"the debt ceiling serves no rational purpose. Congress approves both taxes and spending; if Congress refuses to approve borrowing the difference, then Congress isn’t making a policy statement – it’s simply refusing to do its job."
-Noah Millman, via the Incidental Economist blog
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
the not-so-super congress
The New York Times reports that congress is already occupied with the issue of who, exactly, will serve on this so-called "super congress". For those of you unfamiliar with american politics, this does not mean a careful screeening of all our congressmen and women to decide who will be most competent and best able to work together. (Bipartisansip, which I seem to recall being a major buzz word in my youth, no longer even merits lip service.)
So, to review; Republicans flatly refuse to raise taxes and Democrats refuse to cut spending on major entitlement programs. You can make arguments for doing either, or both, but it doesn't take an economist to tell you that doing neither leaves us exactly where we are now. Oops.
As the far right seems most concerned with the national debt, you'd expect them to be somewhat more willing to put all options on the table, at least temporarily. That might interfere with their negotiating strategy of refusing to negotiate on anything, however, so I can see why they've chosen to stay the course regardless of the outcomes such drastic cuts and rising wealth inequality will undoubtedly produce for decades to come. Fortunately, they will likely manage to agree on something at the last minute when the Democrats reveal their negotiating prowess by once again folding like a cheap deck of cards. [In fairness to the Dems, they may not deserve such harsh criticism... but I really like the expression. also, you know, they might deserve it a little. Minus Congresswoman Giffords of course, who is a rock star and we all wish her well.]
Apparently, then, this "Super Congress" will be much like the regular congress, only significantly less democratic. umm, thanks guys.
"The panel is expected to consider a wide range of proposals to slow the growth of entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, along with cuts to military spending and ways to raise more revenue.
... The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, said her appointees would “fight to protect” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Republican leaders indicated they would not appoint anyone willing to raise taxes."
So, to review; Republicans flatly refuse to raise taxes and Democrats refuse to cut spending on major entitlement programs. You can make arguments for doing either, or both, but it doesn't take an economist to tell you that doing neither leaves us exactly where we are now. Oops.
As the far right seems most concerned with the national debt, you'd expect them to be somewhat more willing to put all options on the table, at least temporarily. That might interfere with their negotiating strategy of refusing to negotiate on anything, however, so I can see why they've chosen to stay the course regardless of the outcomes such drastic cuts and rising wealth inequality will undoubtedly produce for decades to come. Fortunately, they will likely manage to agree on something at the last minute when the Democrats reveal their negotiating prowess by once again folding like a cheap deck of cards. [In fairness to the Dems, they may not deserve such harsh criticism... but I really like the expression. also, you know, they might deserve it a little. Minus Congresswoman Giffords of course, who is a rock star and we all wish her well.]
Apparently, then, this "Super Congress" will be much like the regular congress, only significantly less democratic. umm, thanks guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
