Sense vs. Nonsense in Debt Ceiling Debate

As the potential defaulting on our national debt looms ever larger and comes ever closer, there is a rising chorus of responsible conservatives who are speaking up so as to drown out the radicals on the far right who think that default is not a serious problem. For one thing, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has reiterated its opposition to default in a recent piece, “Default Is Not An Option – Spread the Word” The USCC has stated unequivocally: “failure to raise the debt ceiling would have calamitous results. It would halt government operations, make our debt and deficit situation worse, debase the value of the dollar and threaten its status as the world’s reserve currency, and hamper U.S. growth and job creation.” Based on the fact that debt, deficit, growth and job creation are all topics in the forefront of the conservative agenda, it doesn’t seem to make much sense to allow the federal government to default if the conservative agenda would be setback as a result. Responsible conservatives know this and now they are taking their argument to the public so as to forestall any calamity that would result from the recklessness of the far right.

A second development that is worth noting is that the “Gang of Six”, those senators who have been working with the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction committee proposals has gained another member, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and its proceedings appear to have garnered increased interest on Capitol Hill. Quoting Senator Kent Conrad: “Any debt deal would resemble the “Gang of Six” plan.” The “Gang of Six” proposals are a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases and they stand in sharp contrast to the ultra conservative Cut, Cap and Balance bill that’s going nowhere on Capitol Hill. While Tea Party backed Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said of Cut, Cap and Balance: “And we want to make very clear, this isn’t just the best plan on the table for addressing the debt limit; this is the only plan”; Speaker of the House, John Boehner, acted immediately to put Lee’s comments into perspective. Boehner said: “Oh, I’m sure we have got some members who believe that, but I do not believe that would be anywhere close to the majority. At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to act.” With these comments, Boehner is signaling a more reasonable approach to addressing the dual problems of deficits and revenues. Boehner is also very much aware of the fact that while there may be a sizable default caucus among the Tea Party crowd in the House, there is a very small claque of Senators on the far right who are beholden to the same views. Based on the fact that Jack Lew, the head of the Office of Management and Budget testified at the bipartisan debt reduction caucus today and reiterated the fact that whatever the final plan is, it would have to include some form of revenue increase, is it any wonder that John Boehner is charting a more practical course?

Why reality is even starting to dawn on anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist. Norquist has begun to equivocate on whether or not allowing the Bush era tax breaks to expire amounts to a tax hike. Norquist’s equivocation is an element of particular irony as it is Norquist who developed the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” which disavows any increase in federal revenue from increased taxes or the elimination of tax breaks and the closing of loopholes. Norquist’s about face on Bush era tax cuts is a major setback for the “starve the beast crowd” on the far right and represents a major departure from his previous no compromise approach to taxes and spending. That’s something that won’t go unnoticed in the political world and something that is a defacto admission of the need to raise revenues in order to address the deficit.

Thus in the final analysis, as we grind on towards August and the potential of a default, the voices of common sense are growing ever louder and more persuasive and the anti revenue zealots are seeing their chances of dealing with the deficit through drastic cuts alone slip away with each passing hour and each passing day. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) likened the far right radicals in the House to being on an “iceberg that is melting into the ocean” and in need of a life line so as to save themselves from political irrelevance. In the end, those who thought they could come to Washington and refuse to compromise will find themselves on the wrong side of history with their political futures all the more uncertain going forward.

SJG

7/22/11

Sources:

Default Is Not An Option – Spread the Word
http://www.chamberpost.com/2011/07/default-is-not-an-option-%e2%80%93-spread-the-word/

4 ways a debt default would hurt America
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-13-debt-limit-default-effects_n.htm

Conrad: Any Debt Deal Would Resemble ‘Gang of 6’ Plan
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/debt_07-21.html

Grover Norquist: Ending Bush Tax Cuts Not A Tax Hike
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/grover-norquist-bush-tax-cuts-tax-hike_n_905624.html

Ms. Bachmann a Migraine Headache for the G.O.P.?

