If any of your friends or family think the Republicans’ obstinate and irrational ways are not screwing up the economy, they should consider this. Morgan Stanley surveyed businesses in July and found that 40% of them are slowing their hiring and investments because of the uncertainty created by “the fiscal cliff.” And, if you don’t think that the fiscal cliff is a Republican creation, you need to find a neutral source of news.
In April 2010, the Nation Commission on Financial Responsibility and Reform held its first meeting. Better known as the Simpson-Bowles or Bowles-Simpson Committee, it was tasked with finding a bipartisan combination of spending cuts and new revenues sufficient to substantially reduce our structural deficit. However, in order to actually pass a proposal on to Congress, they needed a supermajority to agree to the plan. They failed to get a supermajority for a simple reason. The Republicans refused to consider a reasonable compromise that would involve a balanced approach. They would not agree to anything that violated their pledge to Grover Norquist not to ever raise taxes. As soon as the panel was announced, the left dubbed it the Catfood Commission. They dubbed it that because they assumed, correctly, that the Democrats would be willing to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security that would harm elderly people on fixed incomes. What the left didn’t know is that the Republicans would never offer a deal fair enough to give the Democrats the cover they would need to sign off on cuts that hurt old people. People still talk about the Bowles-Simpson plan as something the president should have embraced, but they forget that the plan didn’t actually pass.
That set up a new round of obstruction when the Republicans swept to big victories in the 2010 midterm elections. Speaker John Boehner began negotiating a “Grand Bargain” with the president that would do something similar to what the Bowles-Simpson plan envisioned. But Boehner soon discovered that he couldn’t deliver the votes to make good on his compromises. He was undercut by his deputy, Eric Cantor, and he had to tell the president that the deal was off. The problem? The GOP would not compromise on revenues. As a result, the government was on the verge of defaulting on its debts.
This set up the third effort to tackle the budget deficit, this time also involving an effort to save our credit rating. Congress created a so-called supercommittee. Just setting the committee up involved a lot of negotiation. Speaker Boehner insisted that any new spending had to be more than offset by spending cuts. Partially to assure this outcome, the Speaker negotiated a process that Washington calls sequestration. The idea was that Congress would be forced to make cuts in excess of the increase in the debt ceiling even if they couldn’t agree on how to fix the budget. Programs would be cut by a certain percentage without any discretion or logic. The Pentagon would take a huge haircut, but so would all other programs, many of them cherished by Democrats. Supposedly, the very stupidity of legislating this way (or failing to legislate) would force the two sides to make otherwise difficult compromises. But, once again, the Republicans refused to make any concessions on revenues or to risk violating their pledge to Grover Norquist. No deal was reached, and the sequester is due to kick in at the beginning of the year.
Running through this whole process was the knowledge that Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire at midnight this New Year’s Eve. The President campaigned on preserving those tax cuts for the first quarter million of annual income for all Americans. But the Republicans have insisted that the Bush tax cuts stay in place for people earning more. By refusing to compromise, they have now created a situation where everyone’s taxes will go up on New Year’s Day at the very same time that the government massively slashes federal spending.
Here’s what I want people to consider. You might argue that the Democrats are equally guilty of refusing to compromise. You would be wrong for two reasons. The first is that the Democrats have all along been willing to anger their base by making changes to Social Security and Medicare that their base will absolutely hate, but only if the Republicans do something equally annoying to their base. The GOP never budged. Second, when this process started, the Democrats controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. For the last two years, they’ve controlled the White House and the Senate. It is not reasonable for the party in the minority to insist on the total capitulation of the party in the majority. The minority has enough power in our system to demand concessions, but at some point they have to make a deal. If they don’t, and they push the country into default and create an atmosphere where businesses won’t make investments because of uncertainty, then that party is not acting in good faith. They are sabotaging both our political institutions and our economy. And they can only be doing it for political gain.
The Republicans have done everything they can think of to undermine the economy and people’s opinion of government, and then they expect to be rewarded for it at the polls. It worked beautifully for them in 2010, but people seem to have realized what they’re up to. At least, a lot of people have realized it. I hope it becomes common knowledge by Election Day.
It’s been both shocking and sickening to see Republicans rewarded (in 2010) for their bad-faith obstruction. If we had a functioning press, that would not have happened. But it’s one thing for it to work in a mid-term and another when applied to a general election. At least that’s my hope. I’ve often been surprised by the stupidity of the American people. Each time I vow to never be surprised again and each time I later come to realize I’ve set my standards too high.
Overall, I’m not a pessimist. I believe we will get through this. Angry white men are a dying breed. As Booman has pointed out, there is an expiration date on the lunacy. The question is how much harm will occur between now and then and what will be left of our democracy and our planet.
Have you seen this post at Truthout this past Friday from the former Republican congressional staffer?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10661-stone-cold-sober-an-interview-with-mike-lofgren-author-of-th
e-party-is-over
I’m an angry white man. In fact, I’m an angry old white man. I’m angry at Republican lunacy and I’m angry at their DINO enablers.
But, you are right, we are definitely dying. Simpson,Bowles and Paul Ryan are hastening the process.
they have committed ECONOMIC TREASON AGAINST THIS COUNTRY
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. US. Constitution, Article 3, section 3.
Nope, not treason.
Well, hold on. Is it an act of war to attempt to damage or destroy a nation’s economy? Can we say definitively that the GOP are guilty of making such attempts on the US economy? I don’t think it’s all that much of a stretch, but it depends on how broad a rhetorical (and legal) shadow “levying War” casts.
