Thanksgiving Break from Dispiriting Partisanship

I'm watching Republican Congressman Jo Bonner (a good ole boy from Alabama) make an "opening statement" in the punishment phase of Charlie Rangel's ethics trial -- he's crying crocodile tears about his sad duty to publicly judge Charlie's malfeasance.  I'm not an apologist from Charlie - he's behaved badly, arrogantly and without remorse.  But Bonner's pomposity and poorly disguised partisan glee at Charlie's fall from grace is sickening.

Equally disgusting was Republican Senator John Kyl's decision to block immediate Senate consideration of the proposed New Start Treaty with Russia.  New Start is a top priority of the Obama White House and a treaty that would impose no discernible disadvantage on our national security.  In fact, the White House has been courting Kyl's support for weeks,  providing him with reams of information and delivering big bucks for the maintainence of our nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of Kyl's assistance in shepherding the treaty through Senate ratification.  Nevertheless, Kyl took a photo opp this week with Republican worthies including Sens. Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn to announce that the Senate would not have time to consider New Start in this lame duck session.  Score one for McConnell's self-announced agenda to block Obama's every initiative.  Meanwhile, I'm sure we will see New Start added to the media's list of President Obama's foreign policy failures.

Finally, I was sorry to see the Democrats elect Nancy Pelosi as their new Minority leader.  I have nothing against Pelosi or how she did her job as Speaker.  However, she has been a remarkably polarizing figure on the Hill and among the electorate, and her election by House Democrats can only exacerbate the continuing partisan dysfunction in the next session of Congress.

So I'm grateful for Thanksgiving - an excuse to take a break from the depressing disharmony that rules our country these days.  Despite the pressing problems that face our government, I have absolutely no confidence that our partisan legislators will allow anything to be solved or accomplished over the next two years.  I'll be back in December, if I can haul myself out of the slough of despond.

Meanwhile, Happy Thanksgiving everyone.  Take solace in the companionship of family and friends, and eat lots of turkey.  The tryptophans will elevate your mood.  And don't ruin it by watching the news!

Can we cut federal spending by 40%? I don't think so . . .

In its latest issue, Newsweek reports that, for about 30 years, federal tax revenues have amounted to approximately 18% pf GDP, while federal expenditures were about 20%.  The 2% difference created a manageable deficit.  However, in 2009, tax revenues were only 15% of GDP, and expenditures were 25%.  This 10% difference leaves us with a federal deficit that is anything but manageable.

Now, admittedly, math is NOT my forte, but here's how it looks to me.  If we keep the Bush tax cuts in place, we have to reduce federal spending from 25% of GDP to 15% just to stop the deficit from growing any larger.  That would be a 40% reduction in federal spending!   Does anyone seriously believe that the Government could actually cut spending by almost half?  Federal discretionary spending is nowhere near 40% of the total budget.  Entitlements, defense and interest payments on the deficit comprise approximately 75% of the budget.  If we eliminated everything else,  we would have cut spending by only 20-25%.  And what kind of country would we have? 

It's time to get real:  we must increase tax revenues as well as cut spending.  And the spending cuts will have to include the sacred cows of the federal budget: defense and entitlements.  Our incoming Tea Party Congress will engage in legislative acrobatics to try to avoid these inevitabilities.  Unfortunately, we'll be circling the drain while we watch the entertainment.

Et tu, Lou Dobbs?

Those of you who’ve known me for a while can probably remember when my big newsman crush was Lou Dobbs (circa 2004-2006).  I didn’t always agree with Lou, but his positions were generally well-reasoned and factually supported.  In 2007, Lou started to slide off the rails.  Although he was fond of boasting that he was an Independent, Lou sounded more and more like a conservative who just didn’t want to be known as a Republican during George W. Bush’s administration. Throughout 2008, Lou’s rants against illegal immigrants and candidate Obama became ever more extreme, and he finally left CNN under circumstances that suggested that the network was not exactly sorry to see him go.

