While analysts, advisors and columnists disagree about who won and who lost the most — Republicans or Democrats, the president or Congress — the real losers are the American people who wanted signs that we have a responsible government (we don’t) and who want their cake-and-eat-it-too (and got neither).
The economy
…The deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.
Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond. …Paul Krugman
___
The politicians
…The epic budget battle has failed to resolve another question: which party can be better trusted to govern?
The president, with his re-election on the horizon, emerges from the showdown in a diminished state after giving considerable ground and struggling to rise above a deep partisan intransigence that has engulfed Washington. And Republican leaders, especially Speaker John A. Boehner, are bruised after navigating the intractable sentiment of the Tea Party movement….
… The outcome, perhaps, was better for Mr. Obama as a presidential candidate than as a president. His ability to face down House Republicans over the next 18 months is in question, but when he faces voters next year, his advisers believe that the debt ceiling fight will have created a clear contrast between his priorities and that of a Republican Party that he and his allies will no doubt portray as extreme. …analysis, NYT
… This leaves Americans to contemplate two possibilities more alarming than debt-ceiling brinkmanship. First, that we’re living through yet another failed presidency. And second, that there’s nobody waiting in the wings who’s up to the task either. …Ross Douthat
I wish Douthat had gotten closer to the truth (but he frequently chooses to avoid it). We’re not talking about a failed presidency. We’re talking about a failed government and a failing nation.
Ezra Klein is smarter. He recognizes that the “deal” isn’t really a deal.
Perhaps this deal signals the end of the need to actually reach an agreement, however. If the Joint Committee fails, the trigger begins cutting spending. If negotiations over taxes fail, the Bush tax cuts expire and revenues rise by $3.6 trillion. Neither scenario is anyone’s first choice on policy grounds. But you can get to both scenarios without Republicans explicitly conceding to higher taxes or Democrats explicitly conceding to entitlement cuts in the absence of higher taxes. Politically, that’s the lowest-common denominator, and that might mean it’s also the only deal the two parties can actually make. But that’s because it’s the only deal that doesn’t require, well, making a deal. …Ezra Klein, WaPo
Obama put the best spin possible on the deal when he announced it in the White House briefing room. But there’s little good news for him and his party in what’s immediately known about the framework of the compromise…
… Showing a willingness to stand up to the liberal base is not necessarily bad – if it pays off in increased support from the Independents who often determine the outcome of elections. But there is no sign that Independents approve of the president’s handling of the debt issue. The combination of a depressed base and a disillusioned center is potentially toxic to the president. His challenge in the next 15 months is to find an antidote by showing he’s still able to govern under the terms of the deal and able to persuade his own party that they need to rally behind him. ...George Condon, National Journal/Atlantic
___
The American people
… Failing to raise the debt ceiling stops money already approved by Congress from being spent. If lawmakers see the debt ceiling as real, they will exercise less judgment in the ordinary budget process, on the reckless belief that fiscal restraint can somehow be imposed down the road.
Legislative obstacles like the debt ceiling are a source of mischief, not precaution. They aren’t found in the Constitution; they were put in place by previous Congresses seeking to tie the hands of their successors. Far from encouraging more responsible governance, they often have the opposite effect.
Unnecessary supermajority requirements are another culprit — the Senate filibuster chief among them. It has been transformed over the last generation from an extraordinary step taken by disgruntled minorities into a hard-and-fast “rule of 60” that makes compromise extraordinarily difficult. And when Congress fails to meet this extra-constitutional threshold, it is no surprise that the president tries to work around it.
Fast-track procedures that limit amendments and require an up-or-down vote may appear to limit Congress’s power, but could actually strengthen it by discouraging the executive from going it alone. If prior debt-ceiling legislation had included a fast-track provision, with an automatic increase that would go into effect in the case of inaction, much of the acrimony and brinkmanship of the past few months could have been avoided.
After the debt crisis ends, the democracy crisis must be tackled. Nobody wins when our constitutional system falters: not the president, who gains unilateral power but loses a governing partner; not Congress, which gets to blame the president but risks irrelevance; and certainly not the American people, who have to bear the resulting dysfunction. …Jacob Hacker and Oona Hathaway
Congress is far from doing its job. It has chosen to abdicate and turn the real job over to a “super” committee. The president isn’t much better, passing the buck to a commission whose results he then decides to ignore.
On the other hand, the president fought to keep Republicans from continuing their damage to our “fragile” economy and may well have preserved his relationship with Wall Street bankers. The election in 2012 will tell us a lot about that.