Anyone who has been paying attention to politics and especially the politics of the Tea Party movement remembers how Sarah Palin, back in 2010, claimed that the “sleazy G.O.P. establishment” was out to derail her run for the presidency in 2012. Palin was reacting to an article in Politico that top Republican operatives were “working to stall her momentum in hopes of crippling a potential presidential run.” Now some are suggesting that the same group of “good old boys” within the G.O.P.’s top leadership cadre have the same plans for Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann. That is to say that they in fact have put a political “hit” out on her by making an issue of her migraine headaches. I pointed out in an earlier article that the Republican establishment has little interest in the Tea Party movement aside from the contribution that it makes to voter turnout and its continual assault on Barack Obama’s “Socialist” agenda. Beyond that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have maneuvered towards and away from the congressional Tea Party caucuses depending on what their individual political prerogatives are at any particular moment in time.

Well, as it turns out the perils of Ms. Bachmann seem to have fallen into the laps of two very unlikely champions, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell, both of MSNBC. Schultz last night strongly defended Bachmann from recent “right-wing hit job” on her, and even admitted that he now respects her immensely for not being bullied by the establishment of the Republican Party. The reported allegations that Bachmann “pops pills like candy” and suffers from incapacitating migraines was, according to Schultz, a non-story “so heavy on insinuation and light on specifics.” Schultz laid the responsibility for this “hit” job at the feet of Karl Rove and Tim Pawlenty by way of the following observation: “Rove questions Bachmann’s fitness because he will never support a Tea Party candidate, while Pawlenty is merely a “buzzard circling a carcass” who is too afraid to challenge Mitt Romney.” Lawrence O’Donnell followed up the Schultz report with the observation that “It doesn’t strike me that Rove and company are particularly out to protect Romney, they just want Bachmann out of this race.”

Thus as Michele Bachmann’s standings in the polls rise, the kingmakers and professional political operatives within the Republican Party have apparently, according to Ed Schultz and others, unleashed an attack on Bachmann’s health so as to raise questions about her fitness to serve as president. Is this just the latest episode in the simmering internal conflict within the G.O.P. between the “establishment” and the Tea Party newcomers? That’s not too far fetched an idea based on the experiences of Sarah Palin and the ongoing internal conflicts between the Tea Party and the “establishment” as evidenced by the continuing conflict over spending cuts and revenue increases during deficit reduction negotiations. However, the question left unanswered is: Are the pros within the G.O.P. really that powerful as to derail the Tea Party and its leadership in 2012 or are they just playing for time and hoping beyond hope that the movement will burn itself out and cease to be a force that drives G.O.P. so far to the right that its candidates are virtually unelectable?

SJG

7/21/11

Sources:

Palin: ‘Sleazy’ GOP Establishment Is Out to Get Me
http://www.newser.com/story/104408/sarah-palin-sleazy-gop-establishment-is-out-to-get-me.html

Sarah Palin: GOP establishment ‘sleazy’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44550.html

From Republican Victory to Republican Civil War?
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2010/11/01/from_republican_victory_to_republican_civil_war

Ed Schultz: My Respect For Bachmann Is ‘Through The Roof’ For Standing Up To ‘Right-Wing Hit Job’

Ed Schultz: My Respect For Bachmann Is ‘Through The Roof’ For Standing Up To ‘Right-Wing Hit Job’

Lawrence O’Donnell: The Bachmann Migraine Story Shows How Powerful She’s Become
http://www.businessinsider.com/odonnell-michele-bachmann-migraine-video-2011-7#ixzz1Sn8R5kD9

Opening Win in Wisconsin Recall Elections Goes to the Democrats

The much awaited Wisconsin recall elections got off to a favorable start for the Democrats yesterday. Democratic State Senator Dave Hansen trounced his opponent David VanderLeest by a 2 to 1 margin. Quoting Steve Contorno of the Green Bay Press Gazette: “The summer of recalls had its first definitive outcome Tuesday night when Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, handily defeated Republican David VanderLeest with 66 percent of the vote. Hansen’s victory over a controversial candidate wasn’t a shocker. VanderLeest’s legal and financial troubles became the focus of his campaign, dragging down his bid even after he vowed not to discuss them anymore. But the margin of victory and the turnout by voters were a first-round demonstration of the Democratic Party’s ground game going into August, when six Republicans and two more Democrats face recall elections with control of state government hanging in the balance.”

