The 2012 Budget Debate: Silent Surrender

Can anyone remember the heady days in the run up to the 2010 elections?  Does anyone still remember the promises made about what would happen to the size of government and the profligate level of spending being condoned in Congress if the right people were sent to represent us?  But we were going to show them, weren't we?  We were going to send a bunch REPUBLICANS to the House of Representatives and turn the ship of state around.  Rallying around their party battle cry, we were going to see $100 billion in spending cuts happen in the next budget if the GOP took control.

Well we gave the Grand Old Party their majority, at least in the House of Representatives, and what did we get in 2011 as a result?  Well for starters we got a budget with proposed cuts of only $61 billion instead of the promised $100 billion. We were disappointed of course, but after all even a cut of $61 billion out of an annual budget of over $3.7 trillion was nothing to sniff at.  (Actually it was, but we all choked down the bile, bit our tongues, and put the best face we could on it.)

That of course, was before this budget went to Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid was less than thrilled with the 'draconian cuts' that that Republicans in Congress were proposing.  He refused even to bring a vote to the Senate floor on what was purported to be an annual budget cut of 1.6%, in spite of the fact that it still would have provided more being spent than the government had spent in 2010.  (Some day, someone will have to explain the 'government-speak' that allows government to spend more than in the previous year and even use the word 'cut' in the sentence describing it, but there's no time for that today.)     
In the end, the Senate agreed to allow a vote on a 'cut' of some $38 billion dollars for the 2011 federal budget. (Now we're down to a 1% cut, but $38 is kind of  close to the original $100 billion, right?)  But wait, we're not done yet.  

According to an AP story in the Washington Post at the time, because of how long it took the House and Senate to reach an agreement and because the compromise reached for cuts was only on 'discretionary spending', the amount of the actual spending cut from the budget was in fact $352 million.  For those of you unwilling or unable to do the math for yourselves, this meant that Republican control of the House was able to bring about a total federal budget reduction of .0095%. (Are you impressed yet?)

But that was then and this is now, right?  Surely now that freshmen Republicans earned their spurs and learned a bit more how things are done in Congress, now that Ohio's own John Boehner is a bit more comfortable with his role as Speaker of the House; things would be different and real spending cuts will being made in 2012.  Not so fast, my friends ...

In a story posted in REDSTATE.com today, budget cuts recently proposed in the House by Republicans are in fact being rejected (at least in part) by the Republican majority in that legislative body:

"McClintock (R-CA) – Cuts the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by $1.45 billion. Rejected 113-275.
Chaffetz (R-UT) – Cuts the Advanced Manufacturing Program by $74 million, to FY 2011 levels. Rejected 140-245.
McClintock (R-CA) – Eliminates nuclear energy research subsidies (saves $514 million). Rejected 106-281.
Chabot (R-OH) – Eliminates funding for the regional commissions, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission (saves $99.3 million). Rejected 141-276.
Blackburn (R-TN) – Cuts 1% across the board (would cut $321 million). Rejected 157-261.
Mulvaney (R-SC) – Brings the bill toward RSC budget levels by cutting a total of $3.1 billion across almost all accounts. Rejected 125-293.
King (R-IA) – Prohibits funding of Davis-Bacon union wage requirements. Rejected 184-235.
Flake (R-AZ) – Across the board spending cut that would keep funding at FY 2012 levels ($87.5 million savings). Rejected 144-274."

While they were at it and during this same legislative period, the House passed H.R 5882 to keep Legislative Branch Appropriations at the same level as in 2011.  So not only has the Republican majority in the House managed to reject spending cuts that have been offered by members of its own party, but it has managed to do so in an election year while drawing little or no media attention to itself.

