"Forget all the numbers being tossed around in Washington," begins today's New York Post article about domestic policy. I think I've heard that one before. It's as good a starting out place as any when thinking about policy. After all, the point of any deliberative decision making process (or even a meaningful thought experiment) is to throw reality, constraints, and facts out the window. Who cares that the federal debt can't be paid for by discretionary spending cuts alone? Just ignore that fact. We already established that facts don't exist.
Allow me to respond to the New York Post:Think about a few key numbers that might help any person grope towards a reasonable macroeconomic policy in the next few years.
There's, for instance, the length of the current economic recession: 5 years and counting. There's the depth of the recession: 14 million unemployed Americans. Then there's the economy-contracting factor of taking money out of the economy in a period of anemic economic growth: for every dollar the Republicans take out of the economy, the economy will shrink by 1.6 dollars. For every dollar that the government spends by contrast, the economy grows by 1.6 dollars.
Those are the numbers that News Corp its business conglomerate allies want you to forget. They want you to ignore that 1 in 7 Americans is below the poverty line (The Koch-funded Heritage foundation even released a report attacking the poverty line yesterday). They want you to forget that the money that budget deficit we're facing was caused by shoveling $1.8 trillion of federal money into the pockets of the wealthy, super wealthy, and obscenely wealthy. And the current "debt crisis" was helped along by Republicans demanding an extension of additional tax cuts last December, costing Americans an additional $3.9 trillion. Incidentally, the obscenely wealthy got the most bang for their buck. And the middle class got a pittance back; less than the worth of government services to which they lost access.
You would expect that Paul Ryan's much heralded plan to cut taxes for the rich and pay for it by ending Medicare would poll well somewhere in the electorate. Let's look at where Republicans tend do perform best: voters 65 and older. Republicans won the 2010 elections largely on impressive turnout from Seniors, who split for Republicans by 21 points (59-38) in the 2010 midterm elections.. On the other hand, Republican strength in 2010 was largely built from the perception that the Affordable Care Act would diminish the opportunities available to Seniors receiving Medicare, hence the talking point "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Ryan's Folly promises to replace Medicare, where the government pays for medical care for Seniors, with a voucher system that will not cover the costs of health insurance. The Republican dominance in the Senior vote in 2010 essentially resulted in the realization of the fears that Republicans used to get elected.
Ryan's Folly has destroyed the Republican advantage among Seniors, according to today's Gallup poll on the nation's budget preferences. Only 48% of seniors prefer Ryan's Folly to the President's budget plan, which actually lowers the costs of health care. Ryan's plan to place that health care burden on the backs of individual Americans has cost the Republican party a 20 point lead among their most important demographic group. Meanwhile, Democrats maintain their 20 point advantage among voters aged 18-30, greatly expanding on their actual margin among the young in 2010.
The House takes up the Republican budget plan for FY 2012 today, authored by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan. Speaker Boehner has promised a united Republican vote for Ryan's Folly. The vote is non-binding, but sets a general plan in motion for the House. Think of it as a fantasy league budget resolution. No actual players are in the arena, and no actual money is being spent. So as long as we're clear that this is a fantasy vote in the House today, let's look at what, exactly the Republican fantasy entails.
Let's tackle the most important aspect in our national budget: health care costs. The striking thing about how Republicans plan to tackle health care costs is that they don't. Ryan's Folly shifts health care costs onto the elderly, providing them with health care 'vouchers' instead of health care. As health care costs continue their astronomical rise over the coming years, the vouchers will be provide less and less health care. Either the size of the vouchers will have to be increased, wiping out any potential savings for the federal budget, or seniors will have to pay much much more for health care than they already do. The voucherizing of a core American safety net for the middle class is the heart of Ryan's Folly.Representative Ryan’s plan is the one that would change Medicare from a government entitlement program to a voucher-like system in which the US would help seniors buy private health insurance. To Republicans, it is something that shows they are serious about putting the nation’s fiscal house back in order.
