Warning to the GOP: don't overplay your hand in the March fiscal cliff

In the winter of 1995-1996 there was a death with repercussions lasting a decade. The deceased was the Newt Gingrich Republican Revolution.

It was a self-inflicted wound. The weapon used to commit suicide was the shutting down of government for days, used as a GOP bludgeon in arguments over the budget. So angered were the voters that in the next election cycle, Bill Clinton was re-elected easily.

In 2011, the GOP used the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip again and the economy took a measurable dip. In 2013, the debt ceiling, continuation of the resolution to fund government, sequestered spending cuts, and raising the debt limit unite in a perfect storm of entangled issues in March. The GOP should know from past experience if they overplay their hand, they risk a public backfire and a dent in economic growth.

The compromise avoiding the fiscal cliff on Jan. 2, also delayed debate on sequestered spending cuts for 60 days. The GOP is threatening to use disapproval of raising the debt limit and shutting down government as bargaining chips to get their way. They think they have a hot one, too. Hot, indeed.

What they may have done is set up the possibility of some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the past 125 years, addressing the fundamental question of the separation of powers. Just how far does the GOP want to take their “leverage?” Are we now headed for a constitutional crisis, too? Do they really want to default on our loans if we do not raise the debt ceiling and imperil the economy to get their way over the debt ceiling? A wiser Newt Gingrich called this strategy a “dead loser” last week. Or is this just more brinkmanship bluffing?

While not precluding reduction in spending or more revenue enhancement, the president made it clear in remarks Jan. 2 he would not allow the GOP to use the debt ceiling to get their way on future spending cuts. The president staked his legal claim that Congress voted for the expenditures and he had the obligation to pay bills as they came due. That is indeed a major constitutional issue the Supreme Court could decide: Can Congress keep him from his duty as the executive branch to pay bills Congress had already authorized?

The president could also choose to tap the 14th Amendment, daring the GOP sue him and throw the issue to the Supreme Court. The president could continue to make good on payments on bonds (treasury notes) even if Congress forbids him from doing it. At issue is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution regarding the executive's power to pay bonds as they came due. Legal experts are divided so the outcome could be risky for both parties.

The question is not whether the debt problem should be tackled: Both the GOP and the Democrats know it must happen to avoid a credit rating downgrade or future economic problems. The issue is how. That “entitlements” need trimming is also acknowledged by both sides of the aisle and the Pentagon budget also needs close scrutiny. It is a matter of coming up with ways acceptable to a bipartisan coalition large enough to get it through Congress.

The GOP is laboring under a questionable belief they have the public mandate because they were re-elected to be the majority in the House. Some 2011 gerrymandering resulting in more safe districts for conservatives may have been greater factors. Public opinion polls in November 2012 showed more than 60 percent supporting balanced taxing and cuts. Public opinion also counted in the mid-90s when the GOP shut down government and the Republicans paid the price in the next election.



This is my column that appeared in the www.skyhidailynews.com today

For more, go to  www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

Is there an emerging pragmatic middle, a coalition of the willing to compromise?

The painful Congressional machinations to avoid the fiscal cliff and defaulting on our loans up to now had been an irresistible force meeting an unmovable object. What we have needed is the emergence of a strong, pragmatic middle, a coalition of the willing to compromise. Whatever middle is born this week will be on life support through March. Debates on tax policies, budget cuts, defense spending, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and debt reduction will take place in a series of votes on the fiscal cliff, dire budget cuts, debt ceiling, and in “the continuing resolution” to avoid a government shutdown. Just what we need: a government shutdown, the final evidence of a dysfunctional democracy.

These votes will signal whether a pragmatic middle has grown strong enough in Congress to control the political process and to marginalize those unmovable objects, straight jacketed by ideology, pledges, campaign promises, and lobbyists.

Recently I heard liberals tagging Tea Party members of Congress as “extremists”. I reached for my dictionaries. General consensus is that someone is extreme if they are out of the mainstream of thought. Common wisdom is that we are so polarized, there is no mainstream. We are all extremists: Anti tax on one side and pro unaltered social programs on the other and nothing in between.

However, exit polls in November showed over 60 percent of all voters, more than voted for Pre. Obama, supported increasing taxes on the rich and a balanced approach of some cuts, some tax increases. This may be an emerging new mainstream that is somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. The question is will the new mainstream be reflected in Congress to be sufficiently powerful in the next couple of months to overcome filibusters and parliamentary tricks.

The fundamental problem is that compromise has become a dirty word, yet It is the heart of our political system. Our founding fathers hammered out many compromises in formulating our Constitution and the amendments. They constructed a government they had hoped would balance power, protecting the minority from absolute rule of the majority, while allowing the majority to rule. They gave us a Congress with a platform to work out differences. Since then, Congress has established rules that have allowed a minority to be the tail wagging the majority dog by abusing the filibuster, certain party caucus practices, and denying votes on issues. Those rules are compromise killers and stonewall enablers.

To make the process even more dysfunctional, the Tea Party caucus and fellow travelers are not only anti-tax, they are anti-compromise. They have been throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of our Constitutional government dependent on compromise. They seem to be willing to kill economic recovery in the name of tax protesting ideological purity, opposing a 4 percent tax increase on 2 or 3 percent of the rich, no matter what ratio of cost cutting to tax increases the Administration offers them. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that raising such taxes on the top would not hurt the economy, in spite of Tea Party claims.

To their credit, the left has been a bit more pragmatic. While grousing about any tinkering with “entitlements,” they so far seem unwilling to vote against compromises the President makes. If the cliff and debt ceiling debates result in deadlock, and our economy crashes, the Tea Party is more likely to get the blame. They can hide in gerrymandered safe districts. However, those from more diverse districts who join them should fear voters' wrath in the next election cycle.

The laurel leaf of voter approval in the future will be awarded to members of a new moderate coalition formed from both parties to solve our problems in a balanced, fair way. Democracy based on compromise will then function again.

This is a column that appeared in the www.skyhidailynews.com today

For more, visit www.mufticforumblog.blogspot.com and www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com