COMMENTARY | The current debt ceiling debate is anything but -- a debate, that is. With at least a partial government shutdown looming within days, not to mention the potential of default on governmental debt for the first time in the history of the United States, Congress has walled itself behind the ideologies of its two main political camps. The Republican-controlled House has a plan. The Democratic-controlled Senate has a plan. And neither the twain shall meet, it would appear. There's also a third "grand bargain" plan that nobody seems to be talking about. So where's the debate? And if this "debate" ends in a draw, does it not stand to reason that everybody loses?
In recent Pew Research and Gallup polls, the majority of Americans responding have stated that they want Congress to reach a compromise, raise the debt ceiling (even if it means eliminating tax breaks), and forestall a government shutdown of nonessential services and a default on federal debts. But Congress as a bicameral institution seems to be ignoring the will of the people. Republicans, who went into the "debate" demanding extensive spending cuts without offering anything in return other than an affirmative vote on raising the debt limit, have decided to not only complain about the quantity and quality of the cuts in the Democratic-proposed plan coming from the Senate (which is basically $2.7 billion spending cuts), they also want to keep repeating the "no tax increases" mantra -- even when a plan does not include it) -- and include legislation that will lead to a balanced budget amendment, among other things.
Democrats are doing what they can to protect entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. In a "grand bargain" plan designed by President Obama and both party leaders, both tax increases (through tax cut expirations and loophole closings, but no real tax increases) and spending cuts (with Social Security and Medicare cutbacks and restructurings) would be part of the deal. But Republicans in the House say they won't vote for it, even though enough Democrats in the Senate say they would vote for it (even with the cuts to entitlements).
Another plan being offered by Democrats in the Senate offers nothing but spending cuts in exchange for a raise in the debt ceiling. Although some Republicans say they would vote for it, a large number led primarily by Tea Party conservatives would refuse. In fact, the House Tea Partyers have also threatened to not back the House Republican plan without provisions for the balanced budget amendment (something Democrats have refused to countenance).
All plans, if passed in one chamber, will fail to pass in the chamber controlled by the opposing party.
So where does that leave the "debate"? Nonexistent. And with everybody pointing fingers at each other and declaring who would be to blame if a federal shutdown and default should occur, there seems to be a waiting game going on (although Republicans seem to be playing some sort of symbology game by passing bills that they know will die in the Senate, apparently in disingenuous efforts to show their constituents that they're doing something).
And while pundits and analysts and political strategists plot out the courses of "what ifs" and which party could ultimately wind up the victor in the talks and the coming 2012 elections (which are playing no small part in the negotiations, even as backdrop), it is becoming increasingly clear that the politics of the worsening situation is doing nothing for the American people but making the present unbearable and the future more uncertain.
In the end, it will be the average American that loses. It will be the average American that pays for it all. It certainly won't be the wealthy, ensconced behind their tax breaks and tax shelters and gated communities. Spending cuts to entitlement programs, predominantly Social Security and Medicare, will hurt those who are being hit hardest during the drawn-out aftermath of the Great Recession. The average American's taxes will remain unaffected, but it is those taxes that will be expected to shoulder the burden of a government whose expenditures will increasingly be cut in the future, when the number of people reaching Social Security age will increase. A balanced budget amendment, although appearing to be the best solution to a spending problem, does not take into account a government's added burden in times of war and in times of economic recession. But plans for the future aside, a government shutdown will affect millions, first and foremost those nonessential government-affiliated personnel forced to either be laid off or placed on suspension until the shutdown is over. It will disrupt the flow of government-provided assistance as the government decides which of its obligations to meet with the current amount of revenue that it has on hand (legally the only way the government will be able to pay for anything if the debt ceiling is not raised). And if there is a default on the government's debts, it will lead to increased interest rates across the board for everyone (which is almost like paying higher taxes -- either way, the average person will have less money), including the federal government.
Ultimately, there may not be a winner in this debate that is no longer a debate. Before it is all said and done, intransigence on both sides, opting to alter negotiations for leverage, placing ideology over the sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States (that would include making certain that its financial stability and security remained as strong as its defense), and simple economic ignorance (mostly shown by Tea Partyers and their willful blindness as to the dangers of shutdown and default) might just see not only the average citizen of the United States losing out economically. The inability of Congress to raise the debt limit could very well see the nation itself as a loser. And although the politicians that refuse to come to a compromise to maintain the operations of government might end up losing their jobs as a result, the damage done could very well wreck America's financial position in the world and undermine the dollar as the world's reserve security as well, pushing the United States down the road to economic decline and a less secure and less dominant global position in the future.
And if the United States loses its preferred economic position in the world, will it matter if the Republicans or the Democrats won the debt ceiling battle? If lawmakers, so intent on getting reelected and pushing their own agendas, cannot compromise to at least keep the federal government operational (because everything else can be haggled over at a later date), will the blame for such dysfunctional governmance really matter to the average American shouldering the financial ramifications of such political arrogance and being forced to pay for it all?
Unfortunately, the answer to the question is "yes," even though a failure to compromise should be an indictment on those unwilling to reach one, regardless of political affiliation. And that is the problem, because those politicians most entrenched in their ideologies are only more emboldened by the possibility of support. Even if that support is only a fraction of the population of the people of the United States.
4 comments