenhower eloquently warned us of the unwarranted influence of the military- industrial complex.
For an article about the New START Treaty and a video of Ike's warning, check out Peace and Justice Online, at http://peaceandjusticeonline.org
Raise the top tax rate to 40% and dedicate the increased amount to pay down foreign-held debt.
Reduce the defense dept spending by 10% a year for four years to a new baseline.
Reduce deficit spending 50% a year for four years to zero.
A perfectly reasonable serious proposal. Why do you brush it off as a silly idea?