So the sequester -- a set of government spending cuts whose main effect will be slowing our already snail-like economic recovery -- became law yesterday. These cuts were laid out by Congress during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations and were meant to be so distasteful to everybody involved that a long-term fiscal deal would have to be reached. But our federal government, unsurprisingly, severely underestimated their own dysfunction, no deal was reached (I don't think one was even seriously negotiated), and here we are, doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing to tame unemployment and get ourselves moving again.
A lot of fingers are being pointed about who's to blame, even though the guilty party is obvious to anybody who cares to take an objective view on the issue: it's the Teabagging Republicans. They absolutely will not entertain the idea of any new tax revenue (and they're so idiotically militant, they even consider closing loopholes tax increases), even if it's counterbalanced with cuts in entitlement spending, which Obama has repeatedly said can be on the table. They want entitlement cuts for nothing, a position which is worse for Obama than the sequester (which doesn't hit the big three entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), so it can be dismissed as a serious negotiating position out of hand. You can't credibly negotiate with somebody by offering them something worse than what they will get if no deal goes down.
Basically a faction of Republicans made it clear that they wanted the sequester to happen, and they got their wish. I think initially it was a small faction, but a lot of other Reps started to get behind it once they realized it was going to happen. The GOP might be in a bit of disarray at the moment, but they can always come together when it comes to opposing something, anything at all, favored by our radical, leftist, socialist president (who, as it happens, would've fit in perfectly with the Eisenhower administration).
So the big question now is, where do things go from here? Let's examine three possibilities.
1) The public overwhelmingly sides with the Republicans, the economy stays recessed over the next four years, Obama and the Democrats get the blame causing a Ryan/Rubio ticket to win the presidency. Under the new regime, government spending is cut drastically, the free market flourishes, and the job-creating great American heroes rain down their riches onto all of us.
This seems extremely unlike to me because a) the public, by and large, seems to be putting a lot of the blame for the stagnant recovery and sequestration on the GOP (rightfully so), b) given the results of the last presidential election things would have to drastically change for a Republican to win the white house (Obama could've lost Ohio, Florida, and Virginia and still won, which is pretty damning for the GOP), c) the drastic cuts Ryan/Rubio would impose would only send us deeper into recession, you know, like what's happening in Europe. The conservative economic worldview is being proven more and more wrong with each passing day. They just can't admit it.
2) The public sides overwhelmingly with the Democrats, they win big in the midterms, taking the House and a supermajority in the Senate. With no opposition, they pass a massive stimulus package, unemployment drops to Clinton Era levels, and with the economy now strong, the debt accrued by stimulus spending is alleviated over the long run and the budget is balanced with a liberal mix of tax reform and cuts to wasteful spending.
This seems nearly as unlikely as 1) because the Reps have too many strongholds to lose the House or become a superminority in the Senate. Also, even if the Dems were able to pass anything and everything they wanted, let's face it, they probably would bungle things. Democrats look good compared to the GOP, but compared to an objective baseline of competency, they aren't really that great.
3) Everything pretty much stays the same: Dems in majority control, Reps maintain a strong minority. They continue to the have the same fights over the same issues ad nauseum like the retreads they've become.
Bingo!
Alright, that's it for this entry. Until next time...
[Update: Just noticed this article from Klein that is very relevant. He's agreeing with the position of Jonathan Chait (the same position adopted in this post) that there is no "grand bargain" negotiation and probably won't ever be because the Reps don't want it. They talk about a deal because they have to make their obstinateness look like a bipartisan failure (a false equivalence to which the "professional centrists" of the media are all too happy to oblige), but it's not. It's 99.99% on the Republicans and our best hope at this point is that people start to recognize this and force the Reps to change their uber-moronic position on taxes the same way we've forced them to -- kinda, maybe, sorta, hopefully -- change their uber-moronic positions on gay marriage and immigration.]
[Homer: What does "sequestered mean"?
Principal Skinner: If the jury is deadlocked, they're put up in a hotel so that they cant communicate with the outside world.
Homer: What does "deadlocked" mean?
Principal Skinner: It's when the jury cant agree on a verdict.
Homer: And "if"?
Principal Skinner: A conjunction meaning "in the event that" or "on condition of".
Homer: So "if" we get "deadlocked", we'll be "sequestered" at the Springfield Palace Hotel. Where we'll get a free room, free food, free swimming pool, free HBO. Ooh. Free Willy! ]
Principal Skinner: If the jury is deadlocked, they're put up in a hotel so that they cant communicate with the outside world.