Why is all of this important?  Because while the federal government hoped, through its last compromise, to avoid taking up the issue of raising the debt ceiling before the 2012 elections; little of that hope now remains.  After raising the debt ceiling of the country by some $2 trillion less than a year ago, this nation seems to have once again reached its legislatively mandated credit limit.  So once more the two legislative Houses will have to take up discussion as to whether we can continue to run up debt like an evil Wall Street brokerage house or irresponsible 'too big to fail' bank without consequences to those watching the nation's purse strings.

In light of the Republican party's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory the last time this debate took place, one cannot help but wonder if someone in the party's leadership will have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand (other than one imitating Custer's Last One).  One must likewise wonder what the Republican Presidential nominee's position on this debate will be, and whether he will attempt to show leadership, sit on the sidelines, or run for political cover.  Finally, one cannot help but wonder if a party attempting to rally its conservative base to keep control of the House, win control of the Senate, and send its candidate to the White House; can do so if its strategy in the debate continues to be an all but silent surrender.

   

Republicans Aren't Perfect

.
Upon reading the title of this piece, there may be some of you out there that are shocked, either by seeing such an admission in Just Blowing Smoke, or that I could even conceive of such a thing, let alone write it.  Others of you who occasionally visit this site (or who have a number of assumptions about it), may only disagree with me in part; believing that they are in fact perfect: perfectly heartless, perfectly soulless, and perhaps even perfectly evil.  Those of you who regularly visit the site however, will have previously noted that I am more than willing to take shots at any political party when the cause and need arise.  Such is in fact the case today.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I must confess that I am not in fact a Republican, but a registered Libertarian.  In my rather long voting history, I can affirm that I started out as a Chicago Democrat (a shameful confession, I admit), and became a Republican for some years before becoming finally and fully enlightened. 

The situation of which I speak of course, is the current debate over the payroll tax deal.  Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who's about to go all mushy and talk about the spirit of compromise while beating my breast over John Boehner and House Republican's unwillingness to vote on the Senate proposal.  In fact, just the opposite.  I think it's high time that the House threw the whole thing back in the Senate's face.  

How did political discussion in this country reach a point where standing on principle makes you intransigent?  When did having principles that you were willing to fight for make you the lunatic fringe (and you Tea Party members, God love you, know who I'm talking about)?  When did compromise mean that Republicans must give way to the desires of Democrats, but Democrats need not give anything to Republicans in return?  Why is the House the will of the people when controlled by Democrats and an obstructionist and unruly mob when controlled by Republicans?

(As a side note, when did spending 'cuts' become reduction in the increase of such behavior?  When did government begin to accept the concept of 'Wimpy Economics' where tax increases occur immediately, but spending cuts, such as they are, can be deferred to a later date which never actually comes; only to later become forgotten promises by the same politicians who promised fiscal responsibility when looking for votes?) 

How is it that Republicans (who I admit again, aren't perfect) are held as irresponsible for not voting on the Senate Democratic bill, when those Democrats are not in turn held accountable for not voting on a bill previously passed in the House (whether by Republicans or on a bi-partisan basis)?  Why isn't the 'Democratically controlled' Senate being castigated for taking their vote and then ducking out of town, throwing compromise to the wind in the spirit of 'my way of the highway'?  Why isn't the President and media complaining about the Senate one again ducking their budgetary responsibilities (it has after all been over 900 days since they passed a budget) and attempting to kick the can down the road once more?  When did national tax policy become something that required bi-monthly approval?  What can businesses to do in the way of long-term planning (let alone hiring) when so much uncertainty looms, with 2012 being an election year that promises only more of the same, and with the taxation and spending policies of this government being announced as the chosen battlefield?

Don't get me wrong.  I know that these are a lot of uncomfortable questions for many these days; but perhaps it's time someone asked them (the media certainly won't).  The nation is tired of seeing economic policy in this country treated like an empty can of beans (which Congress seems all too full of) being used in a child's game.  It's tired of elected officials shirking the responsibilities that they are paid very well for in the pursuit of keeping the job that they apparently seem incapable of performing.  It's tired of politicians and pundits demonizing business leaders who could be creating jobs in this country, if those in elected office could only provide them with some 'Insider Information' (you know, like businesses give members of Congress) so that they could find a way to cash in on the future and get the economy jump-started.