This week, Fox News announced that Lou will be joining its lineup during the first quarter of 2011. Oh Lou, say it ain’t so!  Huckabee, O’Reilly, Hannity, Rove, Palin, Beck . . . and DOBBS?  I haven’t been this disappointed in anyone since 2002, when I got together with an old friend from high school – the guy who introduced me to the Stones, the Doors, and the Chambers Brothers – and learned that he had become a Frank Sinatra fan.  It’s almost enough to make a woman swear forswear newsman crushes.  On the other hand, Jon Stewart is pretty hard to resist.

Time to break out the big girl (or boy) pants

Yesterday, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of President Obama's bipartisan debt commission, issued their initial draft proposals for reducing the deficit and "saving" Social Security.  (Bear in mind that their draft does not present the final, formal recommendations of the commission.)  Their proposals include three options for simplifying the tax system (but raising taxes), general proposals for cutting defense and domestic spending (with examples of such cuts, including freezing military and civilian salaries for three years), and common sense contribution, eligibility and benefit changes designed to maintain the continued viability of the Social Security system. 

Predictably, Speaker Pelosi and other righteously indignant Democratic spokespersons deemed the proposed spending cuts "unacceptable."  Meanwhile, Republicans swollen with their recent victories at the polls have been blithely assuring CNN anchors all day long that they absolutely will not vote for any tax increases under any circumstances. 

Come on, people, get real!  Are you serious about attacking this deficit problem?  If so, then: Democrats, you will have to cut spending; and Republicans, you will have to raise taxes.  It's going to suck for you, because you will be perceived as responsible for the resulting financial pain.  But it will be far worse for us, because we're the ones who will be experiencing the pain.  So please, put your big girl or boy pants on and accept the responsibility you were elected to handle.  Start by being honest with yourselves and with us. (Most of us already know what has to happen, even though many of us keep hoping that there's an easier answer.)  And then start making the hard, practical decisions that this situation demands.

David Stockman makes sense. . .

OMG –  I’m watching David Stockman being interviewed by Elliott Spitzer on CNN, and the man absolutely makes sense.  In other words, he agrees with me on a number of issues.

·        You can’t lower taxes and continue spending.  Government spending that consistently exceeds revenues will always result in deficits.

·        We cannot afford to extend the Bush tax cuts; the government needs the money to reduce the deficit.

·        The Tea Partiers may be well intentioned, but they are tremendously naïve.  They will find that there is very little room for cutting enough to make a dent in the deficit without tax increases.  The Tea Party’s favorite targets – waste, fraud, abuse and earmarks – collectively account for no more than 15 hours of Government spending per year.

·        Major changes must be made in the Social Security and Medicaid programs.  Income limits on Social Security contributions must be raised.  Social Security benefits must be made subject to means testing of income and assets.  Wealthy Americans who are currently receiving Social Security should have their benefits reduced, too.

Stockman also appeared on 60 Minutes on October 31, and called the Republicans’ continued insistence on extending the Bush tax cuts as “demagoguery.”  Stockman noted that, “[i]n 1985, the top 5% of [America’s] households – the wealthiest 5% - had net worth of $8 trillion – which is a lot.  Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top 5% have net worth of $40 trillion.  The top 5% have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980.”   Stockman would impose a special 15% surtax on the wealthiest Americans to help reduce the deficit.

It’s really creepy to find myself of one mind with Ronald Reagan’s budget director, but these are strange days indeed.  God bless you, David Stockman.  As far as I’m concerned, you’ve redeemed yourself.

Mea culpa?

I’ve been hearing a lot of Republican leaders and supposedly “liberal” media pundits accusing President Obama of being clueless because he has failed to take the blame for the Republicans’ midterm gains in the House and Senate.  The conventional “wisdom” expressed by these folks is that Obama must admit that it was his “failed” policies and agenda that drove the electorate to the right. 

I certainly understand, and could almost forgive, the Republicans for taking this patently self-serving position.  In today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, one can only imagine the political value of an Obama mea culpa.  It would certainly add credibility to the Republicans’ post-election narrative of “repudiation” and “mandate.”

