With the aid of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. KY) and House Speaker John Boehner (R. OH), the Republican Party helped pass a deal to avoid a fictional fiscal cliff. Democrats succeeded in doing what they always do, changing the topic. Originally, discussions about this whole matter were focused on our ballooning national debt, Democrats' failure to even allow a vote on a budget in the Senate, and President Obama's rampant spending. To avoid allowing the repetitive $1 trillion plus annual budget deficits that have occurred under President Obama, the Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement called "sequestration", a set of automatic cuts in discretionary and military spending. The situation on non-discretionary spending is so dire that the trustees in charge of Medicare say it will go broke in 2016 and Social Security is projected to have to begin cutting benefits by 25% in 2033 if no changes are made to benefits or taxes. Even worse, in the midst of a recovery that can only be generously thought of as weak, taxes were set to go back to Clinton-era levels, almost ensuring the economy will head back into recession (especially when combined with Obamacare taxes coming out just in time that he didn't have to defend them during his re-election campaign). And all of us where watching the outcome of these very policies in Europe and especially Greece.
But suddenly, spending wasn't an issue. Democrats rolled the two items into one and started talking about how rich people somehow weren't paying their fair share. Keep in mind, the only reason the tax cuts enacted under President Bush weren't permanent was that Democrats refused to pass them if they didn't automatically expire. But somehow, the argument wasn't about economics, it was about fairness. And not even a defined fairness, just some nebulous concept that no one had to defend. Lest we forget the words of President Barack Obama that raising taxes in a recession (struggling economy) is "the last thing you want to do". Mr. Obama even acknowledged that his original proposed tax raise on income over $250,000 would not have any significant effect on the deficit. So while logic and evidence show that a tax increase (even at the current level of $450,000 and above) will restrict economic growth and cause job losses, while increased government spending will not stimulate economic recovery and development, those arguments didn't matter. Because if you believe in economics and history and say we need to cut and tax less you will be called heartless and people will tell you how you aren't being "fair". Meanwhile, they refuse to engage in an intellectual argument about their position, because it has no backing.
And with backbones made of pure silly string, Republicans folded as President Obama broke their leadership. Instead, they passed a deal that the Congressional Budget Office, which has to consider promises as literal gold capable of supporting the government coffers, says the deal offers $1 in spending cuts for every $41 in tax increases. I hesitate to remind readers that history has shown that Democrats will renege on spending cuts. And President Obama has already said he will not negotiate on the raising of the debt ceiling in February (as if he ever really negotiated on anything). Meanwhile, President Obama is doubling down, insisting that more taxes are coming, saying the we can't cut our way to prosperity, implying instead, that we can somehow tax our way to it, history be damned.
The only thing Republicans can do to return to credibility is to remove Boehner from the leadership and push Eric Cantor (R. VA) (who voted against the deal) into the prime position and maybe making a stand on the increase in the debt limit to force additional spending cuts. Do I believe this will happen. Let's just say I'm going to keep my voting registration as "unaffiliated".
No comments:
Post a Comment