May 26, 2013

The fiscal cliff of 2013 is the debt ceiling of 2011

Agents J and K use a neuralizer to make someone forget strange and alien occurrences.With Congress and the White House renegotiating the same things they negotiated last summer…with predictably the same crisis-like language and terms, it’s hard not to wonder how we’ve already forgotten how all that turned out.

If it feels like we’ve been here before, it’s because we have.

The headlines sound familiar:

John Boehner rejects Obama’s Grand Bargain” says one. “No Deal: Debt Ceiling Talks Between Obama, Boehner Break Down” says another.

They sound like something you read this week.  They’re actually from the summer of 2011.

Now, while President Obama and Speaker Boehner negotiate plans to avert the fiscal cliff next year,  the scene has begun to look not unlike one we’ve seen before.

During the summer of 2011, the White House and Congress took the nation to the very edge of financial crisis over raising the federal debt ceiling.  The spending obligations of the federal government were at unprecedented levels (and they have only grown since). Tax revenues were hit hard by the recession. With only 60% of the government’s spending covered by tax revenues, Obama and Boehner dueled until  finally coming to a last minute deal that raised the debt ceiling and punted any spending cuts down the road. As part of the deal, the debt ceiling was raised $2.1 trillion and a Congressional “supercommittee” would find $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years.

Four days later, as a measure of “faith” in the deal, as well as in President Obama and the Congress, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States for the first time in our history.

Not surprisingly, no spending cuts have been found, to say nothing of the $1.2 trillion that were promised.

This month, a year and a bit later, we find ourselves in an eerily similar situation. Americans will wake up on January 2, 2013 to face a host of mandatory tax hikes and spending cuts. According to one source, national security spending could be cut 9.4%, while domestic spending, including Medicare and Headstart programs, could be cut 8.2%. According to the White House, a middle income family of four would see income taxes increase $2,000 a year.

I could use $2,000 more a year…but that doesn’t mean I think we should borrow from China so that my children can pay the extra taxes later.

English: President Barack Obama makes a statem...

English: President Barack Obama makes a statement in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House announcing a deal in the ongoing efforts to find a balanced approach to the debt limit and deficit reduction, July 31, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In essence, this is the plan that the President is proposing, that and raising taxes on the wealthy. Contrary to the Democratic fantasy of tax hikes to levels circa 1958, when the highest income brackets’ were a confiscatory 91%, raising taxes on the wealthy will not bring in substantially more tax revenues, avert growing federal deficits, or reinvigorate an economy still struggling along.

Yes, says Peter Schiff in the Wall Street Journal:  the top tax rates in the 1950s required much more than today’s top tax rate at 35%. But top taxpayers in 1958 provided only 27% of all taxes paid, while today’s top 3% of taxpayers are responsible for almost double that at 51% of tax revenues.

If that’s just not high enough, what tax rate will be? It’s always easier to raise taxes on “them” to pay for an entitlement “for you” than it is to reform spending practices for everyone.

And that reflects the modern reality, where fewer and fewer taxpayers are supporting the expanding responsibilities, and costs, of the federal government. In 1958, the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers  paid 29.9% of all taxes, but today pay a far less load at only 6.7% of all taxes collected.

Boehner Discusses GOP Jobs Plans

Boehner Discusses GOP Jobs Plans (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

Without figuring out a way to spend less to prevent the federal debt from growing, raising the debt ceiling only puts off the inevitable: a debt load that will someday have to be paid off by higher taxes on everyone. Like a revolving credit card debt, whether you pay it off this month or next, the amount you owe does not decrease, but the interest will continue to accrue. And it has to be paid off eventually.

But this is what the White House plan does. It punts the problem of growing debt down the road, calls for an additional $1.6 trillion in taxes,  and does not significantly cut back on spending.

Tax hikes and increased debt. Does it sound familiar? It should, because higher taxes and a higher debt ceiling is what Obama wanted in 2011, and it is the same thing that he’s demanding now.

It’s déjà vu all over again.

“Unconstitutional,” says the 11th Circuit.