Wait, I seem to have gotten off track here.  Where was I?  Oh yeah, I started this whole thing by talking about how Republicans aren't perfect ... and they're not.  I have little doubt that under the pressure of the President's bully pulpit and the media's willing cooperation, they will once again cave in on a proposal of their own which did little or nothing, in favor of one proposed by Senate Democrats that does even less.  Displaying the type of fortitude that normally requires a visit to the Invertebrate section of a museum to find, they will fold faster and easier that the paper used for Christmas presents; and the whole pointless disagreement can begin again in time for the next holiday ... Valentine's Day.

Now I don't expect perfection from Republicans (and I expect even less from Democrats under Harry Reid), but I wish that someday they would at least aspire to be more than they are today.  At some point they must learn not to always be the first one to blink in this game of political chicken.  Yes I know that Republicans aren't perfect, but they would be vastly improved by hiring a half decent media consultant / press secretary, getting a spinal transplant, and agreeing to an injection that would help them grow a pair.

.

Wait Til Next Year

Well the debate over the debt ceiling is over, and the pundits are circling the corpse, hoping to grab one last juicy meal and perhaps take a dump on those they disparage before the entire thing become indigestible. (In case they were wondering, it long since has.)

And while these 'experts' hold forth on who won and who lost, and political opponents use the latest terms of rhetorical abuse on each other; let me put my two cents in. We lost!

In yet another sad example of what passes for leadership in Washington DC, the compromise reached allows the government to borrow more immediately with a promise to cut spending at some future date (probably never). Also in this rather vague future will be yet another commission (now coming to be known as the 'Super Congress') to analyze spending and revenue (taxes) in the hopes of approaching some level of fiscal sanity.

Of course none of what's proposed is or ever will actually be a spending cut, but instead merely a reduction in the expansion that naturally takes place each year with the federal budget. In a process known as 'baseline budgeting', such increases are part of the rules used to provide legislators political cover for the expansion of government (kind of like the rules that hide pay increases for members of Congress) and give it the impression of fiscal responsibility. As a lifelong Cubs fan, this kind of subterfuge reminds me of every baseball season that I have experienced since my birth. Those of us supporting Chicago's North Side team understand what real Conservatives across the country are now gaining great insight into; discovering that they were backing teams with players that should never have been brought up from the minors, dealing with athletes who failed to produce when put into the starting line up, and suffering under managers who can't seem to effectively use the available talent that they can put on the field. In a broken record of incompetence, futility, and failure; every major policy debate in this country looks like a season of baseball in Wrigley Field that goes through the same sorry process as every one before.

The whole thing begins with such promise of course. Expectations of victory are raised, promises are made, and predictions are issued as to the outcome of the season. Early successes often buoy spirits and bring supporters to their feet, but sooner or later the cracks in the lineup begin to appear. An ace pitching staff now seems incapable of throwing a pitch (an idea) over the plate, consistent sluggers start fanning at easy pitches or swinging at balls out of the strike zone, smart base runners stumble and come up short of the bag after getting a great jump, and sure-handed fielders seem to drop every ball (question) sent in their direction by opponents or the media.

Determined not to allow dejection (or reality) set in, Cubs fans (and voters) set aside these minor setbacks; sure in the knowledge that the team will come back and the early promise of triumph will be realized. No matter how horribly each opportunity to win is passed up or squandered, the people in the stands continue to cheer. In true Cubs fan fashion, past mistakes and disappointments are forgotten and yet another chance is granted ... only to be rewarded with disenchantment and disappointment.

