Reconcilable Differences

Shortly after Congress passed President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic rescue bill earlier this year, Mississippi senator Roger Wicker issued a celebratory tweet about the bill’s provision of nearly $30 billion to support the restaurant industry.

Here’s the thing, though: Wicker and every other Republican had voted against the legislation. His tweet and similar statements from his GOP colleagues can and should of course be written off as typical political hypocrisy, but they suggest a likely preview of how the current political debates over the President’s latest spending proposals will play out—and also why Republicans should, frankly, not worry too much about them.

Since these bills, through the magic of a parliamentary maneuver called “reconciliation” (which we’ve all had to learn way too much about), can pass with simple majority support, they are likely to squeak through Congress with only Democratic votes. Once this happens, feckless Republicans can brag to their constituents about all the goodies they’re receiving while still proudly proclaiming their anti-Biden credentials. Win-win.

And while I hate to be giving Republicans any advice, I take comfort in the fact that the “win-win” alluded to above includes the country as a whole.

Solipsistography: “Democrats Push a Budget to Fulfill Biden’s Aggressive Economic Ambitions”

In Which It Is Another Day Ending in 'y'

Congress passed a $1.8 trillion dollar spending bill yesterday.  $1.8 trillion!  You know how big that is?  It's so big that I have to write out the word "trillion" so as to avoid wearing out the 'zero' key on my laptop.

The spending bill was passed with surprising bi-partisan support, despite the fact that the legislation adds about $2 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next twenty years.  I have no particular opinion about the additional debt, but consider this: In the last few years, we've experienced shutdowns of the federal government due to congressional refusal to raise the debt ceiling.  Those most resistant to raising the debt limit have claimed they were acting out of principled opposition to increased debt--despite the fact that, as every economist and analyst pointed out, raising the debt limit adds not one cent to the nation's debt but simply ensures that the US is able to pay the debts it has already incurred.  Yet now, many of these same politicians have apparently acquiesced to a bill that quite unambiguously does the thing that they swore never to do: increase the national debt!  And I presume much--if not all--of the increased debt will be generated by pork-barrel projects that benefit supporters of various congressmen and senators!

Is it possible--and I know I'm talking crazy talk here--that politicians are somewhat hypocritical?

I Hope President Obama Can Survive the Humiliation. . . .

Our not-so-long national nightmare is finally over!  The House of Representatives just approved a Senate bill to finance the government and raise the debt ceiling, paving the way for the restoration of government services and the return of furloughed workers.  Analysts portray the deal as a complete repudiation of the Republican Party's extremist wing, a political defeat of historic proportions, but this is unfair.

True, the Tea Party faction failed to achieve its primary goal--defunding the Affordable Care Act--but everybody knew they would fail.  Saying the Republicans lost that battle is like saying the New York Mets lost this year's World Series: They were never in it to begin with. 

And, sure, right now the Republican "brand" is about as popular as anal herpes, but given the American electorate's attention span, they have every possibility of bouncing back by next year's elections--unless they are stupid enough to pick this kind of battle again next October.  With Michele Bachmann retiring, though, the collective IQ of the GOP congressional caucus will probably rise just enough to allow them to avoid that debacle.  Too bad.

But amidst all the bad news for the GOP, let's not overlook the silver lining, the major concession they managed to wring from recalcitrant Democrats: a "slight tightening of income verification rules for Americans accessing new health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act."

I know you probably think that doesn't sound like much, but that's because you don't know what it really means!  The Tea Party scored a major victory here.  (My fellow liberals better brace themselves.)  According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, under the rules approved as part of this budget deal, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must "report to Congress by Jan. 1st on the 'procedures' in place to verify eligibility" for subsidies offered to help people pay for health insurance.  And as if that weren't enough, by July 1st, the Secretary must report on the effectiveness of the verification!

Well, Tea Party, I tip my hat!  You sure showed us!  I hope it was worth it.

Best Thing I Read All Day

Unsurprisingly, the Republican House majority passed a budget bill that includes no funding to implement the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  So, unable to prevent passage of the bill, unable to overturn the bill legislatively or at the ballot box, the GOP has now decided to drive the country over a financial cliff in a fit of sore-losership unequaled since Mike Tyson took a bite out of Evander Holyfield's ear.  Because the bill has about as much chance of making it through the Senate and receiving President Obama's signature as. . .well, as Mike Tyson had of beating Evander Holyfield.  And if the spending bill is not approved, then the federal government will shut down for the first time since 1996--and the GOP firebrands are perfectly OK with that.

