Democratic Budgetary Passivity
For several weeks now, we have all been besieged by Republican ranting and raving about the budget, how it must slashed and chopped to ribbons even if it means a government shutdown or default on the national debt. The minimum down payment, they keep saying, is a cut of $100 billion in the current fiscal year's budget, which began last October 1. Every budget expert knows this is stupid because 40 percent of the fiscal year is already over. If Republicans were half-serious, they would have let FY2011 go by and directed all their attention to FY2012. By wasting a vast amount of Congress's precious time on FY2011, it is going to be very hard to pass a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions that might actually have a meaningful effect on reducing future spending. Instead, Republicans would prefer to pander to ignorant Tea Party dopes and grandstand for the Fox News cameras.
But bashing Republicans isn't really the point I want to make. What I would like to know is why Democrats take it so passively? It isn't as if they lack the resources to respond to idiotic Republican pronouncements. The last time I checked, they still controlled the White House and the Senate. These are very powerful resources that have oddly not been brought to bear in the budget fight.
Having been staff director for a congressional committee, here's what I would be doing if I were organizing opposition to the Republican budgetary disinformation campaign. First of all, I would be holding hearings five days a week in the Senate Appropriations Committee and every other Senate committee on the impact of proposed Republican budget cuts. Whose benefits are going to be cut? What programs will be shut down? What are the real world consequences of the Republicans' plans?
I have no idea and I have made an effort to try and find out. But there are undoubtedly people who know at the Office of Management and Budget and the various departments of government that are filled with assistant secretaries eager to testify before a congressional committee and respond in detail to the implicit Republican argument that spending can be massively cut without hurting anyone.
Another thing I would be doing is commissioning reports by the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office to provide data and analysis on the impact of Republican plans. And believe me, any request from the chairman of the appropriations committee gets the very careful attention of those who run these organizations for obvious reasons.
The next obvious step is to get all of the various organizations that represent farmers, defense contractors, health providers and so on to do their own analyses based on their intimate knowledge of how spending cuts will affect them. These people will also be more than happy to testify before a congressional committee on short notice.
Within a couple of weeks I think it would be very easy to put flesh on the bones of the Republican plans and mobilize the millions of people who will be affected but probably have no idea at this time that this is the case because no one has told them. I think the political dynamics could change quickly. But someone needs to get the ball rolling, get the analyses started, organize the hearings and so on. Why this isn't already being done, is a complete mystery to me.
He's too nice, or something
I even heard Judd Gregg ask today, "why isn't Obama calling the Republicans' bluff?"
Over the last week I heard Tom Donohue from the Chamber of Commerce say that it's too early in the recovery for cuts like these, and I heard Bill Kristol say it too on Fox News Sunday.
I find it especially strange given all that. I hate to say it, but it must have something to do with Obama's naivete.
Obama
The point I was trying to make is that congressional Democrats don't need to wait for Obama; they can call hearings on their own, commission their own studies etc. One explanation for why they don't is that either the administration has put out the word that congressional Democrats should just sit on their hands because the Republicans are going to self-destruct on their own, or congressional Democrats feel that it is the administration's responsibility to take the lead. I disagree with both possibilities.
Good Point
The sort of thing you are suggesting could easily be spearheaded by Harry Reid, I imagine. I mean, he's already made arguments to that effect anyway.
To your point, I really hope they aren't waiting for Republicans to self-destruct, because in this climate (of mass financial illiteracy), I don't see that happening. It seems/feels (and this is what matters) like Republicans have the upper hand on this one, sadly. Even the liberal press is taking shots at Obama here. Something has to give.
The Democrats don't have to
The Democrats don't have to -- the Tea Party has shifted the Republicans to the right and the budget debate simply opens up the middle for Obama to take, and that is what he has done with his budget. Let the right act out, the President proposed milquetoast purposefully for the Republicans to hurt themselves. The establishment Republicans understand the game, as do you, but the Tea Party has wrested control and they are hellbent on making their point not policy. Policy is for compromise and compromise is not in their political dictionary.
The House hasn't made any concrete proposals yet.
Rather than firing off half cocked and allowing the House GOP to maneuver around Democratic objections, let the House put their plan on paper and sign on to it; then shred it publicly. If the GOP House is also shutting down government at the same time, use that against them.
Rather than engaging in continuous warfare over the budget, lay a trap and destroy the monster, then turn to the 2012 budget and deal with a defeated GOP.
What I'd be doing...
What I'd be doing if I were in the Democrat's position, that is, watching the majority party try to recconcile two different, somewhat antagonistic factions, I'd do exactly what the Democrats are doing to date: trying to give the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves.