The Cubs are currently 15-1/2 games out of first in their division (groan), but real Cub fans will never let such facts dampen their ardor, nor will consistent disappointment (for over 100 years) dissuade them from the hope of victory some day. Strangely enough the losing seems to do nothing more than bring out renewed hope for a brighter future. Failure in the past (even consistent, mind-numbing, soul-stealing failure) cannot and will not be seen as a prediction of future performance. In politics lately, we Conservatives see much the same thing. Sure we lost the game on TARP, on Obamacare, on the Budget, and now on the the Debt Ceiling; but have no fear, there will be another chance for legislators to disappoint us and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when the next major government debate comes before them. No matter how horribly this team fails to meet expectations however, most of us will remain optimistic. Sure we didn't win this one (or the one before, or the one before that), but wait til next year.

The "Stuck On Stupid" Dictionary #31

Recognizing that there are now over thirty entries in the 'SOS Dictionary'. I would like to once again thank Maggie Thurber of "Thurber's Thoughts" for the inspiration to begin this effort over three years ago. Working on these particular posts allows me to walk the tightrope between meaningful perspective and humor, with generous doses of irony and sarcasm thrown in for seasoning.


Ongoing discussions continue between representatives of the legislature and the White House over increasing the Debt Ceiling of this country have mandated that those of us here at the SOS Dictionary continue our emergency sessions. While the effort is proving rather exhausting to our lexicographers, the fact that 'Just Blowing Smoke' is a non-union workplace in a 'Right-to-Work State' means that we can pretty much do whatever we want to the staff with complete impunity.

Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the title of dictionary, SOS, or Stuck on Stupid), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different to those us who have come to understand the often peculiar political vernacular of Toledo and Northwest Ohio. 


Billion:
 1. A number with 9 zeroes after it ( x,000,000,000). 2. A number which was once unimaginable to contemplate, except as a function of higher mathematics; but which is now considered little more than 'chump change' when speaking about government spending or debt. 3. A number once made famous by Carl Sagan for counting stars "billions and billions". Fortunately Carl passed into the great beyond before the numbers of stars were all but supplanted by those in the national debt. 4. A number which we now toss around in discussions of the federal budget with little or no regard for its value (relative or otherwise) and even less concern. (see Trillion) 


Government Debt:
 1. The money that the federal government borrows in the form of bonds or other promissory notes. 2. The money that the federal government borrows these days to, for the most part, pay off the money that it previously borrowed. 3. A snowball rolling downhill that threatens to take all of us out in the ensuing avalanche. 


Government Debt Ceiling:
 1. The limit of the debt that the government is allowed to incur by law. 
2. The limit of debt that the government is allowed to incur until it threatens Congress with dire consequences and is allowed to borrow even more. 
3. An amount of money which in fact appears to have no real or finite limit, only the ability to feed and grow like the creature in the movie "The Blob" (the original with Steve McQueen, not the silly remake.) 


Government Default:
1. A term used to define the inability or refusal of a government to meet a financial obligation previously incurred. 
2. A term used to motivate media pundits, terrify voters, and aggravate legislators into allowing a government that already owes too much money into borrowing more. 
3. A mostly meaningless term where this country is concerned with absolutely no basis in fact, which is of little use except to frighten those with no clear grasp reality (the aforementioned media pundits, voters, and legislators). 


Trillion:
1. A number with 12 zeroes after it ( x,000,000,000,000). 
2. A number which was once unimaginable to contemplate, except as a function of higher mathematics; but which we now toss around in discussions of the federal budget with little more than a yawn and a wave of the hand when speaking about government spending or debt. (see Billion)


SNAFU and; FUBAR:
1. Terms which the staff at the SOS Dictionary (in a rare exhibition of good taste) were willing to list, but seem adamantly disinclined to define further. 
2. The only terms that the staff seem to agree upon as adequately describing the current state of the Debt Ceiling, the plans being discussed to resolve it, and the likelihood that they will actually do so In order to provide perspective relating to the terminology of the Debt Ceiling, I reference the following chart from the Office of Management and Budget, as provided by Heritage. org