Now, are you ready for the best part?  See, while shutting down the government will inconvenience a lot of people--families wanting to visit national parks, Medicare providers who may not be paid in a timely manner, low-level members of the federal bureaucracy who will find themselves furloughed--the essential business of the nation will continue.  The United States will, for example, still have an army.  (Don't get any funny ideas, Canada!)  This is because, even if the federal government comes to a general standstill, agencies charged with upholding "the safety of human life or the protection of property" would still be allowed--required--to function.

And--get ready for it--President Obama could unilaterally declare the provisions of the Affordable Care Act vital to protect human life!  In other words, by shutting down the government over a refusal to fund Obamacare, the House Republicans may actually expedite Obamacare's implementation!

Whatever you may think of President Obama, you have to envy him the utter stupidity of his adversaries.

Seriously, Why Am I Even Surprised?

So John Boehner has finally (finally?) caved to the Tea Party lunatic fringe.  As the country heads for a federal government shutdown and another ludicrous showdown over its borrowing limit, the Speaker of the House has decided to cast his lot with the most extreme members of his party.  Rather than try to work with Democrats and the less insane members of the GOP to craft a political solution to these impending train wrecks, Boehner has decided to accept a Tea-Party strategy of vowing to pass needed financial legislation if and only if the budget includes no funding to implement the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare).

Not content with holding meaningless votes to repeal the ACA, Congressional Republicans have now decided to hold the economic fate of the nation hostage, rather than fund a piece of legislation (passed, we should remember, by a majority of duly elected representatives) that they don't like.  We could, perhaps, excuse this band of rabble-rousers, who, let's face it, represent the back end of the IQ Bell Curve (their caucus includes that diplomatic dream-team of Michele "Spells Her Name with One 'L' 'Cause the First Lady Spells Hers with Two" Bachmann, Louie "Don't Cast Aspersions on my Asparagus" Gohmert, and Steve "La Raza" King).  But what's Boehner's excuse? 

Whatever you may think of John Boehner, you know that he knows this is a terrible idea: Even if he believes in the cause--which I'm not at all sure he does--he knows that, politically, this is a disaster: The Senate won't back any bill that calls for defunding the ACA, and even if it did, Obama wouldn't sign it.  I guess he's assuming that, somehow, when the government gets shut down, the public will blame the Democrats, but he should ask Newt "Moonbase Alpha" Gingrich how well that strategy tends to work.

But what could Boehner do, you ask?  Well, how about show some leadership?  How about he goes up to these Tea Party "rebels" and says something like, "Look, you may think you're standing on principle, but you're also going to destroy the country and probably take the Republican Party with it.  So here's the deal: You can say whatever you want, but when it comes time to do the business of the country, you toe the line.  And if you insist on this kamikaze shit, I will make it my mission in life to see that you end up just like those kamikaze pilots: You will be stripped of all committee assignments.  You will get no support from the Republican Congressional Committee when you run for re-election; and your district can forget about receiving anything in the way of federal spending as long as you are its representative."

Maybe that would work.  Then again, these are people who just slashed billions of dollars from the food stamps program--a program, incidentally, that puts a huge amount of money in the pockets of Tea Party constituents.  So appeals to reason--or even threats--would likely fall on deaf ears.

Sequester Fester

Yesterday, I discussed the offensively misplaced--though frankly unsurprising--priorities of the United States Congress, which took swift action to remedy the negative impact of the budgetary sequester on air travelers while ignoring legislation that might substantially improve--if not save--the lives of more needy Americans.  As I thought more about the issue, though, I realized how the events of the past week also represent a political fuck-up (technical term) for the Obama Administration and Democrats in general.

President Obama, et al, had originally decreed that no funding would be "restored" to sequestered agencies on a piecemeal basis.  The whole point of across-the-board budget cuts was to inflict pain on everybody: Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, sane and Bachmann.  Obama figured that, once the negative effects of sequestration trickled down--or up, as the case may be--to the general population, disgruntled constituents would pressure their elected representatives to come to an agreement on a far-reaching and equitable deficit reduction plan, ideally one that would include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts.  By alleviating the pain of air travelers--while doing nothing to solve long-term fiscal problems--Congressional supporters of a long-term solution have effectively lost--or at least diminished--their leverage against those (read: Republican true-believers) who are more or less happy with the current situation.  Indeed, this is why GOP Congressional leaders are largely claiming victory today.

One thing to note about what exactly happened in Congress, though: No new funds were given to the Transportation Department to support the return of furloughed workers.  All Congress did was give the Secretary of Transportation permission to move money from one area (airport improvements, I believe) to another.  In the long run, then, the same problems will likely arise: Either this money will run out, or airports in disrepair will lead to delays (at best!) somewhere down the line.