Democratic Budget Passivity
On New Deal 2.0 there is a blog entry on the Administration and Congressional Democrats acceptance of the meme that "budget" must be cut and the great New Deal and Great Society safety net programs have to be gutted. Chiefly, the Democrats are responding to their Wall Street funders who want to maintain low tax rates and reduce the budget by reducing middle and working class entitlement programs. Of course, this raises a question of why we liberals should continue to vote Democratic.
I have no insight into the
I have no insight into the machinations that could be brought to bear and I am sure that Bruce is right that there are options out there that are not being pursued. As to why it has not happened, one other possible explanation is that the White House (and specifically the President) simply do not like the prospect of getting interest groups all stirred up. They know, as responsible adults, that in due course entitlements WILL need to be addressed i.e. limited. If you proactively seek to raise major opposition from e.g. the farm lobby now, imagine what the storm will be from the AARP and the AMA when you try to rein in Medicare. Obama is not fond of big public fights, preferring to use reason instead of bare knuckles. Say what you will but that is just his style and he has seen that it has worked to get him in the WH. He wants to be united with his Congressional delegation and not have a "cornhusker" type problem 2-3 years from now when promises to vote against cut X or Y have been made by a senator or representative back in 2011. Without absolute confidence that Obama will support them, Congressional Dems aren't going to push the boat out, so they let the Republicans make all the running for the time being.
Responsible Adults?
A "responsible adult" would not lie to his constituency about his intentions on a fundamental policy.
Furthermore, those that wish to eradicate the last vestiges of the New Deal and our basic social contract are not responsible adults--they are shills for corporate elite that have long had these successful and responsible programs in their sites. They just needed a good neoliberal Democrat to complete the task.
A responsible adult would acknowledge that Social Security is not unsustainable. A responsible adult would also acknowledge that the U.S. pays more for health care and receives less care for this spending because the government has enabled private corporations to act as the middle man while they add no value. Medicare for all is the only fair and sensible solution to the increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid--not the further retreat to a senseless and immoral for-profit system.
As the comment above states, liberals have no reason to belong to the Democratic party and the vast majority of Americans will support liberals in their defense of the best programs the U.S. government has ever created: Social Security and Medicare.
Let the Democrats have their corporate stooges, er, responsible adults, and here's hoping the Democratic party goes the way of the Whigs.
Simple Aswer to a Simple Question
Why do the Democrats accept the Republican premise re the budget?
Because they work for the same people as the Republicans. The Republicans are the bad cops to the Democratic good cops--but both are neoliberals.
Democrats are not well-meaning but ineffectual--they are complicit.
Precisely - a simple answer
They aren't doing it because they don't want to do it.
If the congressional
If the congressional Democrats had enough brains and guts to do that, they'd have passed a 2011 budget (and let the Bush tax cuts expire) in December, if not before the election. They're useless.
No one wants to talk about the elephant in the room.
Discretionary spending is either irrelevant or helpful. But either way, cutting it won't help our budgetary woes. If Democrats really want to save their programs and Republicans really want to end the deficit, why are neither talking about Medicare or Social Security?
On Passivity
This is an interesting take on the concept of budgetary "passivity". Per Mr. Bartlett, passivity consists of not rhetorically bashing the other party's proposals and suggests an appropriate antitdote might be to schedule a few show hearings in the Senate. This tit-for-tat rhetorical game doesn't sound very adult to me. Since Mr. Bartlett mentioned only hearings in the Senate, I assume he is aware that this sort of circus show would likely be countered by Republican-sponsored performances in various House Committees.
I would think that a better and more appropriate measure of "passivity" might be the extent to which the budget proposals of each party fail to address the fiscal problems facing the nation. By this measure, the Obama budget scores high marks for passivity. It completely fails to tackle the most difficult budget problems: namely paying for our escalating entitlement obligations by either cutting them back or raising sufficient taxes to pay for them. Even Erskine Bowles, an erstwhile Democrat, was appalled by the complete failure to incorporate many of the worthwhile suggestions his report, commissioned by the President, made. Of course, Republicans are not any better. Their proposals, while much more aggressive on spending cuts, don't begin to address entitlement cuts or the need to raise taxes to pay for them. What we see here, as usual, is the standard political game whereby neither party will take responsibility for making the difficult and painful choices needed to set our financial house in order. I blame both parties for this, but I was deeply disappointed in the profound demonstration of passivity represented by the FY 2012 budget presented by our Chief Executive. This was a profile in passivity---not courage.
Why are Democrats passive?
Because "Democrats" and "passive" is a redundancy.