5:12 PM
Julio Barreto
The race for the presidency has begun. The debt ceiling agreement and its plan to reduce federal spending was the first salvo in the battle to claim the White House. Presidential politics is the order of the day between now and next November.
While many media outlets have identified winners and losers in the debt ceiling debate, it is more important to understand the lessons learned from the last few months. In this post, we will look at lessons we should have learned from this debate (or debacle depending on your perspective):
The nation’s fiscal situation has changed the nation’s political dynamics and community groups must adjust to this new reality. The new reality is more complicated than simply choosing between a more conservative Republican versus liberal Democratic approach to governance. The unwillingness to compromise at all costs by factions in both parties will make it difficult to find solutions to the pressing issues facing the nation.
The country needs to get its financial house in order, the international consequences are enormous. We simply cannot continue to carry the debt we currently hold and must reach some consensus on the escalating costs for entitlements, domestic and defense spending. Throughout the deficit reduction discussion the members of the president’s deficit commission were the only individuals made an honest, non-partisan, non-judgmental attempt to address those concerns. Their deliberations should be the model used for future discussions.
Balancing our nation’s budget is more complicated than solving a family’s finances. Comparing how our nation handles its finances to a family’s attempt to balance its budget is a good sound bite but that’s all. It is apples and oranges. Republicans discovered this immediately when they attempted to reform Medicare. The public, including Republican supporters, expressed opposition to entitlement reform. Republicans paid a political price and backed away.
Ideology, not practical governance, is driving politics. It is refreshing to see elected officials, the so-called Tea Party group, who are unconcerned with winning their next election. However, their desire to complete their mission at all cost could have crippled the world. That is frightening; however, their success and frustration during this debate will drive the debates between now and next November. What is obvious to one is a revelation to others. The ideological quandary afflicts both parties. Republicans placed theirs on full display in this debate.
Washington is now more about ideology and politics than governance. Governance issues get addressed as a byproduct of politics and ideology. There was a time when ideological differences did not prevent political leaders from bridging differences to reach a compromise on major issues facing the country. Even when the scion of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, was in office politics and ideology met in the middle. Those days are over in the foreseeable future.
Of all of the political leaders involved in the negotiations Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) emerged stronger politically while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) saw their credibility weaken. Cantor brazenly took every opportunity to undermine Boehner at different times during negotiations displaying an ugly rift within the party. It helped to create the impression that Republicans are unfit to govern.
President Obama is still learning how to use the bully pulpit of the presidency. He appeared weak at times during these negotiations. The contempt and disrespect some Republicans have for him were on full display during these negotiations. He seems more comfortable as the candidate than as the president which will serve him well going into next year. He will have to reassert himself next year. It is hard to view the president favorably during these discussions. He did not use his bully pulpit as effectively as he could have. He capitulated to Republican demands that an increase in the debt limit must include corresponding cuts to the federal budget and no new taxes. This made him appear weak at times but the Republicans – in the House in particular – helped him appear to be more reasonable than they appeared. There are some report that the scheduled expiration of the Bush era tax cuts in 2012 will give him the leverage needed to extract revenue increases and was one consideration for agreeing to this deal.
Local advocates relying on public funds need to understand things are going to get worse before they get better. There will probably be no further extensions for unemployment insurance, some changes in Medicare and Medicaid payments, cuts to defense, housing, education, etc. Simply taxing the rich will not get us out of this financial mess.
We need tax reform. Simply opposing tax increases or insisting on taxing the wealthy is a simplistic approach to addressing a fundamental problem: we live in a country which tends to punish individuals and families for the income they earn. A more reasonable tax code which closes some loopholes and balances out the tax rates – along the lines of the deficit commission – will help tremendously.
Poll after poll has indicated the American public was disgusted with the actions of its elected officials in Washington. The focus of blame was slanted based on the respondent’s ideology. However, the public must accept it share of blame for the gridlock in Washington. For the most part, Members of Congress’s actions reflected the desires of the people who elected them to office. It is far too easy to point fingers at Congress or the President and forget who put them there.
