I thought last week's bi-partisan compromise on raising the debt ceiling and cutting the deficit was supposed to avert the next catastrophic global crisis. It seems, however, that ever since that bill became law, more and more bad news has been accumulating. (It at least prompted me to teach my ENG 100 students the plural of "crisis" (crises, not crisises).
On a side note, I decided to give any of my ENG 100 students a little extra credit if they took the time to write an email to Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, who voted against raising the debt ceiling last week, expressing their reasons for supporting or disapproving of his controversial vote.
Crisis #1: The U.S. government's credit rating was downgraded by S&P from AAA to AA+. Is this a real crisis? I bet many of students would be happy with a grade of AA+. The explanation behind the downgrade was not earth-shattering: the U.S. has a dangerous level of debt and a dysfunctional, polarized government. Ok, I guess that is a crisis -- the kind of permanent, standing crisis that is becoming more and more normal.
Crisis #2: The stock market seems to be plummeting. Personally, I don't put much stock in stocks. That's probably because I don't really own any. If the falling stocks end up making unemployment worse, then I'll begin to worry. But I just read that the unemployment rate actually improved a modest tenth of a percent over the last month, so that's something positive--not much, but something.
Crisis #3: Americans are still dying in Afghanistan and I can't figure out why. Thirty U.S. troops were killed on Saturday in a helicopter crash. This is the number one issue on which I am fiercely critical of Obama. Bin Laden is dead; al Qaeda has deserted Afghanistan for Pakistan and other countries. Why are we still in Afghanistan? How many more brave, U.S. soldiers and innocent Afghan civilians need to die while we trade shots with the Taliban?
Crisis #4: People are rioting in certain neighborhoods of London and other cities in England. Local businesses are being vandalized; police officers are being attacked. Every report I've heard about this has been very vague. The riots may have been triggered by the killing of Mark Duggan by police. Duggan was allegedly a drug dealer. It's unclear to what extent the riots are a result of outrage over this event, or a response to the generally tense relations between the police and the people of Tottenham (the London neighborhood where the riots originated). The mainstream coverage seems to be deliberately avoiding delving into the racial tensions and police misconduct that may be the underlying causes of the violence. Rather than try to explain what is happening, most accounts I've seen attribute it all to "senseless thuggery."
But at least the Red Sox took 2 out of 3 against the Yankees over the weekend. Also, my summer classes are ending this week, and I'm driving up to Maine with Yuriko to celebrate my friend Kim's wedding. So here's to savoring the little joys of life as the world falls apart...
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The House Deals
It looks like, for the time being, economic disaster has been averted. The House of Representatives has passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling (and cut a crapload of government spending) in order to avoid an unprecedented default. This is undoubtedly a good thing. With unemployment still very high (over 9%), the U.S. could not afford to plunge into another recession. Also, the fact that our national deficit will be significantly cut means that the federal government will begin to move towards greater fiscal responsibility (i.e. not spending a great deal more than it's taking in).
There are, of course, aspects of this bill that are not, or may not, be so great. How painful will these cuts be to public employees or those who need public assistance? Time will tell whether or not these cuts were "the right cuts." Is it fair that these cuts were not accompanied, or offset, by any additional tax revenue from large corporations or the wealthy? This is a question of ethical and economic philosophy, but I would certainly say, "No."
But those who, like me, are unhappy with the "cuts only" approach to deficit reduction should realize that it is undoubtedly the right of the House to pass such a bill and insist on its terms. It is the House's right because the House is the most democratically representative institution in the U.S. government, and that is where legislation ought to begin. In my wild, radical fantasies of reforming this government--the House would be one of the few things left standing. I think the Senate needs to go. (Why have a chamber of Congress in which Wyoming and California are equally represented, despite the fact that California's population is 40 times greater than Wyoming's?!?) I also think that the U.S. should not have a president--give limited executive authority to the Speaker of the House (in other words, make him or her equivalent to a "prime minister.") Such reforms (though they exist only in my head) might make the government in Washington function. The party in power would be able to set the agenda and get things passed, without always worrying about filibusters or vetoes. When the agenda turns out to be bad policy, the people can vote them out--but at least when they're in, they can get things done.
This is why I cannot understand how liberals or progressives can attack Obama for not being "tough enough" during this debate, or for letting the House Republicans set the agenda. It was the Republicans' agenda to set. Americans voted them into office last fall, and, for better or worse (I agree it's not for better), they have the right and power not to pass tax reform and to insist on spending cuts. For those who, like me, think that's bad policy, the thing to do is not to blame Obama, but to do what you can to make sure Democrats take back the House next year (not to mention keep the presidency). Urging Obama to circumvent the House's authority by taking potentially unconstitutional, unilateral action is asking him to be too much like George W. Bush, who, like so many recent presidents, dangerously pushed for expansive, undemocratic executive power.
This is not to say that the Republicans were justified in hijacking the budget debate by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling unless they got their way. That was irresponsible and reckless, and that is exactly why we should make sure their control of the House ends next year. But it is not a good enough reason to prompt the executive branch to overtake the constitutional power of the most democratically representative branch of government.
There are, of course, aspects of this bill that are not, or may not, be so great. How painful will these cuts be to public employees or those who need public assistance? Time will tell whether or not these cuts were "the right cuts." Is it fair that these cuts were not accompanied, or offset, by any additional tax revenue from large corporations or the wealthy? This is a question of ethical and economic philosophy, but I would certainly say, "No."
But those who, like me, are unhappy with the "cuts only" approach to deficit reduction should realize that it is undoubtedly the right of the House to pass such a bill and insist on its terms. It is the House's right because the House is the most democratically representative institution in the U.S. government, and that is where legislation ought to begin. In my wild, radical fantasies of reforming this government--the House would be one of the few things left standing. I think the Senate needs to go. (Why have a chamber of Congress in which Wyoming and California are equally represented, despite the fact that California's population is 40 times greater than Wyoming's?!?) I also think that the U.S. should not have a president--give limited executive authority to the Speaker of the House (in other words, make him or her equivalent to a "prime minister.") Such reforms (though they exist only in my head) might make the government in Washington function. The party in power would be able to set the agenda and get things passed, without always worrying about filibusters or vetoes. When the agenda turns out to be bad policy, the people can vote them out--but at least when they're in, they can get things done.
This is why I cannot understand how liberals or progressives can attack Obama for not being "tough enough" during this debate, or for letting the House Republicans set the agenda. It was the Republicans' agenda to set. Americans voted them into office last fall, and, for better or worse (I agree it's not for better), they have the right and power not to pass tax reform and to insist on spending cuts. For those who, like me, think that's bad policy, the thing to do is not to blame Obama, but to do what you can to make sure Democrats take back the House next year (not to mention keep the presidency). Urging Obama to circumvent the House's authority by taking potentially unconstitutional, unilateral action is asking him to be too much like George W. Bush, who, like so many recent presidents, dangerously pushed for expansive, undemocratic executive power.
This is not to say that the Republicans were justified in hijacking the budget debate by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling unless they got their way. That was irresponsible and reckless, and that is exactly why we should make sure their control of the House ends next year. But it is not a good enough reason to prompt the executive branch to overtake the constitutional power of the most democratically representative branch of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)