But the process, led by John Boehner for the most part, gets no congratulations, not even from serious budget cutters.
Budget experts viewed this process skeptically.
“I think it’s very unlikely that a special committee is going to make (serious bipartisan) recommendations right before an election year,” [non-partisan Concord Coalition director] Bixby said. He also feared that Congress will not allow steep automatic cuts to spending. “Democrats are never going to agree to major entitlement reform if revenues are off the table. The fact of the matter is, entitlement programs are very popular” with voters.
The most positive outcome in the deal to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling is that it would delay steep cuts awhile, so they wouldn’t come within the next year, when the economic recovery is still so fragile.
“We also made sure these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that it would be a drag,” Obama said. …McClatchy
What’s still missing from all of this is the recognition on all sides — Americans, their representatives, and their president — that we want it both ways. We’re in favor of a government that spends its resources carefully but not a government that takes money away from programs that we value. The difference between the two parties is that one goes to the polls feeling guilt and a desire to punish others, and the other feeling optimism and a desire to reward everybody. Will we feel more guilt or more hope and optimism in November 2012?
Cross posted from the blog Prairie Weather.
The cartoon by Osama Hajjaj, Abu Mahjoob Creative Productions, is copyrighted and licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Due to a technical glitch, this post was up on TMV for a minute with the wrong byline. It was quickly corrected. We regret the error.
Actually, the Republicans have participated in “rewarding others,” vote-buying, too (liberals in particular and left-leaning moderates view this apparently as being “compassionate”). They tend not to be at the forefront of vote-buying, typically, but simply refrain from being too mean and taking away too much candy, so they won’t lose re-election. (So many do want those entitlements, in particular.)
The GOP “refrains from being bad” in avoiding tax increases, too.
If you want to know, there are winners and losers with the budget deal — there are spending cuts, but much is spared, notably the entitlements. (There is one known possible “reform” that isn’t, namely a possible reduction in Medicare payments to providers. That will reduce the already-bad access even more, which I guess some could argue with a straight face reduces costs from the provider side and consequently from the demand side, too!)
Spending cuts are projected over ten years (that game again), and much relies on the “trigger” (another game that hasn’t worked), or on a commission, and on voting on this or that in the future.
No wonder the credit rating agencies said that even with the debt limit raised, the lack of a serious (reformed) budget could likely mean the credit rating would be lowered anyway.
More on this is found here, which includes the well-known expectation by the ratings agencies for around $4 trillion in cuts, rather than what’s in the deal, 1.2-2.4T or so over ten years(!), and in addition:
S&P has been notably pointed in its criticisms. John Chambers, its head of sovereign ratings, said on a client conference call late last week that $4 trillion in cuts is just “a good start,” and it wants more to stabilize the U.S.’ annual budget deficit-to-GDP ratio, now at more than 9%. The International Monetary Fund has said that a healthy ratio here is 7.5%.
Deal or no deal we’re still racing towards the financial cliff, they just let up on the gas to slow from 100 to 95.
Hopefully we will get some mature deal going
Oh, I think it’s pretty clear that the Tea Party won. Even if their approval ratings went down, they’ve managed to convince everyone in Washington that austerity is a good idea, and deficit reductions RIGHT NOW
eh, not sure how I got cut off…
…in any case, they’ve convinced up to and including the supposedly (ha!) liberal president that somehow lowering the deficit is way way important, even though it’s going to mean a huge hit to the economic recovery that we need so badly. It’s gonna hurt, and bad, and it’s probably going to mean a lot of pain for a long, long time.
Winners and losers won’t be known for a few years. No, take that back, both sides will take credit for any upticks, and blame the other for all setbacks.
Winners and losers won’t be apparent for a few years.
No need to wait, Joe America has been losing for years and the people in govt who go to bat for him are harder to find than a flea on a hairless dog. This will only make matters worse.
Interesting. Only one comment before me even vaguely eluded to the biggest loser: the economy.
The economy is a loser in this deal, not necessarily because the deal contains stuff that’s harmful to the economy, but because our federal government has been sidelined from actually DOING ANYTHING for the economy for the last few months.
I’m reminded of a scene in “Gangs of New York” when two competing fire companies show up at a blaze, and proceed to fighting with each other whilst the building is looted and burned to the ground.
Barky, I’d be in a lot more agreement with you if they were talking about the kinds of reforms needed to fix the economy. There’s a lot of structural problems that are being thoroughly ignored.