Moral Imperatives And Economic Necessity
Blame Game and the Art of un-Stonewalling the Opposition.
In his first State of the Union Address, President Obama again reminded us “…we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession had put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.”
So I wasn’t surprised to read the following SOTU except:
“Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades…. The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt and runaway…unemployment.”
Except that in this case the speaker was Ronald Reagan, in his first State of the Union Address. Blaming one’s predecessors for the Economic Predicament while ignoring one’s own contributions is a time-honored American tradition, and one Mr. Obama is certainly justified in trotting out as the occasion(s) may warrant. But as he has also continued to note, this time our situation is so tenuous that we don’t have the luxury of stonewalling the issues and passing them off to the next administration to deal with. Something must be done—although many of us would prefer that this “something” involve allowing the markets to deflate back down to their intrinsic, rather than to their derivative worth, and putting a halt to this seemingly incessant papering-over of corporate and GSE losses at the expense of the taxpayers.
Assuming that stabilization of the economic crisis is the goal of this both administration and the majority of the electorate, (else the enraged and disaffected run wild in the streets demanding the head of every functionary remotely connected to this mess,) and mindful that a 95% unemployment rate is going to wreak chaos upon the tax base, these economic reform measures are going to have to come from both sides of the political aisle.
But our legislative body, like most marriages of convenience, tends to be at odds with itself more than in concert; and like most such unions, there usually comes a point when spouse A confronts spouse B about the profligate spending which has finally caught up with the family budget. Recriminations give way to pouting and counter-accusations, friends of the family take sides, and dire proposals about what might be done to rectify the situation inevitably result in one party sulking in the corner of the bedchamber and refusing to join in connubial congress. Eventually, with enough cajoling and compromise—if not threat of outright ruin—the solution presents itself. The committed will notch in their belts and do what has to be done. But in recent years our Congressional Bickersons, so full of self-righteousness and mutual loathing, have all seemed to end up buying a pack of attorneys and disbanding in bitter divorce. Meanwhile, the bills go unpaid.
For a while, it seemed as though the 111th Congress of the United States was headed down this path as well. But as I’ve noted here before, that dynamic appears, whether out of moral imperative, or sheer economic necessity, to be evolving into something a bit less dysfunctional. And that gives me hope.
Last summer the so-called Beer Summit became an impromptu “teaching moment” suggesting a new tone of compromise the administration would try to institute in Washington. This spirit of conciliation was in evidence last week as President Obama met with House Republicans in an unprecedented effort to break the procedural gridlock that has increasingly paralyzed our Legislative branch. In a free exchange reminiscent of the British House of Commons’ raucous verbal jousts with their Prime Minister during “Question Time,” the President and the Republican House traded barbs, entreaties, and at times even good-natured, laughter. “It is the kind of discussion that we frankly need to have more of,” said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. “This is fun.” responded the President after one particularly bitter exchange.
Speaking without benefit of either his entourage or his fabled teleprompter, and to an at-times openly hostile audience, Obama’s visit was both courageous and canny—as was convincing the conference to allow the event to be televised for all to see. With a national audience looking on, the President addressed the “sour climate” in Washington and took the opportunity to refute many of the factually erroneous political talking points recently directed against him by grandstanding members of the Republican House.
A few Republicans even expressed their muted admiration of his willingness to finally hear them out. “I give the president an enormous amount of credit.” Said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, chair of the GOP’s policy committee, in a more family-friendly iteration of an earlier comment. But whether or not that admiration is enough to induce Republican lawmakers to break ranks and actually start doing the hard work of fixing our economy, still remains to be seen.
For those who may have missed this genteel slug-fest and want to watch the Obama we elected at his eloquent best, here is a link to both the video and the text of the debate. For those who can’t bear another moment of the man and the elitist blathering that’s destroying Our County, here is a condensed subtext of the Q&A:
Speaker: Welcome Mr. (Kenyan) President, to the House Republican Conference.