This mischaracterizes the Republican plan. If anything, their plan puts the government's fiscal hosue in order, but without actually changing the amount of money being spent on health care by the nation as a whole. Even if seniors do attempt to save money for themselves by forgoing preventative treatment that they won't be able to afford with Ryan's vouchers, the costs will certainly show up on hospital balance sheets as unpaid medical bills. The money to help hospitals through that crisis will have to come from somewhere, and it will likely keep coming from taxpayer pockets one way or another.
When John Boehner says that Ryan's Folly saves Americans money, is resting on unbelievably faulty assumptions, ones that no health care expert or evidence-oriented economist would endorse. Plenty of economic theorists, fiction authors, and their devotees endorse the Republican plan. In the words of Jon Kyl's office, the Republican claims about Ryan's Folly are, "Not intended to be a factual statement." The plan will not cut the nation's deficit even by the measly $155 billion over ten years that they promise because they are based on ludicrous, disproven assumptions.
Politico wonders what President Obama set out to achieve in Wednesday's debt speech blockbuster. The speech began with reminder of why government is important. He addressed the plutocratic nature of the Republican plan to shift health care costs onto the elderly and middle class while slashing taxes for the wealthy. He proposed a four-part, balanced package, including one quarter that subsumed the only serious Republican proposal: domestic discretionary spending cuts.But the combative tenor of Obama’s remarks, which included a swipe at his potential 2012 GOP challengers, may have scuttled the stated purpose of the entire enterprise — to start negotiations with Republicans on a workable bipartisan approach to attacking the deficit.
What Politico fails to understand is that the President feels no need to reach his grand bargain before 2012. He can negotiate with the 113th Congress or even the 114th one if he wins reelection.
The value of structuring the speech within a vision of America, then comparing whose plan would get America into the 21st century without seriously hobbling it in the global marketplace, is that it provides exactly the kind of contrast that is helpful for voters in an election. Unlike President Obama's signal achievements like the Affordable Care Act--and major defeats like the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for income above $250k--that occured in the dark recesses of Congress, the debate about the broad outlines of the role of the American government in the 21st century requires public input. It requires a referrendum on the ideas put forth by both parties.
The Affordable Care Act was the product of such a referrendum, but the debt and the contours of the American state was not the major issue in 2008. Health Care reform, federal failures to perform core governmental functions (see: FEMA), and the economy were the major issues. As Republicans would have it, government's role in the economy will be the central issue of the 2012 election. It is also a debate that Republicans will lose handily.
President Obama doesn't need to negotiate with the current Congress, and any attempt to do so would be disastrous. We already know that Republicans the 112th Congress have an unappeasable appetite for hostage taking.
At the same time, President Obama is offering to cut domestic discretionary spending by nearly a trillion dollars over 12 years. This is a genuine olive branch to Republicans, but not the ones in Congress.
This weekend, the analysis on every pundit's lips was that John Boehner emerged from the budget deal with credibility and an enhanced standard. He walked out of a bank robbery with a purported $38.5 Billion in budget cuts this year, threw the duffel bags full of $100 bills in a truck, and sped off.
Today, it appears that Boehner's money bags were empty. Instead of the $38.5 billion that Boehner believed he had heisted from programs paying for nutritional assistance for pregnant women, foreign aid, mortgage modification programs, and health care for the middle class, only 1 out of every thousand dollars of purported cuts actually occur this year. John Boehner was caught making mean-spirited cuts in order to pay for a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, then when he turned around to his base, his hands were empty. This has got to be one of the most immediate losses of credibility I have ever seen.
Because 99.9% of Boehner's 'cuts' take place in the future, there's a distinct chance that they will never happen. Next year's Congress, facing an electorate that is paying more attention, could be less willing to stick to the game plan to cut programs for the middle class. Conversely, if the budget is already enacted into law, Republicans won't be able to claim the same budget cuts twice. If they back away from the cuts, more radical challengers could actually attack sitting Republicans as raising spending in a primary.
The budget deal is expected to pass today.
The last gavel has still not fallen on the government shutdown, with a budget possibly still in the works at this late hour. What are the developments over the past few hours?
