You Can Safely Blame “Centrism” for Most of Our Fiscal Problems
Dana Milbank’s column in today’s Washington Post is impressively incoherent:
The federal debt has exploded to an incomprehensible $12.1 trillion, and the nation continues on its path to becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the People’s Republic of China. Yet lawmakers can’t even agree on a modest proposal to form an independent debt commission and then vote on its recommendations.
The debt commission is expected to be voted down Tuesday morning, as foes on the far left and the far right unite to form a status quo supermajority. Prospects have become so bleak that a couple of retired congressional leaders got together Monday morning in hopes of shaming their former colleagues into action.
Assuming words haven’t suddenly lost all meaning, it is literally impossible for an extremist fringe to constitute a supermajority. For that to happen, any given fringe would have to come in striking distance of a plurality, in which case, it wouldn’t actually be a fringe.
That bit of logical incoherence notwithstanding, Milbank’s column is a pitch perfect example of how Beltway elites are utterly incapable of correctly identifying or explaining problems, especially ones for which they are intimately responsible. Our bleak fiscal outlook is mostly due to the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial collapse. Put another way, each of the policies responsible for the deficit were supported, sometimes enthusiastically, by the “center” of American politics. Beltway elites — Democrats and Republicans — gleefully signed on to massive tax cuts, senseless “projection” of American power, and deregulation of the financial sector.
If anything, the “fringe” that Milbank (and other Beltway elites) deride was responsible for putting up what little resistance there was to the most egregiously “centrist” policies. Paleo-cons and progressives were, and are, deeply skeptical of the wars, the tax cuts, and the frenzy of deregulation that characterized the late-Clinton and Bush eras. And now, in this era of massive deficits, it’s the “fringe” advocating policies and approaches that actually have a chance of solving the problem. Progressives and reform-minded conservatives (which in the conservative movement, is a fringe view) recognize the need for tax increases, reduced military spending, and a restructuring of federal entitlements. Of course, there are serious points of disagreement, but let’s not pretend like its the fringes who are to blame for America’s sorry shape. That distinction belongs to the Beltway elites who dominate our political discourse.
(cross-posted from my blog)
“Our bleak fiscal outlook is mostly due to the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial collapse.”
Actually, I’m not sure this is true–if I recall correctly, it’s health care costs that cause most of the problem, at least in the longer term that we’re concerned with here.Report
The transition from the Clinton-era surpluses to the Bush-era deficits through 2007 can be largely accounted for by the reduction in revenues caused by Bush’s tax cuts and the spending increases caused by the two wars. If those two things hadn’t changed, the US would probably have maintained a surplus up until the economic crisis.Report
Assuming words haven’t suddenly lost all meaning, it is literally impossible for an extremist fringe to constitute a supermajority. For that to happen, any given fringe would have to come in striking distance of a plurality, in which case, it wouldn’t actually be a fringe.
In addition, a “far right” and “far left” are, by definition, reactionaries and radicals, and thus not in favour of the status quo, and certainly not in favour of the same status quo.Report
Wow.
I used to work for a Dept. of Welfare IT dept. Over and over the same thing. “We gotta help folks,” from the left. “But not too much” from the right. And so we stuck to the center; enough help that folks got stuck in poverty, not enough to lift them out.
Great blogging, Jamelle. Sometimes, it’s time to push the center far enough out on a limb to try something new.Report
Great post, Jamelle. Perhaps a few minor disagreements on the edges, but your thesis is dead on. WRT the economy – either we need to get spending under control, and stat, or we need to spend like mad (and, yes, pay for it with taxes). What we don’t need, absolutely don’t need, is to enact a bunch of half-assed measures that accomplish exactly zero of practical value except to exacerbate existing problems while making us feel that we did something. Which, of course, is exactly the sort of policymaking that got us in this situation in the first place.Report
Very good comments, Jamelle.
Sadly, that amendment proposing the bipartisan task force to reduce the budget was defeated. The vote was 53 to 46, seven votes short of the 60 needed. But note that it was an amendment to a bill that would extend the debt ceiling and borrow and additional $1.9 trillion. Also of note, the named lobby that opposed the amendment: AARP. The Beltway elites definitely include these powerful lobbies.
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/msnbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=23331782Report
The commie-dems control the gummint, they don’t require one recalcitrant Republican vote. Why don’t they ‘fix’ this mess in the ten months they have remaining?Report
Bob, you’re stuck on last week’s talking points. The new one is that the GOP has a 41-59 majority in the Senate now, so Dems need to embrace bipartisanship.Report
Because they’re wimps who aren’t willing to ride out a fillibuster? That’s my guess.Report
They talk about this in Revelation.
3:16, baby.
Good essay.Report
I spew thee out of my mouth.Report