Government: You're Doing it Wrong.

“Government is broken.” This may be the most commonly used phrase in the news about the Debt Ceiling Crisis, especially among the politicians involved in the battle over it. It may be one of the most used phrases for the past couple of decades. A Google search for the exact phrase returns 159,000 hits. That seems an awfully round number for a truly accurate count, but you get the idea. A poll taken in February 2010 shows that 86% of all Americans agree with this interpretation. Sorry to disagree with America, but "Government" isn't broken; the people we sent to run it just doesn’t know how to operate the thing. The Republic is just fine, if only the people who are supposed to run it would run it that way. While the Debt Ceiling Crisis is just the one small chapter in the big, broke government theme, it's as good of an example of as any why this is bad analysis.In a system structured to require compromise as part of operating the levers of government in the first place, conflict is built into our Republic. Consequently, the fact that extreme factions of either party will hold out to get what they want is not a symptom of a problem, it's not even a problem. It's a feature or it should be in the concept of our Republic. The problems arise from the creation of budgeting tricks that avoid the political fallout of otherwise popular spending. For example, the debt ceiling itself. The debt ceiling is a creation of Congress that creates an artificial limit on how much the government may borrow to pay for the expenditures Congress has already authorized. In other words, a vote on the debt ceiling today essential gives the current Congress the presumed authority to retract spending obligations that were both authorized and funded previously. Is the debt ceiling even constitutional? Most likely, yes. But the issue has never been pressed to a crisis. If the debt ceiling were not raised when the federal government was about to run out of money to pay it's debt, the federal government would be unable to comply with all of the laws, the expenditures versus the cap on borrowing and thus the crisis of what law to disregard and what creditor of the U.S. to stiff. The debt ceiling isn't even a hundred years old and it certainly wasn't part of the structure of the Republic as designed and not a part of the 14th Amendment that obligated the Country pay it's debt. Back then the only borrowing was done in war time.The part that Congress has been doing wrong, particularly since the 1980s, is changing taxes or revenue decreases with no regard for the increased debt those changes create. The massive tax cuts of the 80s were supposed to "pay for themselves" in increased revenue from the magic idea that lower taxes increased economic growth resulting in more revenue. Although the formula never proved true, the myth has been perpetuated. In fact it was massively perpetuated by tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. These were again passed with no regard for the debt everyone knew they would create. In spite of the fact that both the Reagan Tax Cuts and Bush Tax Cuts increased the deficit, the Bush Tax cuts were extended in 2010 by a deal worked out between Obama and Republican Senators who threatened to filibuster every single piece of legislation. Dealing with the debt was to be addressed the next year, or as Obama would later call it, "kicking the can down the road."Passing a law that says the next Congress and the next President cannot spend a certain amount or cannot tax a certain amount is not governing. It's just political cover for not dealing with the problems of right now and the debts built up in the past. Creating a crisis over the debt ceiling for debts already created by complaining about spending yet to take place, is saying you can somehow nullify the expenditures of the past. When you open up the door to that type of revisionist history and hamstringing the future budgets, you're not governing anymore, you're just trying to create a kind of autopilot for government. Add to that a majority of the House, almost all Republicans, have signed a private pledge not to raise taxes in any way.It's no wonder that when the government needed to address serious financial concerns, such as the mortgage crisis, they were helpless from a political standpoint. Spending on entitlements was locked in, government borrowing was locked in and tax rates were locked in. That's why we paid the bankers, the ones who caused the mess, all of the money to fix the problem. It was the only political option we had.The other problem is that it inevitably leads to deception of the public at large. The current "Debt Ceiling Crisis" is not a crisis at all except for the fact that it gave one faction of one party the ability to turn off the autopilot and crash the whole government if changes to spending were not made, changes to spending which had absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling at all. That is why they are doing it all wrong. We have built a system that allows the levers of government to be moved to crash the whole thing with no compromise, no checks and balances and no representation by anything like a majority of the electorate. The debt ceiling is a phony idea, passed by a Congress no longer in power to limits the amount of money the government can borrow to pay for things that have already been authorized by a Congress no longer in power and which are now (or were) held hostage by Members of Congress many of whom held no power back then. It is easy to pass tax cuts and it's easy to pass a "ceiling" on the amount of money the government can borrow, but neither of those things provides governance when the debts come due. Neither of those things provides governance when a minority of the House, or the Senate before them, or the House in 1994 were willing to bring the whole government to a halt, or worse. In those cases the Republic as it was designed requires agreement to govern, and agreement requires compromise of all of the parts. When take all the power, put it in a can and kick the can down the road you have no idea who you're kicking it to. You're doing it wrong.