With regard to the remaining recall elections, State Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said the that the two Democratic state senators were in good shape to withstand their recall challenges. With regard to the six incumbent Republicans facing a recall elections later this summer, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel points out: “Tate also said that there’s an “opportunity” now for all six Democratic recall challengers to defeat the six incumbent Republicans that they’ll face in general recall elections on Aug. 9. He referred to favorable polling data in four of the races that Democrats and their allies have released previously, and said the party would release more Wednesday or Thursday on a fifth race, the one between Rep. Fred Clark (D-Baraboo) and Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon). As for the sixth race, he referred to the fact that Democrat Nancy Nusbaum of De Pere has raised more campaign money than incumbent Sen. Rob Cowles (R-Allouez).” It’s important to note that the Democrats only need to unseat three of the incumbent Republicans along with holding onto the three Democratic seats subject to recall challenges in order to wrest control of Wisconsin state government.

It looks like its going to be a long hot summer in Wisconsin, both politically and in terms of the temperatures registering on the thermometer. One thing is for certain and that is that the political overreach of Scott Walker is about to be tested in a big way. Big enough in fact that he himself may be staring down the barrel of a recall election himself before too long.

SJG

7/20/11

Sources:

Wisconsin recall elections kick off
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/19/wisconsin_recall_election_kick_off

Democrats say Hansen victory means they’re ‘surging’
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/125901683.html

Wisconsin Democrat Dave Hansen defeats David VanderLeest in Senate recall election
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110719/GPG0101/110719159/Democrat-Hansen-defeats-VanderLeest-state-Senate-recall-election?odyssey=nav%7Chead

The Looming Compromise on Revenues: A Postscript

A recent article by David Leonhardt, “Why Taxes Will Rise in the End”, directly reinforces the points made earlier in: “The Looming Compromise on Revenues.” Leonhardt paints a picture in which revenue increases of some sort have to be an elemental part of fiscal reform, whether they be closing loopholes, the elimination of tax subsidies, an outright increase in taxes or any combination thereof. He points to several factors that make revenue increases inevitable for those who are serious about addressing America’s looming fiscal crisis. Lets take a look at his analysis.

1. No Free Lunches: “If only we could get back to the past — get spending under control, as the cliché goes — we’d be O.K. The debt ceiling, with its harsh finality, offers the chance. Unfortunately, this nostalgic view depends on a misunderstanding of the budget. It imagines a budget in which the United States indefinitely has the world’s highest medical costs, its largest military, an aging population and, nonetheless, taxes that are among the world’s lowest. Economists have a name for that combination: a free lunch… Free lunchism is ultimately the problem with the no-new-taxes pledge that so many politicians have adopted. A refusal to raise taxes, no matter how principled, cannot take us back to the good old days. It would instead lead to a very different American society. For taxes to remain where they are, Washington would need to end Medicare as we know it, end Social Security as we know it, severely shrink the military — or do some combination of the above.” The aforementioned situation has led Douglas Elmendorf of the Congressional Budget Office to point out that those who are hewing to the “no new taxes” line are simply not seeing the true parameters of the overall situation: “The aging of our population and the rising cost of health care have changed the backdrop for federal budget policy in a fundamental way.”

2. Paul Ryan’s Plan is D.O.A.: “Early indications are that Americans don’t like Mr. Ryan’s plan all that much. In upstate New York this spring, a Democrat won a typically Republican House district by campaigning relentlessly against the plan. National polls show huge majorities favor keeping Medicare and Social Security in something approaching their current form — much larger majorities, tellingly, than oppose an increase in the debt ceiling. In the near term, Congressional Republicans have decided to play down the Ryan plan. Most continue to oppose new taxes, without going so far as to explain the consequences. They will have little trouble sticking to that position through the current debt ceiling fight, because the deficit does not need to be solved immediately. Eventually, though, drawing up a credible deficit plan with neither Ryan-like cuts nor higher taxes will be impossible. And you can already see the start of a potential Republican compromise.” To underscore the fact that the Republican leadership in Washington is edging towards a compromise position, Leonhardt points to the fact that Speaker Boehner signaled his willingness last week to shrinking individual and corporate loopholes, as just one example. Likewise Conservative economists like Martin Feldstein and Gregory Mankiw favor addressing loopholes as well. There also seems to be renewed interest on the right regarding the approach of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles deficit commission which includes revenue increases in any wide ranging attack on the deficit. To wit: “One obvious compromise along these lines would follow the outline sketched out by the Simpson-Bowles Plan. Marginal tax rates could actually fall. But the closing of loopholes would more than make up for the loss in revenue from lower tax rates. Conservatives might accept the deal, partly because it would satisfy their longtime desire for a simpler tax code with lower rates and partly because spending cuts would still make up the bulk of any deal. Liberals might accept the deal because tax loopholes disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and a simpler code — even one with lower rates — could be more progressive.”