Unconstitutional”

The news making its way through the legal blogosphere, and the online news outlets, is that the 11th Circuit has ruled the individual mandate part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Act”) is unconstitutional.

Let me underscore that: only the individual mandate was found unconstitutional. The rest of the law has been, for now, left untouched.

The Washington Post called it one of the “most significant legal setbacks to the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul.”

If  you’re short on time, read at least the excerpts of the 2-1 decision  (of a very lengthy opinion) over at the Volokh Conspiracy. In short the Act is:

[...] the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.

Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional.

Etc, etc…and, here’s the part the right will love:

This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. “

Too bad this didn’t come out yesterday. The Iowa Republican debate would have been that much more juicy with the ruling hanging in the air, even with the Supreme Court still in the Act’s future.

If  you have more time, here are a few more commentaries you might look at:

From Utah Political Summary’s Curt Bentley:

One of the more odd things about the majority opinion — at least in my humble opinion — is its use of an overinclusiveness argument.  Over/underinclusiveness is a consideration in individual rights cases, but, in my opinion, has no real role to play when it comes to evaluating a Congressional action under the Commerce Clause.  The over/underinclusiveness analysis is designed to get at the sincerity of a legislature’s expressed motivations.  For example, if a legislature regulates more broadly (or narrowly) than necessary to solve a particular problem, one can infer that it may be dislike for a certain group, rather than a desire to solve the stated problem, that motivates the legislature action.

Jonathan Turley, expressing concerns about federalism issue the Act affects opined that

I view the health care legislation as presenting a new type of federal claim and one that could leave few things as protected by federalism by expanding Congress’ enumerated powers to an unprecedented scope.

In other words, if the feds can do this, what can’t they do? (And, I would add, what does that mean for the 10th Amendment?

Ilya Somin, also at Volokh, noted that this wasn’t a partisan decision:

Significantly, Judge Frank Hull, a Clinton appointee has now become the first Democratic-appointed judge to vote to strike down the mandate, balancing Republican Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton who voted to uphold it. The decision further undermines claims that the individual mandate suit is a sure loser that goes against a supposed expert consensus that the mandate is clearly constitutional.

Jonathan Adler says “Hear, hear!

Enhanced by Zemanta

This isn’t the hope you were looking for…

Debt, debt, debt…

It seems debt is all the rage in Washington these days, and with good reason. The federal government only stays open on debt, and unless Congress and the President can agree soon, we’ll hit that limit and…well, who knows what will happen next.

Originally, negotiators were looking at a deal to cut deficits by about $2.5 trillion over 10 years.

But as the deadline approaches, Obama has raised the stakes. The goal he is now pushing for — as much as $4.5 trillion in deficit cuts over the coming decade — would require changes both in taxes and in the government’s basic safety-net programs.

“There’s going to be pain involved politically on all sides,” Obama told reporters after the White House meeting. [Read more...]

Libya: Members of Congress Challenging Constitutionality of Military Action

(en) Libya Location (he) מיקום לוב

Image via Wikipedia

It’s the American way. Got a problem? Take it to court.

Even if that problem is military action in Libya.

While Rep. Boehner is taking a more diplomatic tact by sending a letter to President Obama seeking clarification on Libya, others have had enough and are challenging him in federal court.

Is our continued military action in Libya legal? That is the question Professor Jonathon Turley, representing ten Members of Congress, is asking the court to decide.

This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief. In addition to challenging the circumvention of express constitutional language, it will also challenge arguments that no one (including members of Congress) has “standing” to submit this question to judicial review. These members will ask the federal district court for review of the constitutional question and for recognition that the Constitution must allow for judicial review of claims of undeclared wars under Article I.

via Members of Congress Challenge Libyan War in Federal Court « JONATHAN TURLEY.

The Congressional members in the suit are from both parties and include Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx).

Enhanced by Zemanta

While we bomb Libya, is a violation of the War Powers Resolution on the horizon?

(en) Libya Location (he) מיקום לוב

Image via Wikipedia

In case you’ve forgotten, we are still bombing Libya.

Yesterday, Rep. John Boehner sent a letter to President Obama reminding him that the time has arrived–legally speaking–to obtain Congressional approval for further military action in the North African country.

Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011.  On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the Administration has not asked for, nor received, Congressional authorization of the mission in Libya.  Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.

via Boehner warns Obama that Libya will violate war powers | Susan Ferrechio | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Taunting? A way of life on Capitol Hill.

Remember yesterday when, in the midst of important budget negotiations, the President of the United States said that the Congress needed to start acting like adults? (I think he was referring specifically the Republicans, but that’s just a guess).

Well, turns out that such taunting is not so uncommon. A new study by a Harvard professor finds that Congress (and I guess as a former member of Congress President Obama might be included in this group) spends about a quarter of its time taunting the other side.

Yeah. Taunting. As in “to reproach or challenge in a mocking or insulting manner.”

“The entire government may go bankrupt, I guess. This week, right?” King said in a telephone interview. “We probably want our representatives to be listening to each other rather than calling each other names.”

via 27% of communication by members of Congress is taunting, professor concludes – The Washington Post.

Maybe it’s not so crazy that our country has such a hard time forming good public policy. When we spend a quarter of our time “mocking or insulting” each other, it’s a good bet were not trying to listen, find common ground, or formulate good policy. Rather, we’re just trying to score political points.

We’ve got a place for that kind of thing. It’s called talk radio.

“Do what I say (pass my budget), not what I do (ignore your budget).”

Barack Obama - Caricature

President Barack Obama, Adult-in-Chief. Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT…

Our federal government is on the verge of shutting down. And President Obama wants Congressional Republicans to do what he says (pass his budget), not what he does (ignore their budget).

The United States government doesn’t have a budget for fiscal year 2011, yet. If it doesn’t pass one by Friday, the government will shut down. This means, as others have pointed out, that we may see something like what happened in 1995 and 1996:

[I]t actually cost the government money in back wages, lost revenue from shut-down national parks and the local economies and businesses surrounding those parks. Not all government workers go on a mandatory vacation, either. Essential staff still stay on duty – FBI and TSA workers, VA hospitals and military bases stay open, as would the US Postal Service, the prez and his employees and all members of Congress.

So, naturally,with a shutdown threatening due to Congress’ and the President’s inability to work out a compromise, what do our elected leaders do? Get down to the thumb tacks, pound out a compromise that moves our country on the path to get out of debt, and works to lighten the load on Americans?

Nope. They trade insults.

President Barack Obama on Tuesday called on congressional leaders – especially Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) – to act like “grown-ups” and avert a government shutdown after they made no apparent progress in reaching a budget agreement at a White House meeting earlier in the day.

In response, Congressional Republicans said that they were going to take their toys and go home…

Oh, wait. No they didn’t. Rather, they released a plan to cut $6.2 trillion out of the budget over the next four years, including reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion, a number three times the Administration’s (and, consequently, the amount that the Administration has added to the bottom line over the last few years).

Naturally, with Rep.Paul Ryan wonkishly talking policy and throwing around statistics, numbers, and budgets that save money, maintain retirement benefits, decrease our federal deficit, and, well, make sense, an insult was the best the President could come up with on the spur of the moment. After all, the upstart Congressman from Wisconsin is making him look bad.

Ironically, Rep. Ryan’s plan isn’t even considered to be that great. It’s just better than the President’s.

Politics is the realm of the possible, blah blah. Only in a government situation where we’re facing a shutdown on Friday and a debt limit squeeze around the same time – after a decade of completely bipartisan raids on fiscal sanity – can Ryan’s plan be considered the realistic plan.

It’s just better than the alternative.

From there, and by “there” I mean “a plan that cuts the deficit and salvages the future for our children,” the President decided to pull out the big guns: he accused the Republicans of partisanship because they want to include in the budget cuts cutting off funding for a few of the Golden Calves of the political left (Planned Parenthood, EPA, etc).

We can debate abortion and environmental regulation later. Right now, if we don’t get our fiscal house in order, it may not matter whether Planned Parenthood and the EPA keep federal handouts or funding, because entitlements are going to take over the budget completely.

MEANWHILE, in other news, the adults are busy coordinating President Obama’s reelection campaign…

Enhanced by Zemanta