COMMENTARY
Now that the supercommittee has failed to reach a budget compromise we hear about how things don’t work in D.C. any more. There is a nostalgic longing for the good old days when collegial legislators could get together and act for the benefit of the nation.
What a crock.
Another way to look at it is that finally someone stood for something and refused to compromise basic principles.
If you are looking for a golden age of politics your search will be futile. It never existed. Any study of the political history of the U.S. reveals, if anything, politics today are cleaner than they ever were. After George Washington’s presidency, it didn’t take long for the mud to fly. Crooked deals, patronage, nepotism, vote fixing, and smoke filled rooms were the rule not the exception. Jack Kennedy understood his father bought him a presidency. Lyndon Johnson was in the pocket of Brown & Root who bought his election to Congress. Spiro Agnew was taking bribes while he was Nixon’s VP. Etcetera.
It’s easy to be collegial when your party is in power as the Democrats were from 1932 (FDR) to 1968 (Nixon). In those days the Republicans were for the most part powerless and the good old boys who ran the place, Democratic Speakers from Sam Rayburn to Tip O’Neill, did what their president commanded. They didn’t lose their hold on Congress until 1994 when Gingrich pulled off a Republican victory.
So now, when Washington’s reckless fiscal stewardship of the U.S. has run us insolvent, the mainstream media complain when legislators can’t get together and “do something.” They blame these politicians for putting politics ahead of the country. La-di-da, la-di-da, la la, as Diane Keaton said in Annie Hall.
Republicans were dead set against tax increases, the third rail of right wing politics, and the Democrats wouldn’t compromise on their demand for increased taxes on the “rich.” Both parties were playing to their bases in an election year, so everything is entirely understandable.
Perhaps we should be celebrating someone on the Hill for standing up for a principle that they weren’t willing to compromise. I will assume, and the reports seem to support this, that the main problem was the Republicans who wouldn’t agree to any tax raise. If that is the case, then I salute those intransigent bastards for finally showing some courage in defense of a no tax increase pledge.
When you think about it automatic across the board spending cuts is a good thing. If they can’t figure 0ut how to cut $120 billion (3.3%) each year out of a $3.6 trillion budget, then you understand the depth of the problem.
The problem is that the federal government is too important. It was not designed that way. Originally it was the States that were important. But their power has been drained away and the Constitution has been jettisoned to create an all powerful federal government. Now money flocks to Washington to seek favors because politicians have the power to grant them.
The system is broken, but not in the way the MSM is saying. What’s broken is a system that can’t be fixed. Kumbayah is not the answer. Perhaps forced cuts are the only way to achieve fiscal sanity. The message to voters is: you decide.
I agree with your take on the hysterical response of the media. The Republicans are absolutely right not to compromise on raising taxes. If this feckless Congress and President can’t figure out a way to cut a hundred billion dollars annually, then we need to let the American people decide what they want. If they want Obama for another 4 years, then they will have to deal with the consequences, like the people of Greece, Spain and Italy are doing now. Unless we jettison Obama and the spendthrift Congressional Democrats, our future will surely resemble their wrecked economies.
There is one voice for a return to Constitutional government – Ron Paul! He alone calls attention to the reasons we are in this financial mess. No wonder the MSM tries to ignore and silence him; he will possibly help bring an end to the socialist/facist moves of the power elite who want to totally control every aspect of our daily lives. I agree that the message is to us – the voters! Back to individualism and Freedom and away from the Statists.
If the GOP nominates Ron Paul, the election campaign will be ferocious in a way that could expose the underlying premises of both sides. It could be clarifying if not educational. It could be a watershed moment in which the hitherto unarticulated and unrecognized causes of the general (70%) anger and fear among the population are finally aired in public: liberty versus statism, personal responsibility versus the nanny state, sound finances versus crushing future generations with exponentially increasing and unsustainable debt. It could be. But it won’t.
If Paul is the nominee, his campaign will focus more narrowly on issues: debt, excessive spending, bailouts, and the Democrats’ failed attempts to fix things with bigger government. It might get him elected but it will not result in widespread support when, as President, he tries to get his solutions through Congress. That Congress will be the same old Congress, more or less, because Ron Paul will have no coat tails. No candidates do this time around. What we might see is a deadlocked Washington where nothing is done as the global (and U.S.) economy irretrieveably sinks into the abyss. The blame will fall on the obstructionist, who was elected to “dooo something!”. And because the root causes are still not understood by the majority of voters, that will be the end of the Libertarian experiment — for a long time.
That is why all of you who have an input into Dr. Paul’s strategy should urge him to use his considerable skills in simply explaining economic and political principles to win over popular support that can last. Ideally, then, a majority might understand who really is obstructionist and change the complexion of Congress a la 1992.
I refuse to be pessimistic but then I have always voted Libertarian — and you know how that ends.
Jeff, I agree with your rosier view of the supercommittee failure. You touched upon a freeze and I find it mindboggling that baseline spending increases occur automatically to the tune of 7-8% per annum. A freeze of this annual automatic increase would save approximately $2.7T over 10 years. The fact that no one is championing this simple thought is proof that there is no desire on the part of either party to reign in spending.
We used to have corruption but we at least had a constitution. Sadly, the constitution no longer exists, which would seem to mean that if it weren’t for our past momentum, we would be currently be considered a banana republic.
Jeff, to your commentary and the comments here, I would add one thing. Few voters want any serious cutback of spending. Most voters today have faith in the idea debunked by Bastiat: all trying to live at the expense of all.
How many votes would a candidate get if he said:
1) eliminate SS and medicare
2) eliminate food stamps, section 8 housing, and all welfare programs
3) eliminate bank subsidies including FDIC “moral hazard” insurance
4) eliminate all props under the housing market such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, etc.
5) eliminate subsidies for education and indeed the entire Dept. of Education
6) cut taxes on everyone, but the rich most of all
7) eliminate the Fed
8) eliminate anti-trust
9) eliminate all regulation
This would be, at best, a fringe candidate.
Keith, you missed the most important one. End the Wars and bring the troops home. Once you do that, then you can address the other nine.