Pragmatism Wins
Rather than get into Twitter fights with people, I'm just going to speak my piece here, in my own forum, on the deal reached tonight to raise the debt ceiling. It's been amusing watching the reactions. Some Democrats are stating what I have said on here previously: President Obama's ability to make a deal and take credit for it, plus the killing of Osama Bin Laden, puts Obama in position to win next year in a landslide. The GOP has nothing to run on, except maybe its own insanity, especially if Michelle Bachmann (god forbid) gets the nomination.
However, those on the far Left are absolutely apoplectic tonight, saying the president caved, the economy is ruined, and perhaps a primary challenger (Dennis Kucinich?) would bring the president back around to their way of thinking. Paul Krugman is shaking his head over this, and it was only yesterday that his column declared that moderation and pragmatism were doomed to failure, and that the only way to confront right-wing extremism was with left-wing extremism. In other words, fight what got us into this mess with more of the same. He's good at that. He still thinks that the only way to fix our economy when we're bloated with a $14 trillion debt that the world is starting to get nervous about is to double down on spending (and debt) and hope that things get better so that we can then confront things down the road. I've already stated my two retorts to that idea, but I'll just repeat them here: 1) What if things DON'T get better? 2) With his plan, down the road, we become Greece, and if you think this plan hurts, you should see what the Greeks are dealing with. Of course, Krugman, along with fellow Left-wingers such as Arianna Huffington and Katrina van den Heuvel, also like to stick their heads in the sand and proclaim that we don't even have a debt crisis. On the ABC "This Week" program today, Krugman even went so far as to say that the only "rational" people on this issue were progressives.
Here's what it came down to... the president's "grand bargain" was the best deal we could have gotten to start to work on the debt problems. It reflected many of the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission from last year, and balanced spending cuts with changes in the tax structure that were long overdue. We all know what happened there... Eric Cantor basically stabbed Speaker Boehner in the back. So we don't get the "grand bargain". It stinks, but there it is.
The president was basically left with three options: 1) try again to make a deal that would at least get some of what he wanted (a debt ceiling increase to last past the election, bipartisan support, minimal cuts to entitlements) and could pass both houses of Congress before Tuesday, 2) default, or 3) invoke a Constitutional crisis by using the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling himself (because the GOP would take it to court immediately, and even worse, might start suggesting the "i-word"... impeachment). Tea Partiers wanted option #2. That is just ridiculous, and shows they don't understand the scope of what we are dealing with here. The far Left wanted option #3. Similarly ridiculous. Both #2 and #3 would have caused a downgrade of our credit rating, global fears about our country imploding, and worldwide economic ruin. #1 was the pragmatic choice, the only sensible choice, and that is what the president chose.
This morning on ABC, George Stephanopolous expressed the moderate/pragmatic position in what almost turned into a pleading argument with Krugman. As Krugman suggested time and again that Obama stick to his guns and demand tax increases and push something that was even a little bit to the Left's liking, Stephanopolous repeated, "He doesn't have the votes!" And that is what it comes down to. We saw with the dueling political theatre votes on the Boehner plan and the Reid plan this week that one party going it alone was not going to pass both houses. So to those of you on the Left, I say if you don't like what just happened here, TRY HARDER in 2012. A lot of these Tea Party types came into office last November because Democrats stayed home. And do not counter with far-Left Democratic candidates, because that just snaps us back to the Congress of 2009-2010, which didn't get the job done either, and only seemed to be good at an imposition of will that led to the reimposition of will being staged now by the far Right. ELECT MODERATES.
As it is, there is still the fear that this deal might not pass either. Senator Lindsey Graham suggested on ABC this morning that half of the House GOP caucus might oppose this because it doesn't have their precious Balanced Budget Amendment in it. If that is indeed true... well, first of all, I will refer you back to my earlier thoughts on those who just want default. Secondly, it puts the onus on Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to make up the votes needed to pass this, and if they don't, then some of the blame will rest on them for what follows. This cannot be where the Democrats pull what the Republicans did to Boehner during the grand bargain negotiations and stab their leader in the back. I think this deal will pass the Senate, but the next 24 hours may require some crossing of fingers while Pelosi and her associates decide how to proceed.
Now as to the deal itself, people are panicking about this so-called "Super Congress", a committee of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans from both houses of Congress who are charged with the task of finding $1 trillion to cut in addition to the $1 trillion that will be cut immediately. If they fail to carry this out, or Congress fails to act on those suggestions by the end of the year, $1 trillion automatically gets cut from entitlements and defense. With something on the table that both sides would sooner die than see cut, this compels everyone to actually DO SOMETHING, whereas in the past, commissions like Simpson-Bowles released their reports, then were either ignored or failed to get the votes in Congress to act on recommendations. People are saying this is a threat to democracy. How is a committee, like so many committees we've had before but one with actual teeth, a threat to democracy? We already have House and Senate Finance committees that decide what goes into our budget before the full Congress votes on it. It's not like they're bringing in outside, unelected people, like we've seen in the past with health care and energy debates.
In summation, was this the best deal? No. Was it a good deal? Many will argue no. Was this the best deal that could be made, given how close we are to the cliff and that our only other options would send us over the cliff? Yes. Argue all you want that "the Republicans held us all hostage". In the end, they still won't get everything they wanted, and they'll gnash their teeth over that. So it ends up being a deal that extremists on both sides don't like. That's usually what you get when you take the pragmatic approach.
