Budget talks: This is getting nasty

The other thing, which is perpetually forgotten by everyone in political discussions, including me, is that nothing is permanent. Whatever is agreed to today can and will be ignored or reversed in the future. No Congress can make laws other Congresses cannot reverse if they so desire.

 

I know there's a ton of time between now and Nov. 2012, but I'm stunned at how many people now think Obama will be a one-term president.

 

The political science research on this is very clear. Presidents get judged on how the economy is doing and on wars. Nothing else. The identity and policies of their opponents mean very little. That is why Presidents are insane, if, like Obama, they attempt to conciliate their opposition. The incentives point them towards being as dictatorial as they can be to pursue economic growth. Congress has already basically given Presidents dictatorial war powers.
The forthcoming budget cuts will guarantee no strong growth from now until 2013. Obama is cutting his own throat.
The fun will start in 2013 when President Republican abruptly reverses party policy and starts trying to run up the deficit to increase growth.

 

Hard to disagree with that post.

 

The agreement, as reported by ABC News, is fascinating in its way. It is a complete attempt by the Congress to do things without having to take votes to do them in which individual members are on the record for or against anything.
Debt limit? Let Obama raise it. Budget cuts? We'll set up a special commission with extraconstitutional powers, and then when they fail, it just happens. Don't blame us for cuts in Medicare or your employer's loss of that defense contract. It's the system.
It never ceases to amaze me that go many people run for office to get into government where their primary objective becomes attempting not to get caught governing.

 

I agree with every word of that.

 

PS: I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the agreement contains a pledge to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. Talk about an empty promise. Sure, we'll let you vote on something we know we have the votes to defeat. The last constitutional amendment mandating a major change in public policy (as opposed to the mechanics of the government) was Repeal.
But a purely symbolic vote is the one kind of vote Congresspeople LIKE to cast.

 

One last post, I promise. The liberal Democrats and Tea Party type Republicans in the House who will vote against this deal tomorrow are, from the point of view of self-interest, the only pols doing the right thing. This deal is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular when the automatic cuts kick in and Granny doesn't get that liver transplant. I predict many of those who vote yes will be running against their own vote by this time next year.

 

Because actually governing requires risking one of the most plum and perk-laden jobs available.

I don't like this deal either. And I agree with you that Obama, once again, did a horrible job of negotiating. But if one side of the negotiation is willing to drive itself and you over the cliff, negotiation isn't so easy.

 

I have long maintained that one excellent change to the U.S. system would require Congresspeople and the President to be paid exactly the median annual income for a family of four in the U.S. and that using any other source of income (most are very rich) to live while in office would earn a two-year prison term.

 

Obama is probably still better than 50-50 to win re-election, but that's because the potential Republican alternatives aren't any better and votes for third party candidates are essentially wasted.

If Obama wins next year, it will be in spite of himself, not because of himself.

 

Nice idea. But it would require being passed by...you guessed it...members of Congress!