Politics turned uglier than even the recent norm some months ago, when hyper-partisanship led to brinkmanship during the debt-ceiling debates. Here’s a quick reminder – In 1917, Congress mandated a limit on the total amount of debt we can accrue at the Federal level. Every so often, as we approach that limit, Congress must either raise the limit, or enforce sizable reductions in deficit spending. This spring and summer, Democrats and Republicans engaged in a drawn out political spectacle as we approached the debt ceiling, effectively turning a non-issue into blood-sport (we had raised the debt ceiling without fail on 76 separate occasions with little pomp and circumstance. Any media coverage which followed these ceiling adjustments was often limited to mainly footnotes in Op-Ed pieces). Throughout July, with the threat of government shutdown looming (as well as the threat of losing our credit standing with agencies like Standard and Poor’s), we saw day after day of posturing on the part of our elected leaders. We saw blame levied at each side by its opponents, and ultimately we saw an embarrassing display of self-interested partisanship, at the expense of not only the people, but also at the expense of our public institutions. Since then, polling consistently has shown that public approval of Congress is at an all time low. What’s more, the solution out of the impasse was not even a solution in itself, though Congress cleverly instigated a base-level effort at compromise, developing a “super-committee” to explore options to deal with our long term debt.
In a nutshell, the super committee's purpose is to find a minimum of $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures by November 23…any agreement which passes through the Super Committee then makes its way to the floor of each chamber of Congress for an up-or-down vote (no amendments, no filibusters, no procedural gimmicks, just a debate and a vote). If the full body of Congress cannot pass legislation by December 23rd, a series of automatic cuts is instituted, effecting two important elements of the Federal budget system, defense spending and discretionary domestic programs.
The Super Committee consists of a total of 12 members of Congress (three Republicans and three Democrats from both the House and the Senate). Given the deep automatic cuts, there is tremendous incentive to reach a deal. This was the genius behind the Super Committee’s formation. Republicans don't want deep cuts in defense spending, Democrats don't want deep cuts in domestic spending. As a result, it seemed reasonable to assume that Congress would travel some way towards compromise. One happy consequence of such an agreement would perhaps be some restoration of faith in our public institutions.
Even with these triggers in place, however, there is great pessimism among the public, and many experts, that a deal will eventually be reached. This pessimism reflects the general tenor surrounding politics currently. Congress seems committed to the relatively new idea of abandoning compromise in favor of rigidly holding firm on partisan positions. The American political story reflects a history of compromise…yet many have expressed that there has never been a time when our politics was more polarized than today, save for perhaps the Civil War. Around 80% of current congressional members have signed pledges promising to hold strong to their partisan positions, and though some members of Congress have distanced themselves somewhat from theses pledges, many have not, leaving little wiggle room available for any agreement that involves both entitlement reforms AND revenue increases (both, most experts acknowledge, are necessary in order for any kind of meaningful solution to our deficit problems.
Second, there exists a series of outs available to the committee members, each of which amounts to kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with (that we see the blame game developing stands as evidence that this is more likely than I would want to believe). As noted in this Washington Post piece, the general consensus is that this option seems increasingly likely.
Personally, I’m hoping we’ll see some combination policy measures which reflects the spirit of compromise. More specifically, I side with those who press on the committee to “go big” (i.e. reach a grand bargain, involving a much bigger deficit reduction plan than the current minimum requirement, resulting in upwards of $4 trillion in savings rather than the 1.2 required). Moderate, non-partisan organizations such as No Labels and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget have gone to lengths to make the case for going big, and their efforts do seem to have gained some traction. Over 100 house reps and 45 senators have signed on to the spirit of compromise that has eluded congress up to this point…still, the obstacles are great, the 24 hour news cycles haven’t even ramped up the dialogue as they will over the next week, and already skepticism abounds. I myself am increasingly pessimistic that any grand agreement will be reached, particularly given the recent chatter about undoing the trigger element of the Budget Control Act. I suspect that if there’s any agreement at all, it will likely be something closer to the $1.2 trillion figure, involving some small dose of deficit reduction by way of tax reforms (closing loopholes and broadening the tax base) in conjunction with a series of spending adjustments (many in the form of interpretive numbers dances). Any agreement will be with an eye to what can actually pass the full congressional body.
According to a recent poll, most Americans don’t believe any sort of compromise is likely to take place in this poisoned environment. One encouraging bit of news is this: more and more Republicans are expressing a willingness to consider revenue increases, abandoning the Grover Norquist inspired hardline taken by many in the debt ceiling negotiations, while most Democrats acknowledge the necessity of entitlement reform, so there may indeed be room to maneuver here.
Less encouraging, however, is the notion that short-term political points matter more than long-term solutions. This continues a trend over the past several years, regardless of which party is in power. To be sure, government is set up to let conflict shape policy outcomes, sometimes in the guise of doing nothing. Recently, though, it seems that parties are increasingly willing to do nothing in the hopes that points can be scored in the run-up to the next election. The Democrats hope to spin failure to their advantage, as do the Republicans. Unfortunately, the public loses in this short-sighted, faction-favoring tactic. As we approach the deadline, I look to our leaders in Congress to work together towards a solution, to not be held hostage by partisan ideologues, and to avoid missing this opportunity to stabilize the Federal deficit, which is supposed to be what this is all about.