What I cannot excuse is the media’s insistence that there is some sort of historical requirement that Obama admit that his agenda is flawed and ineffective.  Interestingly enough, Candy Crowley (bless her!) did a segment today that excerpted speeches by Presidents Reagan and Clinton in the wake of midterm elections that favored the opposing party.  While both of them acknowledged a new and less congenial reality, neither admitted failed policies and/or a flawed agenda.  In fact, Reagan asserted that his administration would not compromise on principles, and Clinton stressed that his administration would stand firm and resist any effort to move the national agenda backwards.  Notably absent from the Crowley segment was George W. Bush.  However, we know that, although he famously recognized a political “thumpin’,” W. acknowledged neither error nor failure.  In fact, W. has yet to admit error: even now, he is publicly defending his “decision” to waterboard suspected terrorist detainees!

So can anyone tell me why (and for what) Obama should apologize?

What’s the message?

I’m hearing a lot of bloviating punditry on just exactly what message the electorate sent to Washington on Tuesday.  Depending on who is “analyzing” the election results, the possibilities are as follows:

1.      The electorate is angry about the “socialist agenda” of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi “axis of evil,” and we all voted for the Republicans to “repudiate” that agenda.

2.      The electorate is angry and scared about the economy.  The Democrats have had two years to fix it and they’ve failed, so we all voted for the Republicans to try something different.

3.      The electorate is just generally angry, so we all voted for the Republicans to change things.

4.      The electorate is angry at both parties because they’ve been too busy playing partisan politics to do anything effective to address the economic problems we’re facing, so we all voted for the Republicans to punish the incumbents.

I’m sure that some segment of the electorate voted for only one of these reasons, but I suspect that others’ motivations were far more complex and nuanced.  Unfortunately, the pundits’ simplistic analyses will become the accepted narratives.  Sad to say, all but #4 can and will be interpreted by the Republicans as a “mandate” not to compromise or cooperate with the Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats.  As always, the Republicans will cleave to their base” and remain the Party of NO.  In addition, they will have to accommodate the agenda of Republican freshmen who were elected as Tea Party candidates.  And although I will enjoy watching Boehner and McConnell deal with their Tea Partiers, I’m sure that their problems will not facilitate any genuine progress in the House or the Senate. 

It seems to me that it would be a good idea if we all communicated with our elected representatives on a regular basis, just to remind them that we expect them to actually DO SOMETHING to make things better.  I’m planning on doing just that.  Will you make that commitment?   Will you ask your friends to spread the message?  Who knows?  Maybe we can make a difference over the next two years. . .

They’re back. . . . .

It’s hardly surprising that the Republicans have regained control of the US House of Representatives.  The economy absolutely sucks – in no small part because of the Republicans’ “borrow and spend” policies under Bush 43 – and, when the economy sucks, the American electorate takes it out on the party in power.

So, what can we expect from the Republicans in the House and the Senate?  John Boehner, the Speaker-in-waiting, has made it pretty clear that he expects the President and the soon-to-be minority House Democrats to play nice with the Republican majority, although one suspects that what Boehner really means is that he expects Obama and the Democrats to capitulate to anything the Republicans dictate.  Funny how perspective changes – when the Republicans were the minority in the House, they whined constantly about how poorly they were treated by the majority.

Although the Republicans did NOT win a Senate majority, nobody seems to have told Mitch McConnell, the current and future minority leader.  Sen. McConnell has made it crystal clear – most recently today – that the Senate Republicans’ top priority will be to make sure that President Obama does not get a second term.  As McConnell explained today, if the Republicans are to implement the mandate of the American electorate in this election, they must have a Republican president who will not veto their tax cuts, repeal of health care reform, and other spending cuts. 

From where I sit, it looks like we’re in for two more years of legislative gridlock in the service of partisanship.  Boehner is a skilled partisan infighter, and will make sure that the House Republicans hew to the party line – which is the same agenda that got the country into this mess.  However, there are still enough Senate Democrats (if you include the DINOs) to make sure that much of what the House sends up goes nowhere.  And, if something untoward does get passed by both houses of Congress, the President can veto it.  The Republicans do not have enough seats to override a veto.

It will be interesting to see how the Republicans spin the legislative inaction we can expect under their watch.  It will be more interesting to see if the electorate will be paying attention, and whether we will make the GOP pay for being the “party of no” in the 2012 election.