On vacation, full of debt ceiling rage
I'm currently on vacation and won't be blogging all that much over the next few weeks. Here and there, when the mood is right, but otherwise not. Rest, relaxation, and family are the priorities.
But, fear not, Richard and the gang will keep things rolling, and so I hope you keep checking back for new posts from my wonderful team.
Actually, though, I'm full of rage at the moment. I'm generally trying to avoid the news, and especially U.S. politics, but, well...
What has me enraged? The Deal, of course.
Yes, the new bipartisan deal to avert default by raising the debt ceiling and, to please Republicans, slash spending (of course, mostly spending that benefits the poor and downtrodden, the usual GOP targets, those no one in power seems to give a shit about).
Now, it's not yet a done deal. President Obama and the Democratic and Republican leadership have agreed to it, but not the rank and file -- and there are sure to be many on both sides who object to it.
Democrats have good reason to object. The deal is heavily Republican, a largely right-wing fix to a crisis created by Republicans. It's all about cuts, not revenue increases, and cuts that, again, will hurt those Democrats supposedly care about. Some Republicans will object as well, but only because -- let's put it kindly -- they're a bunch of petulant extremists who refuse to compromise and who are willing to let the country go into default, and face economic calamity, to get everything they want.
In fact, it has come to this largely because Republicans, from the top down (the leadership included), are bullies crazy enough to risk the country's health, so "patriotic" are they, having basically held the country hostage throughout this entire process.
Sure, I'm deeply critical of Democrats, including the president, for not fighting harder to prevent this, and for not standing up more determinedly for what they purportedly stand for, but, honestly, what were they supposed to do? Let the country go into default? Let the debt ceiling deadline pass, come what may? Sure, maybe. Maybe they could have spun that and kept the blame on the other side, and even come away with a political win, and maybe the impending crisis and public outcry would have forced Republicans back to the negotiating table with their tails somewhat between their legs, but... should they really have taken such an enormous risk?
Maybe Republicans were always going to win this, maybe it was inevitable, because all along they were willing to go further and risk more. That's the problem trying to negotiate with crazy people. They're willing to do things you're not. (Isn't that how Keyser Söze solidified his power?) In this case, Republicans were willing to sacrifice their country for their ideological demands. Democrats, being mature and rational and responsible, were not. And so they had to agree to a deal on Republican (i.e., insane) terms.
There was a brief time when Obama had the upper hand, after he had turned the tables on Republicans and back them into a corner, and with public opinion on his side, but he was only going to win this if he went all the way. And, say what you will about him, he wasn't prepared to play that game, not with so much at stake.
I suspect the deal will pass tomorrow. There will be major defections, but surely enough arms can be twisted, enough dissenters bought off, to make it happen.
And then? Crisis will have been averted, at least temporarily, but Republicans will declare victory -- for getting most of they want (loads of cuts, no new revenue).
The Democrats? They'll get nothing out of this politically.
Obama? Yes, probably. He'll be able to reinforce his credibility among independents by presenting himself as a bipartisan leader who got it done when it mattered (no matter the awful details of what got done).
But unless Democrats can gain control of the narrative and make the debate about ending the deeply unpopular Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and protecting deeply popular entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), this deal won't do them any political favors next year, with with Republicans set to hammer them, however dishonestly (as usual), for being tax-happy, spend-happy socialists.
At least for now, there is reason for cautious, extremely cautious optimism. The deal would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion (with $900 billion in spending cuts):
That will be paired with the formation of a Congressional committee tasked with reducing deficits by a minimum of $1.2 trillion. That reduction can come from spending cuts, tax increases or a mixture thereof.
If the committee fails to reach $1.2 trillion, it will trigger an automatic across the board spending cut, half from domestic spending, half from defense spending, of $1.2 trillion. The domestic cuts come from Medicare providers, but Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted. The enforcement mechanism carves out programs that help the poor and veterans as well.
If the committee finds $1.5 trillion or more in savings, the enforcement mechanism would not be triggered. That's because Republicans are insisting on a dollar-for-dollar match between deficit reduction and new borrowing authority, and $900 billion plus $1.5 trillion add up to $2.4 trillion.
However, if the committee finds somewhere between $1.2 and $1.5 trillion in savings, the balance will be made up by the corresponding percentage of the enforcement mechanism's cuts, still in a one-to-one ratio.
Democrats say they're confident that the enforcement mechanism is robust enough to convince Democrats and Republicans to deal fairly on the committee -- to come up with a somewhat balanced package of entitlement reforms and tax increases. However, the White House assures them that if the committee fails to produce "tax reform" he will veto any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of next year.
Again, the focus is on spending cuts, not revenue increases, but at least cuts to defence spending are on the table and at least it's possible that revenue increases will be part of any future deal.
Actually, scratch that. I'm still highly enraged. And there's really no good reason for optimism at all, even cautious optimism. Obama may want to use the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in his re-election campaign, as a winning issue (assuming public opinion stays roughly where it is), but he has shown little to no willingness to stand up for progressive principles -- indeed, for principles that are simply not Republican, so much of a moderate Republican does he appear to be -- and, what's more, neither have most Democrats on Capitol Hill, it seems.