Baby Daddy State lead by actual Baby Daddy

It should come as no surprise that a leader of the movement in Congress to default on our past obligations is a man who has a pattern of not paying for his obligations.

What the President Will Say Tomorrow

Chances are you're one of two kinds of people right now: either you're afraid that their won't be an agreement on extending the debt ceiling or you don't think the debt ceiling should be increased at all. I know there are also people who either don't care or don't know anything about what is happening with the debt ceiling negotiations, but they stopped reading at the subject line.
If you are afraid that a deal might not be reached and what might happen to the country's credit rating, good. If you're not afraid, you're not paying attention. However, you may also have missed the fact that this is shaping up to be a critical moment in U.S. politics. What started out to be a staring contest over spending cuts versus tax increases and Obama versus the Tea Party is actually a period of political volatility that could create the biggest changes in at least two of the most intractable aspects of the federal budget, taxes and entitlement spending.
First to set the stage, the elections of 2010 were notable not just for the change in who held a majority in the House, but how that was accomplished. Republicans picked up 63 districts previously represented by Democrats, but these were mostly from moderate and conservative Democrats. Moderate Republicans lost in primaries to Tea Party supported Republicans who either won the general elections or lost to more liberal Democrats. The result is a House that has far fewer moderates or centrists form either party than before, maybe than ever before. The Republican majority in the House was determined to force a showdown over federal spending to show they were cutting government. The first phase was the FY2011 budget which was a deal only agreed to with hours to spare to avoid shutting down the government. Bu this just "kicked the can down the raod" to the unresolved FY2012 budget and essentially agreed to agree to further cuts in spending. Meanwhile the Federal debt ceiling, a separate law which sets a limit on the total amount the government can borrow regardless of the budget obligations already passed, would be exceeded in May 2011. The Treasury can essentially meet its obligations to pay T-bills coming due until August 2. House Republicans decided to tie the vote on raising the debt ceiling to the FY2012 and beyond budget cuts they want. What they want are budget cuts equal to the amount the debt ceiling needs to be raised, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 trillion.
What has transpired appeared to be negotiations of terms between the Obama Administration and the House Republicans lead by House Speaker John Boehner. What really happened is that the Republicans have not actually negotiated anything from their original position. Obama has proposed as much as 2 trillion in budget cuts with the remaining amount offset by revenue increases, i.e. more taxes. Some of the tax increase is the elimination of loop holes and exemptions like the ones major oil companies use to avoid paying billions to the IRS. That alone is not enough revenue to cover the increased debt. Increases in the highest tax rate, those making over $250,000 are also in Obama's plan.
The political reality. Most Republicans in the House have said they will never raise taxes. Most of them have even signed a pledge to that effect. The Republican leaders, if they wish to remain the leaders will not consider tax increases in negotiations. However, the House can pass a measure with only a small number of Republicans, about 10% to join with the Democrats to reach a majority. Opinion polls show most Americans agree that tax increases should be a part of a deficit reduction. House Republicans have spent a lot of time getting to the point that they have nothing with which to negotiate. Obama, on the other hand has surprised, even disappointed many Democrats by offering cuts to Medicare and Social Security but only if tax increases are part of the deal. With their backs to the wall, Republicans are coming up with stop gap measures which make it appear they are voting against raising the ceiling, but giving the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling anyway. For his part, Obama is sticking to a position that this will be a long term change for both taxes and Medicare and Social Security policy.
I think what convinced me that this was not just another showdown, but rather the kind of policy change that happens once, maybe twice in any presidential administration was the reaction back in June from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