What the left didn’t know is that the Republicans would never offer a deal fair enough to give the Democrats the cover they would need to sign off on cuts that hurt old people.
Wrong!!! Plenty on the left did know that the only hope for Bowles-Simpson to go down in flames was GOPer fealty to Grover. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. As K-thug keeps saying, our problem is medical costs. Social Security is no where near enough to live a decent life on. And they wanted to cut that? Because Bush pissed away trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan? And people are paying the Gov’t to hold their money(the effect of interest rates)?
Agreed. There were plenty of people on the left who routinely denounced Bowles-Simpson because they knew the GOP wasn’t gonna play ball. Atrios, for example. Susie Madrak. Balloon-Juice.
Plenty of people. I think the word you’re searching for is “centrist Democrats”.
No, brendan. Those folks adopted Grover’s position for our side as a counterweight. They opposed the commission precisely because they did not want the Democrats to compromise and feared that the Republicans would buck Grover and cut a deal.
Yes, because if the GOP was smart enough to have cut a deal, you know what would have happened. The GOP would have run(if they were smart .. granted .. they aren’t THAT smart we now see) on the Democrats cutting your Social Security(they did it with Medicare even though it was the Bush boondoogle that was cut). If the GOP was smart they would have tried that flim-flammery re: Social Security. It says something that even Grover didn’t see the benefits of that. The safety net should be made stronger, not weaker.
None of the people you cited denounced the commission “because they knew the GOP wouldn’t play ball.”
Instead, they all denounced it because they feared that a deal including things they opposed might actually happen.
let’s back up a bit, re: the repeal of Glass-Steagall ACT in 1999.. which directly set the stage for the financial train wreck and drastic job loss we’re still in the middle of.. this was pushed for by the hideous Phil Gramm and many of the “masters of the financial universe” like Larry Summers and Robert Rubin.
the repeal of Glass-Steagall, put into place after the first Depression, was enacted for good reason: to prevent the very sort of financial casino chicanery and malfeasance which in fact began in earnest by the banksters/mortgage fraudsters and the so called “ratings agencie” not long after the repeal.
President Clinton and numerous ‘democrats’ in congress voted in favor of repeal of Glass-Steagall. after all it was a “brave new financial world” and “archaic” regulations just weren’t needed now.
Alan Greenspan, disciple of the comic book author Ayn Rand, assured us the financial markets would “reguate/police themselves quite well” and we just didn’t need to worry about the great guys running the financial sector.
Greenspan of course had to seriously walk back his initial statements after the second Depression began– and now looks like one of the most naive rubes to come down the market path since the great Depression. he has zero credibility
Clinton now “regrets” his advocacy of Glass-Steagall repeal, but obv the significant damage has been done. and of course Clinton says nothing regarding reinstatment of Glass Steagall.
Wall St. insider/one percenter Mr. Summers (‘2010 will be Recovery Summer’)wAS part of the Obama administration.. and after bullying/blustering his way around, is now back in academia where he belongs.
I’m fairly sure Rubin’s cell phone number is on the speed dial list of Obama’s phone.
so let’s dispense with the partisan notion “the repuglicans are solely responsible for sabotaging our economy”.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/glass_steagall_act.asp#axzz22m25sDMl
http://www.businessinsider.com/citigroup-mortgage-fraud-jury-note-with-verdict-2012-8
You talk of compromise as though the Dummycrats were honorable partners in a compromise. I can tell you for a fact they will sell out middle class programs in a second to secure their sinecures as most are to unintelligent to do anything else but be whores. The way they will do it is agree to the compromise you suggest but the implementation will be cuts to liberal programs first, a promise to raise revenues and reform the tax code second and never a cut to defense spending. so you can continue arguing the Dummycrats are the better party but all analysis shows they simply acquiesce to Taliban demands. Look at the President own actions; two years ago he could have put down the gauntlet and let the tax cuts expire for everyone. The stock market down 2000 points in a couple of days would have focused everyone’s mind just like the House refusal to pass the TARP legislation in 2008 did. Then you would get a compromise.
That’s right if you want compromise eff w/ the money. It is why I hope there is no deal for the sequestration. It is the only way to stop the self centered actions of both parities.
The stock market down 2000 points in a couple of days would have focused everyone’s mind
Perhaps it wasn’t clear, but the post and most of the readership here are against economic sabotage as a political strategy.
Boo, your summary of the obstruction process over the past couple of years is extremely useful, though it leaves out the fact that it was Obama’s decision to try to coopt Republican fearmongering on the deficit that legitimized all these efforts (e.g., Bowles-Simpson) in the first place.
That said, it’s amazing to me that Democrats aren’t shouting this timeline from the rooftops; also amazing, but less surprising, that media can’t be bothered, either. Cuz in America, 2010 was so long ago. Two whole years. Memory hole city. How could it possibly be relevant to anything now?
Geov, the media can’t be bothered because the media are six giant corporations who own the GOP (along with the Oil companies and
banks). Struck that because the banks own BOTH parties. How many Treasury Secretaries have come from Goldman-Sachs?http://gawker.com/5617247/everyones-convinced-that-tim-geithner-worked-for-goldman-sachs
Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Henry Paulson. That’s nine of the last 17 years. You seem to be right about Geithner, however.
Rubin and Paulson worked for GS. The others did not.
You are right. I got that bit about Summers from a blog, but more research shows that although he had a $135,000 speaking engagement, he was not actually an employee, so that looks like more misinformation like Geithner supposedly working for GS.