Fiscal Cliff or Debt Ceiling - Confusion of Terms

It seems like everyone is talking about the country going over the Fiscal Cliff; and most of them like to use the same "Thelma and Louise" movie reference for this December 31st event that I've often used for the entire process of how the government deals with borrowing and spending money.  Of course I would have thought that going over a cliff was a bad thing (since both Thelma and Louise attained room temperature as a result of this last drive), but maybe I'm just a little confused.  Silly me.  It appears that both sides preaching their share of doom and gloom only do so they could steal my Hollywood reference to describe what would happen if the country were forced to plummet into the depths of the horrible, the evil ... "Sequester".  (The Bastards!  I mean geez, it's not like I get a lot of original ideas, and the one I do get they steal.)

Now Sequester, for those of you who have buried your heads in the sand for the last couple of years and don't understand it (which is apparently quite a lot of you), is the agreement to automatic tax increases and budget cuts that Democrats and Republicans consented to when they discovered that they didn't have the testicular fortitude to come up with another piece of duct tape to hold on the budget band aid that holds on the actual band aid that holds in place the government budgeting process.  Sequester was meant to be the Armageddon which no one wanted, but which would be required of the nation if the D's and R's once again could not agree on how much money the nation should take in and how much it should spend.  This horror would involve the end of previously agreed to tax cuts (you know, passing a tax increase without actually voting on one) and across the board spending cuts (which can be overruled by new legislation passed as soon as possible after the Sequester occurs).  This way, legislators of both parties can tell you that Sequester is bad (in spite of the fact the they created it as an alternative in the first place), that higher taxes are bad (in spite of the process letting tax cuts expire), and that spending cuts are bad (in spite of the making them automatically part of the Sequester).  

By the way, can anyone tell me why tax cuts are always temporary, but tax increases are permanent?  It almost seems that legislators are saying that increasing taxes is good, hence their permanence; and tax cuts are bad and should only be allowed to exist temporarily and when no other alternative exists.  Of course, we all know that this can't be the case.  After all, they've told us so.

Not surprisingly, much of the current budget jury-rigging came about not because of the Fiscal Cliff negotiations currently stalled; but because of the fact that the annual budget process and the  Debt Ceiling have failed to reach any effective conclusion for the last couple of years.  The Debt Ceiling, lest we forget, is the credit limit on the ability of the government to borrow.  The Annual Budget of course, is the money that the government spends each year.  Since we continue to spend more each year than we take in through tax revenues, the need arises regularly to raise the limit of the amount of money that the government is allowed to borrow in order for it to write the checks on money that it doesn't have.  

Interestingly enough, the only things that the two parties of experienced legislators (perhaps too experienced, if you know what I mean) were able to agree on during previous Budget and Debt Ceiling debates was to go ahead continue to spend more than we were taking in for a while longer (called 'Kicking the Can'), and to let the country borrow more money than it ever had in the past. (Though curiously these days, most of that debt is not purchased by the Chinese as politicians on talk shows would like to have you to believe; but by the Federal Reserve, which simply goes out and prints more money in inflationary spiral that makes that debt worth less in a process which it also ignores.)  After years of intransigence. obstinancy, and belligerence, these same legislators decided to threaten themselves with the formidable prospect of Sequester in the future in order to convince us that their continue lack of serious action in the present was a plan and not simply a failure failure of leadership. 

The result of this lack of fiscal responsibility going into the 2010 election was that Republicans took back control of the House; I suppose in the hope that such Armageddon could be avoided (and scrubbing the Bruce Willis / Ben Affleck shuttle mission).  Since then, the House has regularly passed budgets bills that at least attempt to address the reining in of the expansion and out-of-control spending of government, mostly to no effect since the Senate refuses to vote on the House proposals.  Of course their efforts at responsibility are performed in so timid a fashion as to be unrecognizable as such, but they should get credit for at least trying.  Instead however, its members are pilloried for sending the Senate weak-kneed spending reforms that are demonized by the majority party in the Senate as 'draconian cuts' and attempts to throw mom off a cliff. 