It is true that divided government is the only government that can do transformational, difficult things… One thing I do tell my members is: whatever we do with this President is not going to be an issue in the next election. Because when you do it with divided government, no one can take advantage of whatever the difficult part of it was. You saw that on display with [Ronald] Reagan and Tip O’Neill on tax reform in ‘83, Bill Clinton and the Republicans on welfare reform in ‘96. And, you know, balancing the budget in the late 90’s was not easy; that was done by Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress. So, I view this discussion surrounding the debt ceiling as actually an opportunity, an opportunity to do something important for the American people and to actually get a result. And those discussions are under way and I’m hoping that they can lead to something that I can recommend to my members and that at least most of them will conclude that it is an important accomplishment for the country… Most of my members believe that the debt crisis is actually here and this is the opportunity to deal with it. So I hope it’ll be a big moment for the country, but I can’t tell you for sure yet, that that’s the way it’s going to turn out.

Consider that McConnell would be Majority Leader today if it were not for the Tea Party losses in Delaware, Nevada, Colorado. You can just tell by the way he is offering alternatives behind the scenes right now how much he wishes he were part of making history and not just standing in the way of getting things done like his counterparts in the House.
I don't know exactly how the President is going to say it, but somehow he is going to appeal to the fact that both a majority of Americans want the version of deficit reduction he is proposing and a majority of members of the House likely do too. It's just a matter of getting the Republican leaders to let it happen. The thing is a majority of Americans want the federal government to do something about jobs more than they want something done about the deficit, but that another post.

First Anti-Environment Presidential Nominee

For the first time ever, the Republican Party appears all but certain to nominate a candidate hostile to the environment. The field has made a complete break with past Republican presidential candidates in uniformly running against environmental protection policies. What makes this especially amazing is that it is not a reflection of any general change in attitude among Republican voters. As a group, they continue to support strong environmental protection. Nevertheless, four of the candidates or likely candidates, Pawlenty, Roney, Gingrich and Huntsman, have recently changed their positions. Gingrich, in particular, has made such a switch that the pro-environment positions he held and even published in a book, he has completely disavowed. he has called for the elimination of the EPA.
The driving force appears to be a sudden change in the views of republican voters about climate change. Although neither scientific data nor the opinion of the world's top scientists have changed, 96% believe that global warming is real and is caused, in part, by human activity, a large number of self-identified Republicans have chosen in the change their belief on the subject. That number is driven almost entirely by self-identified members of the Tea Party. 70% of whom do not even believe the data that global warming exists, let alone that it is caused by human activity.

Forget the "Nanny State" and even the "Daddy State" Say Hello to the Baby Daddy State.

The term "Nanny State" is used to criticize government policy that supposedly steps into area that should be free choice. The term "Daddy State" as a counter criticism of neo-conservative authoritarianism. I think a much better term to describe the current efforts to abdicate any responsibility for its citizens is the Baby Daddy State.

