« Putting The Children In Charge
CNN’s Don Lemon Brings Back Independent Analyst Panel to React to Debt Ceiling Limit Crisis (VIDEO) »
A Hold Your Nose Deal
by Eugene Robinson
Washington Post Columnist
WASHINGTON — It’s supremely galling. It’s unbalanced, unfair and mostly unwise. For President Obama and the Democratic Party, it’s a comprehensive defeat. But it’s not the end of the world.
The deal struck Sunday to free the U.S. economy from its Republican hostage-takers is impossible for progressives to love. It gets all the big things wrong, starting with the most fundamental: Obama never should have acquiesced in linking a routine hike in the debt ceiling — necessary to pay bills Congress has already incurred — with all the difficult spending questions that should be dealt with in the budget process.
Obama’s starting point was a demand for a “clean,” unencumbered bill to raise the ceiling; House Speaker John Boehner said no. What would have happened if Obama refused to budge? We don’t know because that’s not his style. It would be nice, someday, to find out.
Once this became a debate about debt reduction and national priorities, it was obvious that budget cuts needed to be matched by new revenue. After all, if you look at historical norms, spending is too high and tax receipts are too low by about the same amount. Obama commandeered the bully pulpit and demanded a “balanced approach” that included revenue. He inveighed against undertaxed “millionaires and billionaires” who fly around in corporate jets. Polls showed that by a considerable margin, the public agreed.
Republicans insisted on budget cuts only, with not a cent of new revenue — and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what they got. There’s no way to spin it: Boehner and the GOP won. Obama and the Democrats lost.
This isn’t a rout, however. It’s a retreat, in relatively good order, that leaves Democrats provisioned for the battles to come.
The White House agreed to $900 billion in budget cuts over 10 years — in the absence of new tax revenue, a galling surrender. But the deal is structured so the slicing and dicing does not really begin until the 2013 fiscal year, which gives the struggling economy some time to find its feet — not as much time as most economists would recommend, but better than nothing.
The cuts exempt Medicaid and other programs for the poor — although there is no provision for extending unemployment benefits, a serious defect. And the cuts do not touch Medicare benefits, which preserves a key Democratic campaign issue: the Republican plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program that would leave seniors at the mercy of the private health insurance market.
Even more significant is that $350 billion of the 10-year cuts — about 40 percent — are in defense spending. Bringing the gargantuan Pentagon budget under control would be a major step toward putting the nation on sounder financial footing. This is the one big conceptual breakthrough that the deal represents: Republicans abandoned the position that defense spending must not be considered “discretionary.” Just like the money we spend on education or infrastructure, it reflects choices.
Through absurdly complicated procedures, the agreement ensures that Obama will not face another fight over the debt ceiling before next year’s election. For this, we can all be grateful.
That’s pretty much it, in terms of not-so-bad news.
Obama tried, and failed, to shake Republicans out of their fevered dream that the $14.3 trillion national debt can be brought under control with budget cuts only. Indeed, the tea party zealots who cowed the party into rejecting all proposals for new revenue will only feel emboldened, not just in their anti-tax fantasy but in their technique of threatening to wreck the economy if they don’t get their way.
The agreement creates a 12-member bipartisan “super committee” of Congress that is supposed to tackle debt reduction broadly, looking not just at further cuts but at increased tax revenue as well — despite Boehner’s specious claim that taxes are off the table. No one knows whether this new body will be able to function. If it can’t, a “trigger” mechanism starts slashing through the budget like Genghis Khan in a bad mood. This is supposed to be so unthinkable that it frightens everyone into sober rectitude. But I’ll go out on a limb and say that nothing is unthinkable anymore.
Overall, this is a bad deal that is made considerably less bad by the way its details are engineered. That’s still a long way from good.
Progressives lost this battle. They retain the capacity to win the next one, if they are smarter and tougher. If they fight.
Eugene Robinson’s email address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. (c) 2011, Washington Post Writers Group. This column is licensed to run on TMV in full.
Couple of points:
1. Anyone with one cell of brain understands that cuts are going to have to be made to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs. Demographics are driving SS and Medicare over a cliff. The only ones that do not know this is the far left progressives.
2. Anyone with one cell of brain knows that tax increases are necessary to balance a budget. Even with the 2 trillion or so, the debt is still going to go up 7-9 trillion over 10 years depending on whose economic growth projections aree used.
3. Most Americans understand politicians do not possess the brain cell required to understand the aboce two points, so that is why we are in the mess we are in.
4. As for tax increases, lets get off the class warfare and direct the reforms where needed. Lets reform the tax system so all corporations pay at least a minimum amount of taxes. Lets also look at why 47% of Americans do not pay any federal tax. If you live in America and enjoy the rights and freedoms this provides, then all should pay something for those advantages, even if it is just a token amount. When you have skin in the game, you have more to lose.
And last Mr. President, trun about is fair game!!! Where was the bi-partisan compromise when it came to healthcare reform? How does it feel when you want your ideas considered and you get “it’s my way, the election is over and we won? So when someone says the Right wing of the Republican party blacked everything the left wanted, welcome to the real world you perpetuated a year ago!!!
Hey, RP, I like your take on the mess.
And, Robinson is correct on several points, but I think the public understands better now than in November, when the first bi-partisan budget committee made its ignored report, that some further actions need to be taken.
Let’s hope S-BII gets a better reception.
(Can they use the same guys again? Nah.)
Obama and other Dems are conceding to reality, and other lefties are repelled by it. (What will happen in the much tougher future?)
RP is correct about what’s obviously necessary — perhaps that should be used to screen and eliminate junk voters from casting junk votes. [scowl]
D. Duck is correct: Obama had the bi-partisan committee formed and had them act as political cover for tax increases, then when they issued their report and recommendations (which included serious tax reform, the kind RP identified as needed), what was the result? In addition to ignoring it, not doing anything that was recommended, we heard the following: “Unacceptable” — Pelosi; “No raising of the retirement age, no reducing total payouts [expenses] for beneficiaries” — Obama; “Social Security is perfectly fine, never has contributed to the deficit, has nothing wrong with it, should not be touched, at least for thirty years” — Reid.
The people that actually saw nothing wrong with responses like that to Bowles-Simpson (or to inaction on budget reform) and who are angry now at the negotiated current deal — what kind of minds do they have? (Should they be screened from the suffrage?)
As to the next commission, let’s see Cantor and Ryan put on it.
What difference does it make if the whole thing will be ignored again. I’m serious, put the same panel together and cut the amount of time from before by 50%.
Democrats got thoroughly smacked.
Republicans bolstered their reputation:
NO + Anger = WIN !
How long does one hang out with “negatron” before it gets boring?
Prediction: despite Obama being a passive hindu cow in the middle of a gunfight, he’ll take the 2012 crown again. Why? booing is boring, alternatives are more interesting, and to discover > to dismantle.
On the other hand, hate speech is selling like hot cakes. Assuming a low enough attention span one can buy political capital quite inexpensively these days without producing anything!
For GOP/Dems out there, I highly encourage you to go independent. The party line must be so difficult to tow, so taxing on your emotions, like watching free-throws in NBA finals overtime. Why not instead route for the quality of the game itself?
Trade victory for objectivity.
Vote in 2012?
–Independent Agnostic