A Bumper Crop of Baloney
Ah, the New Year, the bright new-car smell of a freshly
baked Congress, the timeless pomp and circumstance of the State of the Union
address, all carefully plated by those chefs in Washington on the finest Royal
Doulton (with hand-painted periwinkles) and served on a bed of greenbacks, with locally sourced and
regional cuisines designed to tantalize every palate.
Big,
big, questions this time of year, and even bigger answers to be revealed. Who will sit next to Michelle? What will she wear? How many Supreme Court
Justices will show up, and which of them will scowl at Mr. Obama? What will
they wear? How many times will disheartened Democrats rise and cheer and which
Republican will shout out some epithet and become an instant hero on Fox? How
many references will there be to our “brave men and women in the armed forces”
and how many of the listeners will actually care one whit about those brave men
and women? What’s the over/under on the number of Obama proposals? And the over/under of Obama proposals
pronounced “dead on arrival” (special hint from the Editor, it is OK to make a
single guess.)
So,
we know it's all going to be tripe.
There will be a series of incoherent but “brave” pronouncements from
both sides. The Prez will have his moment in the cold, unforgiving and rheumy glare
of Mitch and John. Newly minted Republican Senator Jodi Ernst will deliver the
Loyal Opposition Response (she’s the one who took retiring Iowan Senator Tom
Harkin’s seat with a stunning ad about castrating hogs) and there will plenty
of spinners and talking heads (some of them spinning) to follow. You
might also ask yourself how many of these will have prepared and even delivered
their critiques before the actual text of the speech is released? (Second
special hint from the Editor, you can start counting from last Friday.)
To
make it easier on people, I have selected three large slabs of bologna, one
from the President, and two from the GOP (they control both chambers in
Congress) for today's special.
We
commence our meal with two newly minted Congressional maneuvers. The first, by the House, is to give absolute
investigative and subpoena power to Committee Chairman, without either
consulting with the minority leader, or permitting a vote. I will leave it to your imaginations as to
why this completely non-partisan change of long-standing House policy was
needed at this critical time in our nation’s history. The second was reported in The Hill “The GOP Finds Its Secret Weapon” which details the exhuming (that is the correct word)
of a rarely used tactic, the “Congressional Review Act” to stall and overturn
any regulatory actions taken by the Obama Administration that the GOP disagrees
with, regardless of whether the statutory authority actually exists. Under the CRA, the Congress can pass a
“Resolution of Disapproval” (sounds something like you would find in Middle
School debating contest?) on any regulation, which then
goes to the White House for signature (Obama won’t) and then, after he demurs, back to Congress
for an override vote. The GOP has
hundreds of health and safety, consumer protection, clean water and air, and
pollution regulations they have Resolved to Disapprove. Job-killers all.
Will
it work? Is there some special magic about this CRA? Absolutely not, and the
GOP knows it, just like they know that 50 votes to repeal the ACA didn't work
either. There aren't enough votes to
override the automatic vetoes that will follow.
However, what they hope to do is to get some Democrats on record as
either opposing the regulations (to show bipartisan opposition) or, even
better, have them go on record as being anti-coal, anti-fracking, anti-jobs,
anti-American, etc. So, think about
those two tactics for a second, evaluate their ability to advance the cause of
the common citizen in this country, and, for ease of use, call these what
they are, Hunks of Bologna I.
Let
us turn our attention to Mr. Obama. The
President has been having a pretty good time since he led his party to appalling
defeat two months ago. It’s Obama
unbound, mounted up with wings, as eagles, soaring from
community college for all, to his latest “Robin Hood Tax” which dares to raise
some rates on the wealthiest to reduce taxes slightly on the middle class. The sound of gnashing teeth from the Right
has already induced many local dentists to call their Mercedes dealers.
Does
Obama’s tax plan look good out of tights?
Not really. It contains a tax
credit for working couples, and an enhanced child-care credit. It really
doesn’t do all that much besides move the deck chairs around a little and add a
thin cushion for some of those in steerage.
Of course, these were excellent ideas when proposed by Republicans in
the past, however, in the hands of Obama, they have morphed into something
dangerously like socialism. The numbers
are the same, the names are the same, but there’s something suspicious when you
get close. You can tell that by former
Bush operative Marc Thiessen’s column in the Washington Post “Obama Uses His
Tax Proposal to Taunt the GOP” in which Mr. Thiessen is shocked to report that
Obama is suggesting this for political reasons “He knows Republicans have been
working to shed their image as the party of the rich and powerful, with a new
focus on helping the poor and the working class. He wants to taunt the GOP into
attacking his plan so he can accuse Republicans of fighting for the wealthy.”
I
honestly did not make that quote up, or the title of Thiessen’s article. I wish I had that marvelous and delectable
ear for self-parody. But, Thiessen is essentially correct on one point—the
proposals have absolutely no chance in Congress (the GOP would never agree to
raise taxes one half-pence on the wealthy to ease the smallest burden on
working families.) And even if Thiessen
were wrong, and the two sides could work together, it’s not tax reform in any
meaningful way, just a modest redistribution of (after tax) wealth. It is the Hunk of Bologna II.
By
this point, I know I have your mind completely in cold cuts. So, let’s talk about Hunk of Bologna III, the
Republicans newly rediscovered (it was lost entirely during the Bush
Administration) urgency for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Any serious person knows there is no way to
make this happen. Spending on current
and past military obligations is 47% of the budget, and that’s certainly not going
down. A lot of the other spending is on
entitlements, and a great deal of that goes to “vested” seniors, who will not
accept reductions in their payments.
Much of the rest is at the margins, except for support for business (a
must have) and support for poor people (a must not-have.) But you cannot cut
your way to a zero deficit without working on the revenue side--as Bill Clinton
did--and raising taxes in the slightest causes the entire GOP to go into anaphylactic
shock. So, why have a Balanced Budget
Amendment? Because a) when you add Dynamic Scoring, which the House has just
mandated, and demands that all tax cuts show as revenue positive (from all that job-creating, of course) to b) blank-check
military spending, then you get c) Grover Norquist’s fantasy of a government
brought “down to the size we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Yum--it
all sounds great, doesn’t it? Smaller
government, less taxes, less regulation, and everyone’s tummy is full and happy! All from those solicitous men in blue and red aprons, asking us how we would like it sliced, on rye with seeds or without,
mustard and a pickle on the side.
Come
on. You know you want one. Just don’t
ask to read the ingredients. It’s still
bologna.
January
19, 2015
Michael
Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Join us on Twitter.