Interesting Read
Spending Cuts: Here Comes the Hard Part
By Charles Riley
CNN Money
In Debt Deal, The Triumph of the Old Washington
By David A. Fahrenthold, Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
The Washington Post
Eric Cantor: Obama 'in over his head'
By Jennifer Epstein
Politico
GOP Ponders a Rick Perry 2012 Candidacy
By Alexander Burns & Maggie Haberman
Politico
While many media outlets have identified winners and losers in the debt ceiling debate, it is more important to understand the lessons learned from the last few months. In this post, we will look at lessons we should have learned from this debate (or debacle depending on your perspective):
The nation’s fiscal situation has changed the nation’s political dynamics and community groups must adjust to this new reality. The new reality is more complicated than simply choosing between a more conservative Republican versus liberal Democratic approach to governance. The unwillingness to compromise at all costs by factions in both parties will make it difficult to find solutions to the pressing issues facing the nation.
The country needs to get its financial house in order, the international consequences are enormous. We simply cannot continue to carry the debt we currently hold and must reach some consensus on the escalating costs for entitlements, domestic and defense spending. Throughout the deficit reduction discussion the members of the president’s deficit commission were the only individuals made an honest, non-partisan, non-judgmental attempt to address those concerns. Their deliberations should be the model used for future discussions.
Balancing our nation’s budget is more complicated than solving a family’s finances. Comparing how our nation handles its finances to a family’s attempt to balance its budget is a good sound bite but that’s all. It is apples and oranges. Republicans discovered this immediately when they attempted to reform Medicare. The public, including Republican supporters, expressed opposition to entitlement reform. Republicans paid a political price and backed away.
Ideology, not practical governance, is driving politics. It is refreshing to see elected officials, the so-called Tea Party group, who are unconcerned with winning their next election. However, their desire to complete their mission at all cost could have crippled the world. That is frightening; however, their success and frustration during this debate will drive the debates between now and next November. What is obvious to one is a revelation to others. The ideological quandary afflicts both parties. Republicans placed theirs on full display in this debate.
Washington is now more about ideology and politics than governance. Governance issues get addressed as a byproduct of politics and ideology. There was a time when ideological differences did not prevent political leaders from bridging differences to reach a compromise on major issues facing the country. Even when the scion of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, was in office politics and ideology met in the middle. Those days are over in the foreseeable future.
Of all of the political leaders involved in the negotiations Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) emerged stronger politically while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) saw their credibility weaken. Cantor brazenly took every opportunity to undermine Boehner at different times during negotiations displaying an ugly rift within the party. It helped to create the impression that Republicans are unfit to govern.
President Obama is still learning how to use the bully pulpit of the presidency. He appeared weak at times during these negotiations. The contempt and disrespect some Republicans have for him were on full display during these negotiations. He seems more comfortable as the candidate than as the president which will serve him well going into next year. He will have to reassert himself next year. It is hard to view the president favorably during these discussions. He did not use his bully pulpit as effectively as he could have. He capitulated to Republican demands that an increase in the debt limit must include corresponding cuts to the federal budget and no new taxes. This made him appear weak at times but the Republicans – in the House in particular – helped him appear to be more reasonable than they appeared. There are some report that the scheduled expiration of the Bush era tax cuts in 2012 will give him the leverage needed to extract revenue increases and was one consideration for agreeing to this deal.
Local advocates relying on public funds need to understand things are going to get worse before they get better. There will probably be no further extensions for unemployment insurance, some changes in Medicare and Medicaid payments, cuts to defense, housing, education, etc. Simply taxing the rich will not get us out of this financial mess.
We need tax reform. Simply opposing tax increases or insisting on taxing the wealthy is a simplistic approach to addressing a fundamental problem: we live in a country which tends to punish individuals and families for the income they earn. A more reasonable tax code which closes some loopholes and balances out the tax rates – along the lines of the deficit commission – will help tremendously.
Poll after poll has indicated the American public was disgusted with the actions of its elected officials in Washington. The focus of blame was slanted based on the respondent’s ideology. However, the public must accept it share of blame for the gridlock in Washington. For the most part, Members of Congress’s actions reflected the desires of the people who elected them to office. It is far too easy to point fingers at Congress or the President and forget who put them there.
Interesting Read
Spending Cuts: Here Comes the Hard Part
By Charles Riley
CNN Money
In Debt Deal, The Triumph of the Old Washington
By David A. Fahrenthold, Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
The Washington Post
Eric Cantor: Obama 'in over his head'
By Jennifer Epstein
Politico
GOP Ponders a Rick Perry 2012 Candidacy
By Alexander Burns & Maggie Haberman
Politico
Posted in: 
