Budget Reconciliation allows a slight majority to make BIG Changes.
It allowed the GOP to pass unnecessary tax cut and increase deficits.
And soon the DEMs will use it to pass more COVID money handouts that will increase the deficits even more.
Thankfully it looks like the filibuster will stay in place. Thanks in large part to Senator Manchin.
Some of my very Liberal FB friends were dreaming of the DEMs trashing the filibuster and passing some extreme Liberal agenda. I said that it will just doom them in 2022... They did not seem to care, apparently they are okay with the ever changing policy pendulum. I am not sure how us citizens and businesses will keep up?
I mean just think of Biden stopping the Keystone project after 300+ miles has been built. I assume they will just leave it there and hope that in Jan 2025 they will get to move ahead again? This is starting to remind me of India where huge projects half done before being shelved by the next coalition government.
This was an interesting 538 post.
"Public opinion flips between two extremes
But wait, you say: Isn’t America moving in a much more liberal direction? And, if nothing else, won’t that put pressure on the GOP to moderate? It’s certainly easy to think America is moving in a much more liberal direction if you look at trends in public opinion over the past few years. Historically, though, public opinion is most liberal precisely when liberal policies are least likely to be enacted (like now, and especially in 2017 and 2018, when Republicans had unified control in Washington).
Once Democrats regain control, however, and then try to enact more liberal policies, public opinion will likely shift against them, in a more conservative direction — or at least this is how it has worked historically. Americans favor government until they get it. (Remember in 2009 when it was fashionable to proclaim a permanent Democratic majority?) This is the great irony of American public opinion: It mitigates against moderation because it tells the out-party that they don’t need to move to the middle — that public opinion is moving in their direction. That is, right until they win and start governing based on it."
One more interesting article regarding the media and citizen polarization.
31 comments:
Ours is a consensus based government. Republicans a negative party, know if they can divide the country, they can prevent Democrats from enacting a positive agenda. They also know if they prevent Democrats from enacting a positive agenda, they can win elections by arguing Dmmocrats are ineffective, they can divide the country and win the election. Republicans have learned the bitter lesson that when they become the issue, when they have an activist presidenbt who argues they can get things done, they lose. Badly. Repeatedly.
--Hiram
Now that is an excellent example of polarization and pointless name calling.
"Republicans a negative party"
"Democrats from enacting a positive agenda"
But it's largely true. Republicans literally have no positive agenda (positive in the sense of "here's what we want to do"). They didn't put out a platform in 2020. After years of braying about "repeal Obamacare", they couldn't pass a health care bill when they controlled Congress and the White House. Even the 2017 tax cuts were a struggle to get across the finish line.
Maybe if he had used
"Republicans a party of less government intervention"
"Democrats a party of more government intervention"
I often think that if Progressives had their way the government would take 60% of our GDP and pass regulations to try and protect everyone from everything. :-(
"Republicans a party of less government intervention"
This ain't true, though.
Well they definitely want to protect us all from going to hell... (ie sin laws) So yes they are control freaks in that way.
But overall they tend to be for less regulation, less taxes, more persons must deal with consequences of their decisions, etc?
G2A You Like Control
When I am saying Republicans are a negative party, it is not my intent to be "name calling". I am simply engaging in broad, perhaps overly broad generalizations.
Consider health care. Democrats had a variety of proposals. They selected one of them and passed in the form of what we now know as "Obamacare". Republicans, even when they controlled the Congress never put together a program of their own, let alone work to get it passsed. That is negativism in a nutshell.
Last year, the Republican Party at their national convention failed to propose a platform. They made a decision to stand for nothing. That is what negativity looks like in American politics and it came entirely without Republican objection.
Being for nothing gives the Republican Party an enormous advantage in our national politics. That's because nothing is so much easier to do than something. Their mastery of the nothing explains why Republicans do so well when things are going right, and so completely fail when things go wrong. For all it's virtues, and a policy o nothingness does have it's virtues, nothing is hardly ever an appropriate or effective response to crisis.
--Hiram
Well they definitely want to protect us all from going to hell...
They want to make it an individual choice. Republicans want people to have the freedom to choose to go to hell. Any effort to put hell out of business, or to make it more difficult to go there is to deny our inalienable rights as guranteed by the founders. In the alternative, they will shift hell policy to state and local governments and let them handle the problem.
--Hiram
They just decided to re-use the 2016 Platform...
And seeking to undo something "bad" is not necessarily "negative".
Was Biden negative by killing the Keystone Pipeline?
"But overall they tend to be for less regulation, less taxes, more persons must deal with consequences of their decisions, etc?"
More police, more military, more corporate bailouts. They just like their "big government" in different areas than Democrats. If your construction was actually correct, you wouldn't see spending and deficits consistently explode when Republicans are in charge.
But that's how you roll -- you believe in the talking point instead of the reality.
The deficits constantly explode because they are obsessed with thinking tax cuts will raise revenues, which of course has been proven false at least 3 times now.
And in this case, Trump was a fiscal liberal who loved to spend.
After 4 years of liberals complaining about destroying the country by Trump killing regulations and protections, now you are saying he was pro-regulations?
Deficits explode because it's easier to lower taxes than raise them, and because it's easier to spend more than less. Deficits are a general problem but decisions involve specifics. No loobbyists in Washington were hired to get taxes raised. No lobbyists in Washington were hired to get less money for their clients. As much lip service we give to deficit reducing, it has no constituency.
--Hiram
On that we agree... Even supposed fiscal conservatives like Jerry gave up on it when Trump was running record deficits...
So that leaves just me and the kids to lobby for lower deficits, and the people don't care about the kids because they can not vote yet. :-) :-(
"now you are saying he was pro-regulations?"