Where Democrats screwed up politically was when they initially said that agencies couldn't simply shift money from one "pot" to another.  While I understand the intent behind this rule--to force the sequester's consequences on the majority of Americans as quickly as possible--the rule itself defies common sense.  When a household is short on cash in, say, its primary checking account, it will not declare bankruptcy if it still has money in savings (indeed, it won't be allowed to declare bankruptcy).  While I know that comparisons between a household and a country are of limited accuracy and value, they have a logical (and thus political) appeal.  In the face of lengthy delays on runways across the country, Republicans could make a simple appeal: "Not only does Big Government take too much of your money, but Big Brother Obama won't even let federal agencies spend the money they have!"  And they kind of have a point.

Of course, all the Republicans (and the Democrats who voted with them) have accomplished is a temporary reprieve.  Eventually, all these agencies will run out of money for real, and eventually people will start to feel the pain of the sequester in earnest.  Still, it's upsetting to watch GOP Congressmen disingenuously claim to have the interests of average Americans in mind as they "restore" funds that were never really gone in the first place.

Priorities

So last year, after a contentious debate about raising the debt limit, President Obama and Congressional Republicans reached a grand bargain.  Republicans would agree to raise the debt limit, and Democrats and Republicans would work together to find a way to shave several trillion dollars off the national debt.  In order to ensure that a deal would be reached, the politicians agreed on a plan to punish themselves for failure: If the two sides couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction plan by a certain date, then automatic spending cuts would strike programs near and dear to both parties: Republicans would see cuts to the military while Democrats would see cuts to social programs.  (Only a churl would point out that the Democrats SHOULD have held out for automatic tax increases, and I am not a churl, so you didn't hear that from me.)  This automatic, across-the-board cutting is known as "sequestration."

Surprisingly to no one, Republicans and Democrats could not reach agreement on budget cuts, and the sequester went into effect several weeks ago.  And then a funny thing happened: Nobody cared.  Oh, sure, some poor people might have had a bit more trouble buying food, and perhaps some federally supported childcare programs might have had to shutter themselves.  But nobody who counts was suffering.  Until this week, that is.

This week, at airports across the country, passengers suffered extensive delays as a result of slowdowns caused by furloughed workers.  The workers were furloughed, of course, due to the sequester.  Not to worry, though, Congress was on the case!  This same institution that dithered for four months before not passing minimal gun regulation after a massacre of toddlers sprang into action after some folks had to sit on a runway for thirty extra minutes.

Priorities, people!

Sequester: Day One

As result of inability to reach agreement on ways to reduce deficit, automatic cuts have begun to take effect across country.  No one is unaffected, and we all must do our part.  For blogosphere, sequester has led to mandated cuts, including all articles.  No longer will you see words "   ," "  ," or "  ."  Also, word "      " will remain unavailable until further notice.

You'll Get What We're Paid For?

California governor Jerry "Yeah, well I dated Linda Ronstadt when she was hot, Bee-otch!" Brown has presented his initial 2013 budget.  The whole budget announcement is a fairly ritualistic procedure.  The governor makes a speech.  Quite a bit of pageantry revolves around whether or not he sees his shadow.  If he does, the budget goes on to the legislature, where it is sliced, diced, poked, prodded, probed, shredded, tickled, massaged, deboned, fricaseed, lightly-breaded, and finally served on bed of romaine lettuce, before being voted on by the legislature.  Dancing follows.

For a change, the proposed budget contains some good news on the educational front, including an infusion of nearly $200 million for the community college system.  What we ultimately end up with won't be known for several months, but the fact that a new semester begins not with talk of impending cuts but with a mandate to grow is certainly refreshing.

Changes loom, too.  One of the biggest involves funding formulas: how community colleges earn their budgets.  Currently, colleges receive funding ("apportionment") based on the number of students they enroll.  Specifically, each college presents its census--the number of students enrolled in classes--to the state as of about the third or fourth week of each semester.  The state then "reimburses" a fixed amount per student to each college.  Regardless of other budget changes, this "per student" allocation will likely continue, but there is talk of changing criteria from enrollment to completion: Colleges would receive apportionment based on the number of students who complete degrees or certificates, rather than simply on the number of warm bodies in seats.

Certainly, this argument has some merit.  One can see the current system's potentially perverse incentives: If a college receives funding for each student enrolled, then administrators could push staff to increase the number of registrations, regardless of any individual student's readiness for classes.  Once the census-date passes, it matters little whether students remain in class or not--or whether they succeed--as the college has already received its funding for these students.  The taxpaying public might understandably prefer a system that rewards success.