On the Republican side, it speaks volume that Tom Coburn seemed to be the only adult in the Republican caucus, but he may be getting support to make a deal from the House Republican ranks. Removing the rider that would prohibit the EPA from regulating industrial pollution shows that the Republicans are willing to back off of their showy issues in order to achieve their broader ideological goals. In the budget showdown, Republicans have laid their cards on the table. They are pushing for an America that can not provide adequate healthcare, economic security, international leadership, or consumer protections. The backing away from the naked language prohibiting such action is a positive sign, but does not lessen the magnitude of the Republican success in pushing an ideological budget at the expense of the American taxpayer. Meanwhile, Repbulicans are holding the budget hostage in order to fight womens' health, not to mention equality and freedom.
In the White House, Biden is showing the raw frustrated of being forced to argue with children. This type of honest emotional display will resonate with Americans when they ask themselves, "Who caused this shutdown?" although Republican propagandists are seriously pushing the line that democrats are at fault. Meanwhile, the President is playing good cop to Biden's more eye-catching bad cop routine. The mediator role tarnished President Obama's political standing in the health care debate, where he was caught in the middle of a prolonged legislative battle. In the budget fight, the decisive end probably will pay off better political dividends.
The key for Democrats fighting the radical Paul Ryan budget is to be clear about what the budget means. The budget on its own terms are immensely unpopular. Of course, the key is message discipline and focus. I think Ezra Klein hones in on the simple problem for Republicans in the first line:a) Non-defense discretionary: Brings spending back to pre-2008 levels and freezes it there for five years.
Americans don't want to go back to pre-2008 government. Of course, that phrase is a little obscure, and hard to connect with Americans' concrete realities.
Americans don't want to go back to Bush era government. Independent fiscal hawks are still unhappy with the Bush-era spending as they were with the current administration's attempts to fix the holes. Even self-identifying conservatives still don't like the Bush brand. Yet, it's exactly the plan that Republicans have promised.
Americans still remember that the Bush administrations' policies ended in the financial catastrophe which started the recession on mainstreet. Americans understand that Bush-era spending levels did not reflect their values. Americans soundly rejected Bush-era politics and spending in the 2008 election.
It appears that Repbulicans have forgotten how a bill becomes a law. Two hundred twenty Republican members of the House of Representatives voted through a bill which ignores the constitutinoal reality of how laws are made. A bill must be passed by both houses of Congress, a feat which usually requires that both houses pass versions of the bill then negotiate in a conference committee to find a solution that will pass both houses. The compromise bill, if voted for in both houses, goes to the President's desk for either a signature or a veto. Republicans have a different take on the matter:Under the bill, the budget already passed by the House and rejected by the Senate becomes law if the Senate does not reverse course and approve it by April 6. The current budget that pays for the government runs out two days later, meaning that if no agreement is reached on spending for the remaining six months of this budget year, part of the government would shut down on April 9.
That's how democracy works. I put my idea forward- if you agree with it, my idea becomes law. If you disagree, then my idea still becomes law because I say so. That's how governing works in Iran, Libya, North Korea, Ivory Coast, and Syria, and if it's good enough for third-world plutocracies, it should be good enough for America.
The laughably unconstitutional bill has proved hard pill to swallow even for their traditional blogagandist cheerleaders, who can, afterall, read. The constitution is very clear on this matter:All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
The Tea Party elements of the Senate (read: entrenched corporate interests) are coalescing around Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)'s 5-year plan for the budget. Since this is thus far the only budget proposal offered by Republicans that lasts for more than a month, let's just call it the GOP budget plan for short. The plan obliterates the departments of Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Commerce. This is remarkable restraint from Rand Paul; devotees of the Senator's past would have expected Rand Paul to abduct the federal government, force it to take drugs, and coerce it into praying to "aqua buddha" rather than just cut off a few essential functions upon which its citizens and constituent states.
It's hard to imagine a worse plan for the economy right now, or for states. The Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development shovel federal taxpayer money into state coffers, paying for state-led projects, state teacher payrolls, and preventing fraud and waste. States are fighting tooth and nail to keep basic programs alive. An enormous part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act kept local progams afloat amid the massive dip of property taxes brought on by the burst housing bubble. The failure of Republicans to create a similar pro-state project has precipitated massive state budget shortfalls from Washington to Florida.