Homer: What does "deadlocked" mean?
Principal Skinner: It's when the jury cant agree on a verdict.
Homer: And "if"?
Principal Skinner: A conjunction meaning "in the event that" or "on condition of".
Homer: So "if" we get "deadlocked", we'll be "sequestered" at the Springfield Palace Hotel. Where we'll get a free room, free food, free swimming pool, free HBO. Ooh. Free Willy! ]
A lot of fingers are being pointed about who's to blame, even though the guilty party is obvious to anybody who cares to take an objective view on the issue: it's the Teabagging Republicans. They absolutely will not entertain the idea of any new tax revenue (and they're so idiotically militant, they even consider closing loopholes tax increases), even if it's counterbalanced with cuts in entitlement spending, which Obama has repeatedly said can be on the table. They want entitlement cuts for nothing, a position which is worse for Obama than the sequester (which doesn't hit the big three entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), so it can be dismissed as a serious negotiating position out of hand. You can't credibly negotiate with somebody by offering them something worse than what they will get if no deal goes down.
Basically a faction of Republicans made it clear that they wanted the sequester to happen, and they got their wish. I think initially it was a small faction, but a lot of other Reps started to get behind it once they realized it was going to happen. The GOP might be in a bit of disarray at the moment, but they can always come together when it comes to opposing something, anything at all, favored by our radical, leftist, socialist president (who, as it happens, would've fit in perfectly with the Eisenhower administration).
[Actually, I'd be fine with just showing the Republicans the door, for now. Baby steps.]
Ezra Klein has a good article about how the sequester doesn't make any sense for the Republicans even when evaluated through the lens of Republican goals. But Klein is implicitly assuming that Reps operate in something approximating a rational, pragmatic manner, which they've shown time and time again isn't the case. I mean, with the sequester, they were essentially willing to concede cuts to defense -- traditionally a GOP sacred cow -- to protect tax loopholes for the super rich. That's how radically anti-tax they've become, and this fanaticism, is, in my opinion, ultimately the main reason why Romney lost the election. (It wasn't because Obama gave the electorate "gifts", and if the Reps really believe this it bodes well for Dems in future elections.) So the big question now is, where do things go from here? Let's examine three possibilities.
1) The public overwhelmingly sides with the Republicans, the economy stays recessed over the next four years, Obama and the Democrats get the blame causing a Ryan/Rubio ticket to win the presidency. Under the new regime, government spending is cut drastically, the free market flourishes, and the job-creating great American heroes rain down their riches onto all of us.
This seems extremely unlike to me because a) the public, by and large, seems to be putting a lot of the blame for the stagnant recovery and sequestration on the GOP (rightfully so), b) given the results of the last presidential election things would have to drastically change for a Republican to win the white house (Obama could've lost Ohio, Florida, and Virginia and still won, which is pretty damning for the GOP), c) the drastic cuts Ryan/Rubio would impose would only send us deeper into recession, you know, like what's happening in Europe. The conservative economic worldview is being proven more and more wrong with each passing day. They just can't admit it.
2) The public sides overwhelmingly with the Democrats, they win big in the midterms, taking the House and a supermajority in the Senate. With no opposition, they pass a massive stimulus package, unemployment drops to Clinton Era levels, and with the economy now strong, the debt accrued by stimulus spending is alleviated over the long run and the budget is balanced with a liberal mix of tax reform and cuts to wasteful spending.
This seems nearly as unlikely as 1) because the Reps have too many strongholds to lose the House or become a superminority in the Senate. Also, even if the Dems were able to pass anything and everything they wanted, let's face it, they probably would bungle things. Democrats look good compared to the GOP, but compared to an objective baseline of competency, they aren't really that great.
3) Everything pretty much stays the same: Dems in majority control, Reps maintain a strong minority. They continue to the have the same fights over the same issues ad nauseum like the retreads they've become.
Bingo!
Alright, that's it for this entry. Until next time...
[Update: Just noticed this article from Klein that is very relevant. He's agreeing with the position of Jonathan Chait (the same position adopted in this post) that there is no "grand bargain" negotiation and probably won't ever be because the Reps don't want it. They talk about a deal because they have to make their obstinateness look like a bipartisan failure (a false equivalence to which the "professional centrists" of the media are all too happy to oblige), but it's not. It's 99.99% on the Republicans and our best hope at this point is that people start to recognize this and force the Reps to change their uber-moronic position on taxes the same way we've forced them to -- kinda, maybe, sorta, hopefully -- change their uber-moronic positions on gay marriage and immigration.]
No comments:
Post a Comment