A popular criticism of liberal approach to government is that it will result in a "Nanny State", i.e. overprotective and taking away free choices. That label is in fairy common usage, but a growing term used as a criticism of authoritarian conservative policy is the "Daddy State." That tag was created by Paul Starobin in an article in the Atlantic in 2004. He compared to trend of surrendering personal liberties in the "War or Terror"* to the willing surrender of freedoms by the Russians in re-electing former KGB chief Vladamir Putin. Though some of that right-wing authoritarian attitude continues post War on Terror, for example the new mother denied a birth certificate for her child unless she answered personal questions including her "abortion history"

The problem is that neither of these labels describes the post-Obama election wave of Tea Partying, Ayn Rand worshipping government is evil, people who work for the government are worthless, frivolous government programs like schools, helping the sick and elderly should be cut or better yet, eliminated. Since most of the government functions under attack disproportionately benefit the poor or the lowering paying, less skilled jobs, the the trend is motivated by racism. That's a pretty attractive argument, frankly, because Obama is constantly thrown up as the representation of what the Tea Partiers and the union busters hate, even if it's state and local government functions under attack. I don't know though, it leaves a lot to be desired as a universal theory. Why the hatred for Medicare? To be clear, this is a hatred by the politicians; cutting Medicare is opposed by a majority in every demographic, even self-identified Tea Partiers.

In case you don't know, a Baby Daddy is someone who fathers a child but who does not stay around to be a father to that child. We created all these institutions that we have no intention of getting rid of, like Medicare, public schools, trash pick-up and other essential government functions. Remember that the GOP denies that they have voted to end Medicare. They're just not going to pay nearly as much and get the same coverage. It doesn't sound like it can work, and it doesn't. Medicare already provide health care at a much lower rate than private insurers can provide. How can moving Medicare coverage do anything but raise the cost or eliminate coverage?

The fundamental problem is that the wave of politicians, mostly Republican and the newer ones having adopted the Tea Party label, came to power with the single, simple agenda of cutting government. This is a problem because cutting government has been the most popular platform for politicians at all levels of government for a good 30 years. All the easy cuts have been made long ago. What is left are either the necessary programs or the popular programs. Neither of which can be cut outright. You cold look at making these program more efficient but that would take both hard work and through knowledge of the programs you're cutting. Not surprising this hasn't happened. Instead, we have a series of policies that simply cut funding, promise that services will remain and a willingness to simply walk away from the obvious problems the policies create.
..

*A better name would be the War on Not Being Afraid

blogger lost all of the posts from the last two days

That'll teach me not to backup my posts. Thanks blooger!

UPDATE:

The post came back, but no comments. (OK, OK there weren't any comments before it dissapeared, either). So, you didn't miss your chance to be the first.

We're Hip Deep in Reporters in Hip Waders - Look Out New Orleans!

The most interesting and worrisome story of the current Mississippi River flooding is what may happen to New Orleans and Louisiana and the 80 year old technology they have to combat it. But first, a look at the news people who descended on Memphis to cover the flood. Waders, waders, waders, waders and waders. To be fair, Julie Martin is only in hip boots, but then The Weather Channel doesn't tend to go over the top like the majors. There are hundreds in shelters displaced by the flooding, but all the businesses are open. Virtually all roads will get you where you want to go, and the bigger fear of this flood is not the damage done by flood waters, but the damage to tourism from the news media (h/t David).

As Memphis mayor A.C. Wharton points out to skittish tourists, Memphis was built on a bluff some 78 feet above the Mississippi River. Most of the cities on the Mississippi sit atop bluffs with one notable exception: New Orleans. Right now, the news media is following the cresting flood waters down river where actual flooding will occur. The only questions is where. Within days a decision will have to be made whether to take the risk on levee system that protects New Orleans (!) or open the Moragnza Spillway for only the second time ever and deliberately flood Morgan City, LA. If you're a nerd and want to read a comprehensive article starting from where all the water came from to why the spillway system itself might fail check out this article. For minute by minute updates, check out NOLA.com. And for news reports that breathlessly tell you "Look How High the Water Is" just wait a few days and turn on your TV. They'll be coming from New Orleans. If the Morganza Spillway is opened and the flooding happens down the Atchafalaya River, don't expect much. Rural Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana don't have direct flights to New York, and while those areas are most impacted by this flood they don't show up on Al Roker's radar, so to speak. The reporter in hip wader flood appears likely to follow the major airports.