3. How Might It All Play Out?: “So what kind of tax increases do Americans support? The old-fashioned kind. Seventy-two percent support raising taxes on income above $250,000, according to a recent NYT/CBS poll and a large majority likewise favor raising Social Security taxes on the affluent. In the end, the most likely tax increase may be the one that’s already on the books. On Jan. 1, 2013, all the Bush tax cuts— on the affluent and nonaffluent alike — are set to expire, which would solve roughly one-quarter of our long-term deficit problem.”

Again, in the final analysis there is simply no way that we can get spending and deficits under control by drastic cuts to social programs alone. Moreover, that’s a hypothetical argument to make in the first place as the Democrats will never abide such a thing so other than for the scoring of political points with their base, particularly the Tea Party, what realistically did the Republican leadership hope to achieve? The G.O.P. leadership may seek to avoid dealing with revenues in the short run by allowing Barack Obama to get what he wanted in the first place, an increase in the debt ceiling free of any spending cuts. However, in the long run the Republicans will still be in a no win situation when it comes to raising revenues, unless of course they chose to abandon their goal of overall deficit reduction.

SJG
7/15/11

Sources:

The Looming Compromise on Revenues
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2011/07/08/the_looming_compromise_on_revenues

Why Taxes Will Rise in the End

The Looming Compromise on Revenues

Against the backdrop of heightened political rhetoric among conservatives about not being willing to raise tax revenues as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling, there is a growing acknowledgement among many Republicans in Washington as to the ultimate need to increase revenues. While many on Capitol Hill continue to parrot conservative talking points about not increasing tax revenues, the political leadership within the G.O.P. and outside the Republican Party is sounding more and more amenable to some form of raising revenue, even if it is structured as tax reform.

In an interview that came in under the radar following the collapse of the debt talks chaired by Vice President Biden, Republican insider and former congressman Vin Weber appeared on the PBS News Hour to discuss the emerging cracks in Republican opposition to raising taxes to curb the deficit. This controversy is clearly evident in the ongoing public spate between Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) over what actually constitutes a tax revenue increase and the necessity of increasing revenues. Weber stated of Republicans engaged in deficit negotiations: “And I think, if they’re allowed to define, on their own terms, what constitutes a tax increase that opens the door to a broad tax reform that might broaden the base by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions and credits and exemptions, probably coupled with a reduction in top rates to spur economic growth, but resulting in a net tax increase.” As you may recall, Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform had circulated a Taxpayer Protection Pledge to conservative politicians for their signature ahead of the 2010 elections which many, particularly members of the Tea Party, signed. The Pledge includes the following wording “ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and…TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.” Thus the pledge, a document of the utmost importance on the far right, not only prohibits tax increases; it opposes any effort to raise revenue through the elimination of loopholes, deductions and credits “unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

In the time that has elapsed since Weber’s PBS interview Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) has approached the White House with a proposal for $ 1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. According to White house officials, “Mr. Boehner suggested that he was open to the possibility of $1 trillion or more in new revenue that would be generated by addressing tax issues already raised in the talks, like killing breaks for the oil and gas industry, eliminating ethanol subsidies and ending preferential treatment for corporate jets. But those changes would fall far short of the revenue goal, and the source of the rest of the money would, under what they described as Mr. Boehner’s proposal, be decided by Congress through a review of tax law changes. One official said some revenue could be generated by allowing Bush-era tax cuts for affluent Americans to expire at the end of 2012, which would produce hundreds of billions of dollars, though those savings would be offset by the costs of retaining lower rates for those below the income threshold.” Eric Cantor (R-VA), who had walked out of the Biden talks and who has previously been a staunch opponent of raising revenues was quoted on PBS on July 6 as saying that he was willing to talk about closing loopholes and his fellow Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) likewise was quoted on the same program, “I’m open to tax reform. We need to do it broadly… Everybody’s going to have to contribute to it in one way or another.” Why even Tea Party backed Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was on the news this evening saying that he was not necessarily opposed to raising revenues as long as it didn’t involve an increase in tax rates.

