Politics of failure

Months ago as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling, Congress appointed a “Super Committee” to find a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal budget through 2021. The committee was given a deadline of Nov. 23 to report its plan to Congress.

With less than two weeks remaining, many observers are skeptical a deal will be reached. There has been no public word of significant progress, and legislators from both sides are busy sniping at one another about the lack of development.

The Super Committee’s ineffectual discussions thus far, as well as the fact there had to be a “Super Committee” created in the first place, are a reflection of the broken state of American politics. Democrats argue the blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of the Republican Party based on the simple fact they refuse to compromise on taxes. In my opinion, for the Republicans on the committee, and in Congress generally, to say all forms of revenue increases are off the table is absurd.

Conservatives are often fond of comparing the federal government to an individual household on budgetary matters. As the metaphor goes, when economic times are tough for a family, members of the family must “tighten their belt” and reign in their expenses.

However, what’s forgotten in this metaphor are some expenses families see as important enough to keep, even if that means working extra overtime or some weekends to cover the cost. Expenses that might fit in this category: education and personal health broadly construed, especially for the most vulnerable members of the family — the young and the elderly.

Where do we see suggestions for cuts? Social welfare programs, the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency are just a few of the programs Republicans argue are in need of significant trimming, or to the libertarian extreme, outright elimination. Notice all of these propositions have a direct impact on at least one of the two categories in the metaphor above, and again, the most affected are society’s most vulnerable.

When I think about these issues I really do try to analyze problems with both sides, but in this particular instance, I’m really struggling to find significant fault on the part of the Democrats.

If you look to the President as the leader of the Democratic Party as an example, Democrats are even willing to alter the structure of social welfare programs, the pillars of Democratic thought and oft-believed untouchable, to make them more fiscally sustainable in the long run.

Admittedly, the changes they offer are not nearly as broad as, say, the Republican ideal of privatizing social security, but at least they have shown some willingness to compromise.

On the issue of taxes, the Republican’s sacred cow, there does not appear to be any wiggle room. That fact alone is responsible for so much of the gridlock that we see in Washington.

If we as citizens continue to support politicians on either side who are unwilling to work to find the middle ground, we’re all in trouble.
   
­— jontodd@indiana.edu