No, my point was: They just like their "big government" in different areas than Democrats.
I guess the only place I have noted that is in National Defense expenditures.
And that is relatively low compared to 1940 to 1998.
Why does it cause you pain to admit that DEMs are the party of government control?
I mean they want to:
- tax some excessively to give to others
- pass regulations to protect idiots from making bad decisions
- use tax dollars to cover the expenses when people make bad decisions
- tell people who they have to do business with
- implement universal healthcare mandates
- punish companies who move operations
- etc
If you are a Progressive, be proud of it. :-)
If you're a John, don't pretend to understand Progessive positions. Your list proves your failure at it.
Moose
"Why does it cause you pain to admit that DEMs are the party of government control?"
Why does it cause you pain to admit that Republicans love big government just as much as Democrats -- they just exert it in different ways? They didn't spend $3 trillion in 2020 to reduce the scope of government...
Yeah they did that because Trump turned their little heads to mush... :-)
And the GOP did fight against Pelosi's wanting to double down on the first mistake. It went from 3 Trillion to 0.9 Trillion.
I am certain the GOP would be happy to start pinching pennies again now that a DEM is in the White House. Unfortunately Budget Reconciliation means they will have little control and the spending tap will put on wide open.
Page 6 and 10 are terrifying, but current voters do not seem to care. :-(
Moose,
AOC and Friends have made the goals pretty clear
How is my list incorrect?
And don't forget the pretty Left Leaning 2020 DEM Platform
I did a find for the word "protect"... It was there 184 times !!!
"Make and Making" is their 129 times.
"Care" is 212 times...
"Safe" is 78 times...
I will never understand the Liberal platform where somehow government is going to protect everyone from everyone, and mandate equal outcomes.
On the upside, I am guessing even the screwed up GOPers will have a good chance of taking back part or all of Congress in 2022 after the DEMs over reach again.
Remember the quote from the post...
"Public opinion flips between two extremes. But wait, you say: Isn’t America moving in a much more liberal direction? And, if nothing else, won’t that put pressure on the GOP to moderate?
It’s certainly easy to think America is moving in a much more liberal direction if you look at trends in public opinion over the past few years. Historically, though, public opinion is most liberal precisely when liberal policies are least likely to be enacted (like now, and especially in 2017 and 2018, when Republicans had unified control in Washington).
Once Democrats regain control, however, and then try to enact more liberal policies, public opinion will likely shift against them, in a more conservative direction — or at least this is how it has worked historically.
Americans favor government until they get it. (Remember in 2009 when it was fashionable to proclaim a permanent Democratic majority?)
This is the great irony of American public opinion: It mitigates against moderation because it tells the out-party that they don’t need to move to the middle — that public opinion is moving in their direction.
That is, right until they win and start governing based on it."
according to Kevin Drum The Senate Filibuster Has Already Been Abolished
according to P. Krugman big spending now is good for kids:
Helping Kids Is a Very Good Idea
Kevin is Kevin... Even Trump and McConnell did not sink to that level. Maybe he thinks the DEMs have less honor?
"The fact that no one has done this yet is immaterial."
And Paul is Paul... Always a big supporter of government spending.
Unfortunately I can not access the piece. Maybe copy it here if it is a manageable length.
By the way, I kind of understand helping unemployed folks and businesses that are hurting.
But writing TRILLIONS of dollars of checks to people who are still working, to states, etc is just wasteful from my perspective. Especially since every dollar has to be borrowed. :-(
I am not sure how the US Federal government became the Nation's Rainy Day fund?
What happened to people and states be responsible and saving for their own rainy day?
Remember Pages 6 and 10
The irony of course is that part of the reason the stock market is so high is because the government has been giving out tons of money that is not needed by people... So they are investing it.
All current and future Tax payers get charged interest while some Tax Payers make interest...
Paul Krugman:
Some background: America stands out among wealthy countries for its failure to provide much help to families with children. U.S. expenditures on family benefits as a share of G.D.P. are less than a third the rich-nation average. Largely as a consequence, we have a much higher rate of child poverty than our peers.
Our stinginess does a lot of harm. Economists have shown that previous extensions of aid to families with children, like the gradual rollout of food stamps in the 1960s and 1970s and the expansion of Medicaid in the 1980s, didn’t just improve children’s lives in the short run; children who received the aid grew into healthier, more productive adults than those who didn’t receive the aid. By not doing even more for children, we are stunting their future, and that of the nation as a whole.
But can we afford to do more? Independent estimates of the cost of something like the reported Democratic proposal put its price tag at roughly $120 billion a year. To put this in perspective, it’s only about half the 2021 revenue loss caused by the 2017 tax cut.
And aid to children would achieve what proponents of the tax cut promised but failed to deliver: an improvement in America’s long-run economic prospects. If the children we help today grow up into healthier, more productive adults than they would otherwise — which they will — that will eventually mean higher G.D.P.
And aid to children would also indirectly help the budget, because those children would later pay more in taxes and be less likely to call on safety net programs. These fiscal benefits might even be big enough that helping children pays for itself, and in any case they mean that the true cost of aiding children, even in narrowly fiscal terms, would be less than it might appear.
All in all, then, increased aid to families with children is a really good idea. It would immediately improve millions of Americans’ lives, it would make us stronger in the future, and it would have only modest budget costs. So how will Republicans in Congress justify opposing it? Because you know that most, if not all, of them will.
McConnell did not get rid of the filibuster because the GOP has very few policy goals that they wanted to pass.
What the dems get done will depend on what their most conservative members will agree to.
It seems like Paul and I are somewhat aligned. I am fine with spending on children, as long as we discouraged terrible parents from having more children. :-)
Thank God for Joe Manchin and the other moderate DEMs
Post a Comment