There is one other factor to consider in this whole discussion and that’s the current opinion of the American people. The latest Pew Research Polling on the subject: “Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits; GOP Divided Over Benefit Reductions”, reveals an American public that on a two to one basis feels that keeping entitlements the way they are is more important than reducing the deficit. Likewise similar levels of support are evident for other issues such as Medicare cost responsibilities and whether or not poor people should have their Medicaid benefits taken away. In fact if you go inside the numbers what you see is that even less affluent Republicans are now opposed to reductions in entitlements. While the political class and its attendant punditry are embroiled in discussing what to cut and where to raise revenues, the American people, even though they know that some type of reform is required, have expressed an emphatic desire to leave their benefits largely unchanged. Thus the Republican leadership in Washington has to maneuver between a public that wants it’s entitlements left alone, a Tea Party faction that has yet to understand that compromise is part of governing and the prospect of throwing our economy and the world economy along with it, into the tailspin that would result if we were actually to default on our Treasury obligations by failing to raise the debt ceiling.

The bottom line on the issue of raising revenues as part and parcel of a debt deal is that opposing such measures is a lose-lose proposition. Republicans came to power in the House in 2010 with the idea that getting the debt under control was one of the most important issues facing the nation today. Few reputable economists have taken the position that the debt could be reduced by spending cuts alone, thus revenue increases of some sort are required. To forgo increased revenue is to fail in the effort to reduce the debt, which for the G.O.P. is a loser. However, to consider revenue increases after having campaigned on no new tax increases of any type is a loser as well and as such any debt deal compromise that includes revenue increases can only be seen as a setback for the Republican Party. But beyond the fortunes of the Republican leadership are those of the Tea Party movement. Any debt deal that contains a significant increase in federal revenues can only be seen as a major setback for the Tea Party movement as well seeing as opposition to increased federal revenue has been a major reason behind the movement since its arrival on the political landscape.

Steven J. Gulitti
7/7/11

Sources:

Sen. Cornyn to Obama: Take Tax Increases Off the Table: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/budget_07-05.html

Cracks Emerge in Republican Opposition to Raising Taxes to Curb Deficit: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/goptaxes_06-24.html

Americans For Tax Reform: Taxpayer Protection Pledge; http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge

Obama to Push for Wider Deal With G.O.P. on Deficit Cuts; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/politics/07fiscal.html?emc=eta1

Lawmakers Remain Divided on Deficit Fundamentals as Deadline Draws Closer; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/deficit_07-06.html

Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits; GOP Divided Over Benefit Reductions;http://people-press.org/2011/07/07/public-wants-changes-in-entitlements-not-change-in-benefits/

Boehner Must Navigate Rocky Road to a Budget; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/us/politics/25fiscal.html?emc=eta1

Will a Deficit Reduction/Debt Ceiling Deal Help Re-elect Barack Obama?

Right now I think the likelihood of Barack Obama being reelected is far from assured. Political commentator Mark Halperin thinks that concluding a deal on deficits and debt will greatly aid Obama in his reelection bid. With regard to how a deal will go down with Democrats on Capitol Hill Halperin observes: “Democratic strategists (including those associated with the President) will quietly argue to liberals that this is the best deal they could get, and that a deal is vital. They will also argue (even more quietly) that such a deal will make the President’s re-election even more likely (by as much as 15%-20%), freeing him up to raise more money for them in 2012. Smart/honest Republicans will agree with that judgment, but will be powerless to make it in public.” Halperin believes that signing a deficit / debt deal will allow Obama to “take off the table the single most damaging issue that could be used against him in 2012.”