That is my final word on this issue... any questions or complaints, refer back to the above and read it again.
However, those on the far Left are absolutely apoplectic tonight, saying the president caved, the economy is ruined, and perhaps a primary challenger (Dennis Kucinich?) would bring the president back around to their way of thinking. Paul Krugman is shaking his head over this, and it was only yesterday that his column declared that moderation and pragmatism were doomed to failure, and that the only way to confront right-wing extremism was with left-wing extremism. In other words, fight what got us into this mess with more of the same. He's good at that. He still thinks that the only way to fix our economy when we're bloated with a $14 trillion debt that the world is starting to get nervous about is to double down on spending (and debt) and hope that things get better so that we can then confront things down the road. I've already stated my two retorts to that idea, but I'll just repeat them here: 1) What if things DON'T get better? 2) With his plan, down the road, we become Greece, and if you think this plan hurts, you should see what the Greeks are dealing with. Of course, Krugman, along with fellow Left-wingers such as Arianna Huffington and Katrina van den Heuvel, also like to stick their heads in the sand and proclaim that we don't even have a debt crisis. On the ABC "This Week" program today, Krugman even went so far as to say that the only "rational" people on this issue were progressives.
Here's what it came down to... the president's "grand bargain" was the best deal we could have gotten to start to work on the debt problems. It reflected many of the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission from last year, and balanced spending cuts with changes in the tax structure that were long overdue. We all know what happened there... Eric Cantor basically stabbed Speaker Boehner in the back. So we don't get the "grand bargain". It stinks, but there it is.
The president was basically left with three options: 1) try again to make a deal that would at least get some of what he wanted (a debt ceiling increase to last past the election, bipartisan support, minimal cuts to entitlements) and could pass both houses of Congress before Tuesday, 2) default, or 3) invoke a Constitutional crisis by using the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling himself (because the GOP would take it to court immediately, and even worse, might start suggesting the "i-word"... impeachment). Tea Partiers wanted option #2. That is just ridiculous, and shows they don't understand the scope of what we are dealing with here. The far Left wanted option #3. Similarly ridiculous. Both #2 and #3 would have caused a downgrade of our credit rating, global fears about our country imploding, and worldwide economic ruin. #1 was the pragmatic choice, the only sensible choice, and that is what the president chose.
This morning on ABC, George Stephanopolous expressed the moderate/pragmatic position in what almost turned into a pleading argument with Krugman. As Krugman suggested time and again that Obama stick to his guns and demand tax increases and push something that was even a little bit to the Left's liking, Stephanopolous repeated, "He doesn't have the votes!" And that is what it comes down to. We saw with the dueling political theatre votes on the Boehner plan and the Reid plan this week that one party going it alone was not going to pass both houses. So to those of you on the Left, I say if you don't like what just happened here, TRY HARDER in 2012. A lot of these Tea Party types came into office last November because Democrats stayed home. And do not counter with far-Left Democratic candidates, because that just snaps us back to the Congress of 2009-2010, which didn't get the job done either, and only seemed to be good at an imposition of will that led to the reimposition of will being staged now by the far Right. ELECT MODERATES.
As it is, there is still the fear that this deal might not pass either. Senator Lindsey Graham suggested on ABC this morning that half of the House GOP caucus might oppose this because it doesn't have their precious Balanced Budget Amendment in it. If that is indeed true... well, first of all, I will refer you back to my earlier thoughts on those who just want default. Secondly, it puts the onus on Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to make up the votes needed to pass this, and if they don't, then some of the blame will rest on them for what follows. This cannot be where the Democrats pull what the Republicans did to Boehner during the grand bargain negotiations and stab their leader in the back. I think this deal will pass the Senate, but the next 24 hours may require some crossing of fingers while Pelosi and her associates decide how to proceed.
Now as to the deal itself, people are panicking about this so-called "Super Congress", a committee of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans from both houses of Congress who are charged with the task of finding $1 trillion to cut in addition to the $1 trillion that will be cut immediately. If they fail to carry this out, or Congress fails to act on those suggestions by the end of the year, $1 trillion automatically gets cut from entitlements and defense. With something on the table that both sides would sooner die than see cut, this compels everyone to actually DO SOMETHING, whereas in the past, commissions like Simpson-Bowles released their reports, then were either ignored or failed to get the votes in Congress to act on recommendations. People are saying this is a threat to democracy. How is a committee, like so many committees we've had before but one with actual teeth, a threat to democracy? We already have House and Senate Finance committees that decide what goes into our budget before the full Congress votes on it. It's not like they're bringing in outside, unelected people, like we've seen in the past with health care and energy debates.
In summation, was this the best deal? No. Was it a good deal? Many will argue no. Was this the best deal that could be made, given how close we are to the cliff and that our only other options would send us over the cliff? Yes. Argue all you want that "the Republicans held us all hostage". In the end, they still won't get everything they wanted, and they'll gnash their teeth over that. So it ends up being a deal that extremists on both sides don't like. That's usually what you get when you take the pragmatic approach.
That is my final word on this issue... any questions or complaints, refer back to the above and read it again.
posted by Dave | 10:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home