The Fiscal Cliff/Slope/Curb: Brinkmanship to the Max

With the exception of  occasional pecks at the keyboard,  I'm just sitting here in a local coffeehouse,  cradling my head in my hands.   I'm still trying to make sense of this whole chain of events  that brought us to this point,  this fiscal game of chicken.

Back in 2010,  instead of focusing on the still-foundering economy,  many  in Congress were  agonizing over the deficit.  (Progressive economists such as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich,   suggested that Congress's  priorities defied common sense.   They instead believed that fixing the economy should come first.   The emphasis should be on human needs:  getting folks back to work and remediating housing woes.  Then  address the deficit and the national debt).

So,  in the wake of some convoluted wrangling,  the Simpson-Bowles Commission was established.   But its proposals were so draconian that they'd have never gained traction on either side of the aisle, let alone  with voters. 

Ultimately,   after some tweaking by the commission,  an alternative bill was presented to the House where it was soundly defeated.  (It was actually a budget resolution based in part on the Simpson-Bowles proposal,  which in its entirety was never voted upon).

In the meantime,  well into 2011,  the nation once again approached its debt limit.    Historically,  the debt limit had been raised routinely,  often many times a year without a fuss.   This time around,  congressional Republicans decided to use this normally routine act as a means to extort concessions from the Democrats.  (Not raising the debt ceiling would have had grave consequences across the planet as well as nationally and locally;  essentially sovereign default).   

So,  in response, despite the fact that the economy was still sputtering,  Congress passed The Budget Control Act of 2011.   A joint committee  of 12 members,   was created:   six congressmen and six senators,  each body appointing three members from each party.   They were expected to find ways to cut over $100 billion a year over a period of ten years with a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts.   This task was to be accomplished by the end of 2012;   otherwise,  the terms of the Budget Control Act  would kick in automatically.  (While not as draconian as Simpson-Bowles,  there's still plenty of nasty stuff to make everyone unhappy).   Well,  assuming no progress before the calendar year flips,  that's about to happen.

So,  what we're facing is this:   automatic tax increases across the board,   expiration of extended unemployment benefits,  and deep cuts in vital domestic programs,  as well as the military budget.   Ben Bernanke,  the Federal Reserve Chairman,  coined the term "fiscal cliff" (as in "going over the fiscal cliff")  to describe this situation.   But since many of the provisions would be phased in gradually,  other observers prefer to use the terms "fiscal slope"  or "fiscal curb".

Here's what might appear to be the most optimistic scenario:  the draconian provisions of the Budget Control Act will all kick in;  then Congress will go into action.   Many,  if not all of the most dire measures will be blunted.   That way our members of Congress can portray themselves as knights in shining armor coming to our rescue.

But what they'll really be doing is cleaning up the mess that they themselves have made.   So congressfolks,  how about making some  New Year's resolutions?   Consider us human beings who do most of the  living and dying out beyond the Beltway. 

Get to work!

Happy 2013.







 

We Need That Social Contract: Now More Than Ever

Still another heart-rending tragedy!  And who would have ever thought that a 20-year-old loner with a troubled,  but non-violent history could have ever committed such a horrendous act:   the slaughter of 27 innocents;  20 6-and-7-year-old children and seven adults!

And once again,  the firearm of choice was a rapid-fire weapon,  tailor-made for the commission of mass murder.  Only now,  in the wake of this tragedy,   does there appear to be some recognition that we can't continue on this deadly trajectory.

Back in 2004,  Congress,  in its infinite wisdom,  chose not to renew a ban on assault weapons.    It seems as if the pace of such massive carnage has been ratcheting up ever since.  Owing to the horrendous scope of this tragedy,  and the fact that so many of the victims were just kids,  many believe that legislators at  all levels of government may finally be chastened.    Meaningful firearm legislation with some real impact will actually come to pass!   Me?   I'll believe it when I see it.

 It seems as if the lack of government activism over the past few decades has really taken its toll in many realms:   economic fairness,  national health,  women's rights,  a humane foreign policy,  and yep,  the right not to get whacked with a hyper-powered firearm!

With each passing decade,  it seems as if the Social Contract is becoming less and less meaningful,  at least on this side of the pond.   The idea of a legitimate political authority that imposes some limitations and restrictions in order to benefit the common good seems to have lost its appeal.   It's all about individual freedom,  by golly!    Everybody has a right to worship at the Altar of Things That Go Bang,  regardless of consequences.   (Incidentally,  it's not my intention to slam hunters,  many of whom recognize the need for safety and sanity and practice such).

Thomas Hobbes,  one of the earliest proponents of the Social Contract seemed to have it right.   Without it,  we'd all be living in "a state of nature" where,  in his words,  "Life is solitary, poor,  nasty,  brutish,  and short."   Hobbes,  unlike a later advocate of the Social Contract,  Jean Jacques Rousseau,  harbored a dim view of democracy,  but still,  he was right on point about the quality of life without the Social Contract.    Rousseau,  on the other hand,  was one of the theorists who  provided the grounding for The Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

Maybe it's time for us to revive our own Age of Enlightenment.  We can start by buffing up  the Social Contract once again.

Mitch McConnell, The Filibuster King: Preparation for His Abdication

It looks as if the Senate may have recently established a new precedent in the annals of legislative acrobatics.  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell  (R-Harrumphing Old White Dudes) has filibustered his own bill.  

Initially,  he set out to prove a point:  that his Democratic colleagues didn't have enough votes to give the President sole authority to raise the national debt limit.   However, they were able to call his bluff and produce the required number of votes.

The Democrats' bill was actually based on one proposed by Mr.  McConnell himself last year.   So once he recognized that the support was there to bring the measure forward,  he actually filibustered his own bill.

According to those keeping count,  this latest action represents the Good Senator's  Filibuster Number 386  in recent years.   Tellingly,  it's only since President Obama's first term began,   that the filibuster has been used so liberally.  Employing this tactic seemed to be very much in synch with McConnell's  stated intention  "to make President Obama a one-term president."  We all know how that worked out.

According to an  1892 Supreme Court ruling,  United  States v.  Ballin,  Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote.  Nevertheless,  that simple majority vote could itself be filibustered under present rules. 

However,  the Democrats still have a chance to reform the filibuster.   According to  Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren  (D-Massachusetts),  a unique opportunity exists during the earliest days of a new congress to alter the filibuster rule with just a simple majority vote versus the normal two-thirds.  The intent isn't to scuttle it,  but to make it less subject to abuse by tightening the standards under which it can be implemented.

Hopefully,  it'll work.   It's  sorta like unclogging a commode in order to restore the flow,  in reference to either legislation or   --- uh --- the other stuff.   Just a matter of finding the right plunger.

That "Other 47%"

Last May,  Mitt Romney was videotaped making derogatory remarks about the 47% of households that don't pay federal income tax,  portraying them as "takers,  not makers".  (This, despite the fact that most of these folks pay state,  local,  and payroll taxes).   Recorded at a fund-raiser,  this infamous video was made public a few months later and quickly went viral.

However,  there's another group of "47 percenters"  to consider.   Romney appears to have received 48% of the popular vote.   So,  discounting the 1% or so who would likely have benefitted from his administration's policies and priorities,  there you have it:  that "other 47%".    

I dunno;  from where I sit,  it's mind-boggling that 47%  of all those who cast ballots last month,  were so hot-to-trot to vote against their own best interests.  (Ironically,  there's probably a fair amount of overlap between those 47% who supported Romney and the 47% who didn't pay federal income tax).

What's the deal?   Did  they hate Obama that much?  Or was it a dislike of government?   Beats me.   <hand taps forehead>