I can assure you that most college instructors don't enjoy seeing students disappear (well, MOST students, anyway), and we want students to succeed.  In principle, a system that aligns apportionment with student achievement aligns incentives with what everyone wants anyway.  But student achievement depends on factors beyond an instructors--or, indeed, a college's--control.  Indeed, at a community college, the very definition of "success" is multi-faceted: Funding may be based on degree and certificate completion, but what about students who aren't seeking such things? What about a new immigrant who simply wants to take ESL classes?  What about the student who spends a semester at a community college and then quickly transfers to a four-year school or university?  Are these students and others like them "failures"?  Should community colleges be financially penalized for serving them?

These questions will need to be considered and debated (and lightly-breaded and fricaseed) in the months and years ahead.  For now, though, I seize this opportunity to feel guardedly optimistic.  Lord knows we've waited long enough.

I Read the News Today Oy Vey

Necessity is the mother of invention.  Invention's father?  Nobody knows.  Necessity's a bit of a whore.

Let me start over.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  LACK of necessity, though, births newsworthy nonsense.  No less than three of today's front-page stories in the New York Times revolved around things less necessary than mackerel-sized biking shorts.

For starters, senators ranging from the once-respectable John McCain to the I-once-thought-reasonable Susan Collins continue to wax apoplectic over UN Ambassador Susan Rice's "gaffes" in the wake of the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.  The fact that these "gaffes," shared on several Sunday morning news programs, consisted of intelligence-approved talking points--talking points initially requested by a congressman, no less!--makes no difference to these watchdogs of American safety, who are convinced--convinced, I say!--that Rice's performance in this matter makes her an utterly unacceptable candidate for Secretary of State, which is why they have made clear that they are unlikely to support her for nomination to this position for which she has not, in fact, been nominated!

Well, pre-emptive nominee-bashing is never out of style.  Let's see what else is in the news.

Ah, the University of Tennessee has fired its head football coach, Derek "Say-This-Name-With-a-Straight-Face" Dooley.  Fair enough.  The team has staggered to a disappointing 1-7 record, and the university has to fire the coach since it can't fire the players (but just wait 'til they see their P.E. grades!).  Here's the thing, though: Dooley has a contract, so the university must pay him about $5 million for the privilege of being fired!  Throw in money owed to his coaching staff, who will likely also be let go, and the total amount the school will shell out comes to about $18 million.  In case you're wondering where the money will come from, well, don't worry: It's going to be taken from money earmarked for scholarships--academic scholarships, by the way, not athletic scholarships--'cause, you know, why would UT cut funding for the athletic department, what with its dysfunctional 1-7 football team bringing such pride to the university.

Meantime, in military news, the world's most advanced military jet, the F-35 joint strike fighter, under development seemingly for the last 400 years at a cost of billions upon billions of dollars, may fall victim to budget cutting by Congress.  I don't believe it, though.  Considering the United States can already pretty much overwhelm any competing military force the sheer unnecessariness of the F-35 makes it the perfect emblem of today's misplaced priorities.  I'll take a dozen!

Insult to Injury

From the "This Again?!?" Department: The federal government may shut down at the end of next week unless Congress can agree on a new spending bill.  What's holding things up this time?  The highly controversial issue at the heart of the disagreement is whether to spend money to help the victims of things like Hurricane Irene and tornadoes in the Midwest.  Yeah, I know, they were asking for it, but still. . . .

See, most House Democrats and a number of Republicans voted against a bill that would have authorized about $3.5 billion in disaster relief.  The Democrats object that the bill is insufficient; indeed, a similar Senate bill, which has a certain level of bipartisan support, authorizes about twice as much.

What really riles Democrats, though, is the Republican leadership's insistence that any disaster funding be paid for by offsetting spending cuts elsewhere.  In fact, the Republicans who voted against the bill objected that the measure didn't include ENOUGH cuts.

Do Republicans not understand that people have lost their homes?  Do they really think now is the time to be playing budget games?  And for anyone tempted to play devil's advocate--for anyone who says, "Well, look, we DO need to find a way to pay for these things!  It's not like we can just PRINT more money!  (Well,OK, we can, but still. . . .)"--consider that the same folks who are saying we must make cuts to pay for responses to unforeseen disasters are many of the same folks who saw no need to make cuts to pay for the foreseen disasters of the Bush administration.  As Nancy Pelosi said, "We never paid for tax cuts for the rich. We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Oh, sorry.  I suppose I'm engaging in class warfare here.

SLO Death

Every spring for the last few years, the Solipsist's college has held a Staff Appreciation Day. The administration springs for food. A couple of the faculty members barbeque. Offices close early. And the Solipsist karaokes--whether people want him to or not.