Time Magazine’s Jay Newton-Small believes that even a deal half as large as the proposed $4.5 trillion dollar deal will still play out to Obama’s favor. Saturday’s apparent failure to continue along the path to the largest deal suggested to date is seen by Newton-Small as a minor victory for the president. To wit: “The details of a smaller deficit reduction deal have yet to be worked out, but the collapse of the grand bargain leaves President Obama in a more favorable political position. If both parties agree to cut $2 trillion from the budget with minor tax increases, he’ll notch a bipartisan accomplishment. But he can also say he tried something more ambitious in putting cuts to Social Security and Medicare on the table without facing the political fallout of actually slashing those programs. He went big and congressional Republicans — not to mention the noticeably silent 2012 Republican presidential candidates — didn’t. It will be Republicans who will have to justify bowing to the extreme wing of their party and walking away from a deal that included some ten times more spending cuts than revenue increases. Some things just aren’t too big to fail.”

If we weren’t in the midst of a crisis in unemployment and new job creation I would be inclined to agree with both Mark Halperin and Jay Newton-Small. However, the electorate’s sentiments on the wider economy leave Obama’s political fate in a continual state of peril. If Obama can secure a deal on deficits and debt and convince the public that the Republicans would have employed the same tactics to fight the Great Recession that he did and with the same results, he may very well be reelected. If the deficit / debt deal is seen as flawed and not likely to truly reduce future government spending while protecting entitlements it’s usefulness to Obama’s reelection will be of diminished value. Likewise, with many of the perceived benefits of the deal accruing in the future, the advantages of such a deal to Obama’s reelection may be trumped on election day by concerns about employment, thereby sealing the fate of the Obama presidency.

SJG
7/10/11

Sources:

The Road (Maybe) Ahead
http://thepage.time.com/2011/07/08/the-road-maybe-ahead/?artId=?contType=?chn

No Grand Bargain: Boehner Walks Away From Big Deficit Deal

No Grand Bargain: Boehner Walks Away From Big Deficit Deal

Will the Tea Party Derail Fiscal Reform?

As we head into the final phases of the debt ceiling debate, conservative columnist David Brooks raises an interesting and yet disturbing question. That question simply stated is: Has the Republican Party become so subsumed by the fanatics from within the Tea Party movement that America will miss out on a prime opportunity to put the country on sound fiscal footing and default on its debt to the longer term detriment of the nation.

Lets look inside Brooks’ analysis, what’s on offer:

1. “If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.”

2. “The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.”

What are the obstacles:

1. “But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.”

2. “The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.”

3. ” The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.”

4. “But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.”

In the final analysis David Brooks is simply articulating what most of the rest of us right thinking individuals have concluded long ago, and that is that if the leadership of the G.O.P. can’t impose some sort of order on the chaos within their own party, in an environment where the public wants compromise and the Democrats on Capitol Hill are willing to do just that, then the Republican Party will be seen as being not fit to govern. The concomitant fallout from that will be that we miss out on an opportunity of a lifetime to secure our financial future and the abandonment of the G.O.P. by the mass of independent voters, a prospect that will only handicap the party in future elections. The leadership of the Republican Party will have only themselves and the Tea Party to thank for that.

SJG
7/7/11

The Mother of All No-Brainers

A Tea Party Defeat in South Carolina

South Carolina’s Governor, Nikki Haley is a Tea Party darling, a Sarah Palin favorite and touted as one of the most fiscally conservative public officials in America today. That said, it must have come as nothing less than a virtual thunderclap when here own Republican dominated state legislature voted to override Haley’s drastic cuts in Clemson University’s agricultural outreach programs and deferred capital maintenance. Clemson is a state university that relies on public funding.

Quoting the university directly: “The veto of $15 million for agricultural research in Clemson PSA was overridden by the House in a 106-3 vote and in the Senate by a 32-6 vote. The Legislature also overrode the veto of $250,000 for PSA Agency Operations by a 92-19 vote in the House and a 31-8 vote in the Senate. Legislators overrode the governor’s veto of Capital Reserve Fund spending, including $6.2 million one-time funding for deferred maintenance for Clemson. The vote was 112-1 in the House and 32-8 in the Senate.”

Thus one is left with one overriding question: If drastic cuts are considered by the far right to be the only way to attain balanced budgets, then why has the state legislature, in state as so thoroughly conservative as South Carolina, decided to hand its ultra conservative governor such an astounding rebuke and political defeat?

SJG
6/30/11

Source: Clemson University Media Relations; inside@clemson.edu