Meanwhile, in what is supposed to be the more deliberative Senate, no actual deliberation takes place, mostly because the Senate Majority Leader Reid won't allow it to.  (The Senate in fact has failed to pass an annual budget for almost four years, in spite of requirements that it do so.)  Out-of-hand rejecting the ideas of the House (too far to the right) and the President (too far to the left), the Majority Leader is apparently incapable of coming up with anything of his own that might be 'just right'.  He instead appears content to sit quietly with his gavel and mumble to himself "My Precious" while not Rome, but the entire nation burns around him.  (My personal belief is that Senator Reid's stubbornness may be part of an advertising contract in which he receives a fee for using his manner and appearance to draw attention to the upcoming release of  "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Adventure", which opens in theaters on December 14th.  Unfortunately, this may be a long running contract, as the movie is expected to have two sequels.)  Some say in Harry's defense that budgets coming from the House Republicans couldn't be voted on because the R's have thus far refused to compromise by replacing their own ideas with those of the D's; but that seems a rather lame excuse when a bi-partisan effort in the Senate rejected the last proposal of the leader his own Democratic party by a vote of 99 to 0.  

So if all of this appears confusing, don't feel bad ... it actually is.  You're not alone in having difficulty understanding this confusion of policies, described by terms that tells us that we are now going to go over a cliff in part because we are unable to agree on a budget that keeps us from hitting a ceiling.  You're likewise far from alone in confusion over the fact the end of the year will see us being forced into mandatory tax increases and spending cuts by two political parties who will tell you that both of these concepts, singularly or together, are an anathema not to be tolerated and the last thing that they want to see done in this country (except of course, for reaching agreement on any sort of alternative).

                                        

Less Is Most Definitely More

There's been a little sniping in the mainstream media as the 112th Congress begins its summer vacation.  Of course it's not really a summer vacation because since the middle of the Bush years, neither house of Congress likes to adjourn because it allows a sitting President to make recess appointments that might otherwise not pass the Senate.  Lately the recess appointments have been made anyway, which would seem to make the idea of staying in session to prevent it from happening rather ludicrous; but then again 'rather ludicrous' is usually a safe descriptor of Congress anyway.  But I digress ......

The apparent complaint with our National Legislative body is that it has accomplished too little in the way of passing laws, and therefore has not done its duty. Derision is cast on the 112th Congress for passing a repeal on Obamacare, something that many of those running for seats promised that they would do if elected.  Of course the fact that they passed such legislation 33 times since taking office might be a bit excessive, but could perhaps be explained as simply a reminder that occasionally political promises are kept .... even when doing so is meaningless.

Speaking of meaningless, ABC tells us that Congress has however proposed 60 bills to rename Post Offices, 38 of which passed Congress and 26 were signed into law.  Of course they failed to pass a law to fix the Post Office's indebtedness or even force it to fix itself.  As a consequence, the National Department Snail Mail defaulted on a previous Congressional mandate to pre-fund $5.5 billion in health benefits.  (I guess the check must have gotten lost in the mail.)  While I tend to agree with the assessment of ABC in the poor handling of the Post Office woes (oops sorry, felt like something was trying to come back up on me after making that statement), personally I find this lack of productivity rather refreshing.

The Washington Post disagrees however, and went even further in castigating those now on holiday by showing rather graphically the lack of legislative productivity from the most recent bunch; an illustration which must make Ohio's Speaker Boehner proud.

Courtesy of the Washington Post

Apparently being a newspaper inside the Beltway (though only just barely in the Springfield, VA facility) means that they are, like Congress itself, incapable of a proper assessment where this subject is concerned.  There are far too many laws and regulations in this country already, passed by the eager minds and overly productive hands of a group of people who always seem to legislate for everyone but themselves.  The mind numbing size of the Federal Register alone (the big book of Federal Regulations) has grown rather remarkably over the years from its humble origins of 2,620 pages during the FDR Administration.  In fact, the feds recently took this tome online as the only way to deal with its forest killing proportions, since it adds some 70,000 to 83,000 pages per year. (And probably a good deal more than that this year.)  

That being the case, perhaps we should be giving a standing ovation to lawmakers for the gridlock, deadlock, and partisanship which has characterized the 112th.  (Yeah, I know.  I find the idea of applauding politicians nauseating too.)   Maybe in their final session before the end of the year (which for some will include some lame duck time), we can get them to walk back some of the nonsense they and their predecessors have done over the years; subtracting rather than adding to the confusion of overlapping and contradictory federal, state, and local laws.

But listen, let's not stop with merely handing out kudos to the junior legislative body.  How about a shout out to those on the senior circuit with a 6 year-term to play with.  Oh sure you can talk about the arcane rules of the Senate, and how they've been manipulated to prevent real action on the floor; but one can't help but recognize a bunch of guys who haven't even managed to pass a budget mandated by law in three years.  That's non-performance on an epic scale.

