Should We Hope For Congressional Gridlock?

[Guest]

In case no one has noticed, all the federal programs which will expire at the end of 2012 will have the effect of cutting the annual deficit by about 80%, from about $1.5 trillion per year to about $300 billion.

The changes won't be painless for us. the biggest thing expiring are the Bush tax cuts (actually, we can call them the Obama tax cuts, as he extended them two years ago). Our taxes will increase noticeably. Defense spending will be cut dramatically. Lots of people receiving unemployment payments will be cut off after New Year's Day. Lots of federal programs will be cut. The Government Accounting Office projects that our economic growth would return to negative numbers (return to recession) and unemployment would increase by about 1%.

Mitt Romney has proposed letting everything expire, let the new Congress and whomever is elected POTUS deal with the (big) problems, rather than any lame duck Congress and White House.

So what do you think? Should we actually desire more of the political gridlock we've experienced? Or should we want Congress to rush thru a bunch of legislation to reverse what is now scheduled to happen? If we thought we had complaints about the transparency of the legislative process or Congress not reading the bills they vote on, what would a slap-dash legislative effort to fix all this stuff in just two months bring?

For me, I hope we have more gridlock, both in the lame duck Congress as well as in the new one elected this November. They haven't done anything close to being fiscally responsible for years. Now, by continuing ideological gridlock, maybe something good will result.

But like I said--it won't be without pain to all of us. Remember what Angela Merkel said about being astonished at how spending more than you take in is even a subject for debate.

[Guest]

In case no one has noticed, all the federal programs which will expire at the end of 2012 will have the effect of cutting the annual deficit by about 80%, from about $1.5 trillion per year to about $300 billion.

The changes won't be painless for us. the biggest thing expiring are the Bush tax cuts (actually, we can call them the Obama tax cuts, as he extended them two years ago). Our taxes will increase noticeably. Defense spending will be cut dramatically. Lots of people receiving unemployment payments will be cut off after New Year's Day. Lots of federal programs will be cut. The Government Accounting Office projects that our economic growth would return to negative numbers (return to recession) and unemployment would increase by about 1%.

Mitt Romney has proposed letting everything expire, let the new Congress and whomever is elected POTUS deal with the (big) problems, rather than any lame duck Congress and White House.

So what do you think? Should we actually desire more of the political gridlock we've experienced? Or should we want Congress to rush thru a bunch of legislation to reverse what is now scheduled to happen? If we thought we had complaints about the transparency of the legislative process or Congress not reading the bills they vote on, what would a slap-dash legislative effort to fix all this stuff in just two months bring?

For me, I hope we have more gridlock, both in the lame duck Congress as well as in the new one elected this November. They haven't done anything close to being fiscally responsible for years. Now, by continuing ideological gridlock, maybe something good will result.

But like I said--it won't be without pain to all of us. Remember what Angela Merkel said about being astonished at how spending more than you take in is even a subject for debate.


I really appreciate you posting this because it is something that we all have to be aware of and forget the Bain, etc rhetoric for a bit.

It also gets me thinking in an area that I am not that strong in and have difficulty with.

I did spend some time this afternoon doing some reading on this specific item. While I may agree with Romney in the overall picture, I am not sure that allowing all this to happen at one time is of benefit to the country. Obviously a phasing in of the important items...reduce ONLY spending at this time on non essential items and allow all the tax cuts etc to stay in place.

I really need to do more reading now because I thought I understood the failure of the so called Super Committee, and I obviously do not..except it appears it was pretty much all political. In Nov of 2011, Wall St Journal had an opinion piece on why it failed....I link to it but not going to quote it much as it becomes very political and I would love to hear others comment on this without the political rhetoric.

Jeb Hensarling: Why the Super Committee Failed - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204531404577052240098105190.html)

[Guest]

VK - Much as it's tempting to imagine how maybe some grassroots public, altruistic democratic forces would rescue us, I can think of innumerable reasons why this country would not be able to right itself and move toward economic stability by first collapsing in dysfunction. It's like your other recent ruminations about defaulting.
We are just too big, too diverse and too high on the world economic pecking order. We are not Iceland or Greece.
We would have to sink much lower, and a 'do nothing' Chief Executive will do nothing to reverse the direction - but will get us there faster.

Bucco - I think we must cut spending by regulating where finances go. We must continue to aggressively fund education, health care and job support for poorer and middle class citizens as well as research and development in energy production and all other cutting-edge fields. Eventually our deficit and a large part of the bill for these new costs can by paid by standing down in our role as permanent, physically present world peacekeepers. The rest can be paid by levying higher taxes on those who have the good fortune and privilege of living here and the ability to pay. These two concepts: 'defense' and taxes are anathama. But our current President is a realist who keeps reminding us of how this is our path out of the mess and toward stability.

[Guest]

Remember, in DC a Cut is not really a cut, it is a decrease in the amount of the increase. Say a program is normally increased by 10% is increased by 5%, that is considered a 5% cut.

[Guest]

Remember, in DC a Cut is not really a cut, it is a decrease in the amount of the increase. Say a program is normally increased by 10% is increased by 5%, that is considered a 5% cut.

Off the topic, but it just shows how figures can lie. When I moved here, some of my women friends warned me about all the hoopla about STD rates. (They really didnt have to warn me.) So I looked into it and found out that ALL instances of STD MUST be reported. So the one time that it was publicized that some STD rate had DOUBLED IN ONE YEAR!, what it meant was that in that year there were 4 cases of that particular disease, while the year before there were 2. Others had gone down but they werent mentioned. Scratch the surface and youll never know what youll find.

[Guest]

You don't have to speculate about congressional gridlock. Speaker John Boehner is leading his house members to their ninth recess this year starting Monday. What other job can you have in this country where you make over $170,000 a year and have over nine weeks vacation in under six months? All the while student loan rates are scheduled to double by the end of the month.

[Guest]

With an approval rating of about 15%, we should all hope that Congress does nothing. Doing nothing is an improvement.

There will be a Democratic House come November.