Question from Congressperson: Our stimulus bill costs half as much as yours and creates twice the number of jobs. It offers across the board tax relief. Little David’s Daddy is out of work and Little David is very sad.
Obama: I will write Little David a letter the moment I get back into my limo. Now, please tell me why on earth I would reject a bill that actually creates twice the jobs and costs half as much? Problem is, I couldn’t find any credible economist to back up your figures. Can you? Oh, btw. It seems like quite a few of you found time to go to the ribbon cutting ceremonies for all those recovery projects you voted against….
Question: So. You’re gonna support our across the board tax cuts?
Obama: Warren Buffet’s not gonna get a tax cut.
Question: Why don’t you freeze spending now? And a line item veto. We want a line item veto.
Obama: Can’t freeze spending when there are automatic stabilizers that kick in from your past pork. Next year they’ll expire. Then you can wail at me for cutting your pet projects. Oh, and guys? Go ahead and hand me a line item veto. Please!
Question: What about the coal miners?
Obama: 1930 was eighty years ago, honey. Deke and Cletus are gonna have to transition to a new line of work in the Green Economy.
Question: I’m new here, and now I gotta clean up your mess. Why are you still allowing lobbyists in your administration? I’m so disappointed in you.
Obama: Some of the specialized experts—like the doctor who heads up the project to keep kids off cigarettes, (cough, cough,) are staying on. Others have carryovers into this administration from their appointed term in the old one. They’re being replaced as those expire. That okay with you? an we be friends again? Huh? Can we?
Question: Why weren’t the health reform hearings televised—like you said?
Obama: The majority were televised; carried on CSPAN, if you’d bother to get your face out of Fox News for five minutes. But as you know, countless committee hearings were held in chambers all over the capitol. Have you ever tried to get a film crew into the stall of a men’s room? Oh wait, that’s the Senate….
Question: Public option sucks. We don’t wanna pay for poor people’s health care. Or Baby Boomers’. Or illegal aliens. Especially those.
Obama: Tough. We’re gonna have to provide basic health care for everyone one way or another, so get over it. Tell your money boys that if they can show me guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime cap, no dismissals, and affordability for young people and small business, I’m game. Oh, and I’m not a Bolshevik you nitwits. You’re the ones screaming for Tsar Timothy and Gregori Bernanke’s heads. You’re the ones with the “Platform Purity test” from the Central Committee. So stop rousing the rabble because it tends to blow back big time…if you catch my drift.
Question: We do too have some good ideas! Stop telling our constituents we’ve offered nothing.
Obama: Please listen closely and I’ll speak veeer-rry sloooow-ly for you. Get me some independent verification and not just your unsubstantiated assertions and I’ll listen. You guys proposed a lot of this stuff when you were in charge, but now that a Dem’s in office you’re suddenly against it. Yeah, I’m talkin’ to you, Tan Man.
Question: Pelosi is a…(mean girl.) She won’t let us eat in Senior Park and the teachers all hate us.
Obama: I’m not in charge of the Student Council, kids; I work in the principal’s office. But gee, that’s why I’m here talking to you today. My office door is always open—just make an appointment with my secretary, Mrs. Pelosi….
Question: You’re raising an unconscionable national debt. Everybody hates you and all your toadies on Wall Street and the Fed.
Obama: Excuse me? MY toadies? I came into office with 8T in national debt staring me in the face. YOUR party passed the biggest unpaid entitlement in history and funded two wars through supplementals. Now we’re looking at 38T in unfunded Social Security and Medicare liability. So whaddya wanna do about it, huh? Leave Grandma out on the street? Death panels? Howz about we start bouncing YOUR federal paychecks, hmmmmmm? Yackity yackity yak, dude. Oh, and did I mention? Your figures are bs.
Speaker: Thank you for coming Mr. (Kenyan) President.
Obama: Well, that was certainly fun. Thank you, thank you, everyone. I’ll be back. (Ducks flying salad plate) What’s that? Of course I’ll sign an autograph for you….
by Allena Hansen