So while the media seems intent on deriding Congress for less bang for the buck (understandable certainly, since it is filled with Republicans after all), I think that we can all easily recognize the debt of gratitude the we owe to the Senate Majority Leader for sitting in a cave on a rock and eating raw fish while contemplating 'his precious' ring of power, one that he may well lose for bringing his part of the national legislature almost to a standstill.  (Oh come on, admit it.  He does look like Gollem.)  Many may find Sen Reid's recent activities objectionable or even detestable, but for myself, I cannot help but recognize that a lack of new legislation equals a lack of new restriction.  While the Majority Leader may be seen by many as an obstacle to progress, I see him as a shining example of what government can do best for the people ... next to nothing.  (Though I can't help but wonder when he and his fellow Democrats will inherit 'the Party of No' mantle that they so richly deserve.)

My only disappointment in all of this is that in spite of the lack of productivity in the legislature, spending continues to increase.  Even in this apparent record level of impotence, these 435 non-union salaried employees seem to be able to throw more money away that their more productive predecessors.  I only wish it were possible to truly celebrate their lack of legislative potency with a corresponding level of frivolous monetary disbursement.  More spending, more borrowing, and more scrutiny over every aspect of our lives.  Yes it appears that were the federal government is concerned these days, even their less is definitely more.

 

Curious By Its Absence

The debate over raising the debt ceiling rages on and my patience is about at an end, but apparently I'm not the only one. According to the story in the Kansas City Star this morning the president, "demanded that Congressional leaders come to the White House this morning". 

It appears that the leader of the free world is a little peeved that that this problem is not going away in spite of the fact that he has called his political opponents names, castigated both parties in Congress in front of media microphones, and explained his willingness to compromise on everything but the things he's not willing to compromise on (in between fundraisers and rounds of golf). There are a couple of things however that seem curious by their absence: 

1. A plan put forward by the President himself. Oh I know he has delivered an outline, some notes, and a number of suggestions; but I for one have never seen or heard of an actual plan. Neither has he addressed in any meaningful way, a path to reversing the trend of government spending more than it takes in. He, those in the Senate, and much of the mainstream media seem to forget that the reason that we need to raise the Debt Ceiling Limit is that government is spending much more than it receives. No amount of taxation, even if agreed to, is going to solve that problem; and the sooner all the parties involved understand that, the sooner a real solution can be reached. Because words do mean things and since, at least according to Dictionary .com, Compromise means: "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc. ..." it would seem that in order to reach any meaningful compromise on such 'plans', fully fleshed out ones by both sides would be required. 

2. Absent from these discussions as well is Harry Reid and the Senate. This is not to say that the Senate Majority Leader is invisible, in fact far from it. It's difficult to turn on a TV news broadcast without seeing the Senator from Nevada attempting to strike a pose while delivering strident oratory (mostly vitriolic) about the intransigence of others. Here's what we don't see from Harry and his colleagues however, a plan of their own or a straight up or down vote on anything that the House has proposed. The man who often called Republicans "the party of no" has yet to put forward a budget alternative himself, while allowing no straight up or down vote on House proposals including the 'Ryan Budget' and the recent 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' proposal. 

In fact, for those of you who haven't been paying attention, the Senate has not proposed a budget in over 800 days. Interestingly enough, Senator Reid is not mentioned in the story demanding the appearance of legislators in the White House today. (Evidently he is busy standing on the curb in front of the Senate and barking at cars as they drive by.) With the apparent inability of the Senate to propose or vote on anything concrete in the way of the national budget however, it would seem that he should be the first one called in to the White House and called on the carpet (unless of course, he already simply following the marching orders of the President). 

One has to wonder in fact if the President is seeking to make the position of Senate Majority Leader irrelevant, or if he thinks Sen Reid is incapable of adding anything to the discussion. Perhaps the problem is that after sending out this 'attack poodle' to yip and the crowd and bite a few ankles, the President simply doesn't think that anyone will want to deal with him on substantive issues. So be careful as you watch the weekend's coverage of this pathetic dance marathon. While the mainstream media seems content to highlight the vitriol, acrimony, and unmitigated nonsense of these discussions, those of us out here in 'fly-over country' need to take note of what can actually be seen ... and what's curious by its absence.  

On a more personal note, if you're out there Maureen ... Happy Tweener!