Yet the Republicans backing the Paul 5-year plan are making a grotesque argument that cutting grants-in-aid to states will strengthen state power
A comment caught my eye this weekend on Paul Krguman's blog post "Eat the Rich" on which I already commented. It evokes a theme in the modern liberal-conservative split on the conception of nationhood. The meat of the comment, from a Minnesotan going by "Dan" is as follows, beginning with a quote from Krugman's piece:"let’s cut that, because the damage to the nation from malnourishment is a problem for future politicians."
No, Paul, it's a problem for the malnourished individuals, not the responsible individuals who aren't sheeple or cattle and simply know how to eat right, save for retirement, avoid living in flooded hurricane magnet locations. Quit trying to socialize problems that are problems of individuals, and not of society as a whole.
The conservative world view is fairly easy to sum up: individuals are solely respnsible for their destiny.
Just for the moment, let's grant this premise: responsible adults, essentially meaning ones free of mental health problems, shape their own ends. This fails to explain why society should not be concerned with providing nutritional assistance to families with young children, as WIC does. Malnutrition is not a matter of diet for the vast majority of people who suffer from it, but from a lack of available food. Children are particularly susceptible to malnutrition because their bodies are developing. They are also dependent on their families for food. If a family cannot afford food, the child will be malnourished (barring stealing in order to feed the child). WIC prevents malnourishment in children. Malnourishment during development can have lifetime consequences for physical development, hamstringing brain, organ, or limb development. Problems in development create problems down the road for the child.
Is it in society's interest to protect its children from malnourishment? Though Dan would have us believe that this is a normative question, it hardly is.
Paul Krugman published a pithy blog post on the New York Times site looking at some of the Republicans' proposed cuts to public goods funding:WIC 1008 million
Food for Peace 544 million
NOAA 450 million
NASA 579 million
Energy efficiency and renewable energy 899
Science 1111 million
Nuclear nonproliferation 648 million
Federal buildings fund 1653 million
Homeland security administration 489 million
FEMA, various, around 1.2 billion
EPA clean water and drinking water about 1.8 billion
Community health centers 1.3 billion
Centers for disease control 900 million
These are deep cuts but not ones that will reduce the deficit. They cut effective programs to the bone without reducing overall government spending by an appreciable amount. Even worse, the money that one takes out of these programs will not be saved by the American taxpayer because the public will have to sink their own money into accommodating for the loss of the public good.
Explaining the value of these programs would be an excellent use of a NYTimes blog.
The 112th Congress is off to a roaring start, now that the remaining two Republicans have finally been sworn in (or something like it). So how should we evaluate the work that the new Congress is doing? Megan McArdle's budget advice to legislators provides a nice standard for judging whether the new Congress is doing its job: We need politicians who think about these things the way a financially sound family thinks about their budget. First, [sic] they prioritize the absolute essentials: food, shelter, transportation, utilities. Then they think about everything else in the context of building a sustainable overall budget--where the first priority is making sure that the whole budget balances, and works together. No matter how nice things like music lessons or restaurant meals may be, they are subordinate to the need to keep spending sustainable.
Is the 112th Congress approaching their budget in a way commensurate with the principles of a financially strapped family? A family looks at their estimated income and recorded expenses in an attempt to project a reasonable fiscal path into the future. This is actually pretty easy for legislators to do because they have an agency which does this for them. Non-political professionals at the Congressional Budget Office provide this analysis to politicians whenever a bill is proposed.
Instead of acting like our model family, Congressional Republicans are simply ignoring the CBO report, attacking the office for doing its job. In John Boehner's words, "I simply do not believe that [repeal]... will add to the deficit." If he were to read the report, however, he might come to a different conclusion. The GOP doesn't want to acknowledge that the first substantive bill they will introduce in the House would raise the federal deficit by $770 billion so they are attempting to kill the messenger. Republicans have routinely attacked "the reality based community" over the past decade when Republican ideology is contradicted by evidence. And I'm sure that they will continue to do so. Don't expect much respect for the analysis that the Obamacare repeal would kill millions of jobs.
Taking in evidence and trusting expert analysis is a prerequisite of creating a budet for a family or the country. That is what parents do when they make and follow family budgets. The Republicans are acting instead like teenagers. If they're not going to take their responsibilities seriously, it may be time to ground them.