This year, due to budget cuts and an increasing workload, the college had to cancel the formal Staff Appreciation Day. Instead, the administration provided a luncheon for the staff, served by the managers. A nice gesture, to be sure, but somewhat dampened by the fact that this week layoffs were announced. Suffice to say, we found something mildly ironic in the idea of an event expressing appreciation for the staff who have just been informed of their dismissal. Mildly ironic and majorly depressing.

One of our colleagues published an article in the faculty association's newsletter about the increasing demand for "accountability" on the part of community-college (and other) educators. Teachers must be accountable! Staff must be accountable! Administration must be accountable! Students must succeed, and those responsible for their success must provide evidence that they are, in fact, succeeding.

If this sounds reasonable to you, we understand. Certainly the public has a right to know how tax dollars are spent, and, indeed, community-college faculty should be held accountable for doing that for which they have been hired. The problem, though, is that a great number of those who talk most about accountabiity seem to start from a position of doubt--an assumption that we are not doing our jobs. As a result, we faculty must constantly prove our worth. The current buzzworthy term in higher-education is "Student Learning Outcomes" (SLOs). It is not enough to give lectures, to design engaging, interactive classes, and to spend twice as many hours again prepping for classes and grading papers; it is not enough to hold office hours and other student conferences; it is not enough to attend departmental meetings and sit on numerous committees. We must also provide data-based proof that all of this is effective. This means more number-crunching, more meetings, more reports. More work for everybody.

But go back to that luncheon we discussed earlier, the one at which all those soon-to-be-laid-off employees were feted. While faculty must provide ever-more evidence that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, the numbers of those who support the mission of the college--and by extension the teachers--are diminishing. Those who are left must pick up ever more of the slack. And all the while, teachers must take more time away from teaching in order to fill out reports to prove that they are teaching.

We're stuck in a vicious circle--one that's located around a drain.

A Modest (Admittedly Confiscatory, Politically Unworkable) Proposal

So the federal government staggers on, tentative budget agreement in hand. Amidst all the partisan bickering over whether to slash 20 billion or 38 billion or 60 billion dollars from the 3.8 trillion dollar federal budget, congress has (unsurprisingly) focused comparatively little on the revenue side of the equation. We think they should.

One thing about the US tax system: It is unfair. Although ostensibly progressive, the rich can afford all manner of tax shelters, and the recent revelations that megalithic corporate "citizen" General Electric pay NOTHING in taxes puts the lie to any claim of equitability. Any real tax reform will close these and other loopholes (hence the "politically unworkable" part of today's title, but a boy can dream).

Also, frankly, unfair are the current tax brackets of the federal system. And we don't mean unfair to the poor, either, but to the relatively well off. Under the current system, the top individual income tax rate is 35%. This rate kicks in once one's income hits $379,150. Now, we hardly feel sorry for the poor soul who has to squeak by on $250,000 a year. But how fair is a system that taxes that relatively well-off person at the same rate as the even more well-off person making twice as much? Or five times as much? Or ten times as much? We should have more tax brackets.

How many more? Well, why put a limit on it? After all, with simple computer programs and a massive database, it seems fairly simple to introduce a system whereby the Fed could collect. . . well, as Marx once opined, "From each according to his ability" and give "to each according to his need." (Yeah, we know: Unworkable, blah blah blah). In other words, if the budget is $3.8 trillion, then the government needs to raise from its citizens (human and corporate alike) $3.8 trillion. Tax rates could simply reflect the percentage of national income each person receives.

To illustrate a slightly simpler version of this idea: Imagine the top 1% of American "citizens" (among whom, remember, we include corporations like GE) receives 20% of the nation's wealth (a reasonable and possibly conservative assumption). They should then pay 20% of the country's expenses: $760 billion. A lot of money? Well, yes. But even if these costs are divided among only 1000 entities (and we suspect there would be more), we're talking $760 million per entity. GE can certainly afford it.

The next 1% will have earned a slightly higher percentage of the remaining national income (say 21%), so they would divvy up 21% of the remaining expenses (about $638 billion): Again, a lot of money, but still significantly less than the top 1% would have to pay and presumably divided among a larger population of payers. And if we could cut some expenses like, say, the pointless war in Afghanistan, all these amounts would shrink considerably. By the time we get to the lowest-income citizens, the individual tax bill would probably amount to pennies.

Utopian wool-gathering, we know. But it's a starting point. Perhaps not in the real world, but we have to start somewhere.

Solipsistography
Federal Budget 2011
"G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether"
Income Inequality in the United States
Savingtoinvest.com