Congressional Follies - No budget, no pay?

Now there's a proposal floating around the House, remember the House is controlled by the Republican right, that suggest raising the nations debt ceiling for 3 months.  Under the terms of this proposal, if Congress hasn't passed a budget in that time then Congress wouldn't get paid.

It seems like a fair idea.  Congress, over the years, has created the fiscal issues facing the country.  The ongoing Congressional follies have so offended voters that something around 80% have a negative opinion of congress.  Not paying employees that are not doing their job seems like a fairly good idea.  Actually firing them seems to Common Sense like a better idea, but sadly that's not on the table.

But is not paying Congress a good idea?

For openers, there is a problem with the proposal's violation of the 27th amendment.  There might be a typically Congressional way around that issue using sequestration of pay and arguing that since the money is held in escrow the 27th amendment doesn't apply.  That sort of begs the question.  Is Congress doing their job playing games like this?

There's the reality that the Senate has a long history of not passing budgets.  Life, and spending, goes on without budgets generally through the mechanism of continuing resolutions that roughly say everyone just keep spending like you've been.  The simple reality is that lack of a budget doesn't in any way effect spending!

There's the reality that Congress can, and generally does, spend money absent a budget.  Really. A budget is just that.  It doesn't actually spend any money.  Individual spending bills are where the money really gets spent.  Here it should be noted, that spending bills need not, and frequently do not, conform to budgets.  So the proposal to a significant degree just sets up a political fight without actually dealing with the reality of spending vs income, read taxes.

There's the reality that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending.  The authorization for spending has already happened and the money has already been spent.  The debt ceiling is really about allowing us to pay our bills (after all we are the government).  Here, Common Sense supposes, not paying Congress might make some sense excepting that the bill requires Congressional pay be held in escrow so the Congressional pay actually will get spent!

There's the reality that the proposal holds individual members of Congress hostage to the Congressional leadership's idea of what the budget should be.  Note here that individual members of Congress while they get to vote on the budget don't actually get to create the budget.  Rather the budget is the creation of Congressional leadership and various Congressional committees whose chairpersons and members are appointed by the Congressional leadership.  Holding Congress hostage to it's leadership is certainly not democratic.

All things considered, this latest episode of the Congressional Follies is just, sadly, more of the same.  Lets go have another political fight that means nothing and does nothing to solve the problem.

Here's an alternate common sense proposal, if the House and Senate can't deal with spending and taxes by the 90 days they want to allow themselves,  they are all bared from any future elected or paid role in federal, state, or local government and are bared from being employed by any entity doing business with any government entity.  The notion is that they would have to actually have a job like most Americans.  We'd still have to put up with the Congressional Follies for another couple of years but perhaps with a different set of employees we might actually get a Congress that is interested in actually dealing with the countries problems and not so much interested in political follies.

Related articles

• Possible snag for Republicans' no-pay budget plan
• "House Republicans to vote next week on three-month extension of debt ceiling"
• US Republicans back debt limit increase
• 27th Amendment gets publicity in budget battle
• The House's terrible idea

National debt and lies by BOTH Democrats and Republicans

FactCheck.org : Dueling Debt Deceptions:

In this year's Republican primary farce there is a more or less constant drumbeat around Obama and the national debt.  FactCheck.org, a site that Common Sense thinks is well worth subscribing to published a factual and very informative article.  Here's the gist of their analysis:

What interesting about this is that both Republicans and Democrats have so distorted the facts as to rise to outright lying!

Republicans would have us believe that Obama is responsible for the worst increase in the national debt.  He's not!  The Republican sainted Ronald Reagan actually increased the national debt by almost 5 times as a percentage as Obama albeit on a dramatically lower base.  GW Bush who's policies largely brought us the current economic crisis increased the national debt by a larger dollar amount and a larger percentage (again on a much smaller base).

Democrat's hands are almost as dirty on this issue.  Nancy Pelosi has circulated a 35% increase in the national debt under Obama based on some dated data.  But that's not true either.  Mr Obama has increased the National Debt almost as much as Mr Bush.

In defense of Mr Obama, he inherited Mr Bush's collapsed economy and financial crisis, and a do nothing Republican House that steadfastly refuses to recognize that to address an out of control unbalance budget it is necessary to both cut spending and raise taxes.  That's just common sense.

Why it doesn't matter who is president

We are once again in the midst of a presidential campaign.  I've watched with both amazement and disgust the various Republican presidential candidates and their often bizarre posturing.  Aside from campaign statements that border on lunatic ravings, I'm struck by how completely irrelevant the entire presidential election is.

Consider the issues.

The country is running unsustainable budget deficits.  Both Democrats and Republicans agree.  What they don't agree about is how to balance the budget, balance income and expenses.  Note that there are two parts to this issue, income and expenses.  The president has balanced both cuts in expenses and increases in income.  Congressional Republicans say no to increased income favoring only cuts in expenses.  Congressional Democrats, a minority in the House, are unable to change this posture.

The key point here is that the issue remains unresolved, not because of the president but because of Congress.  The country remains mired in a Great Recession not because of who is president or Presidential action or inaction but because of a completely dysfunctional Congress.

Consider if there were a Republican president.  Would things change?  I think not.  Congress would still be divided and mired in partisan inaction.  While the President's proposed policies might differ absent Congressional action the country would remain gridlocked, stuck in a protracted recession.

In this way, who is president doesn't really matter.  Changing Congress by changing senators and representatives, and changing Congressional Rules does.  It is only by changing Congress that the current gridlock can be changed.

Related articles

• Political gridlock becomes roadblock for stocks (usatoday.com)
• Could Any GOP Candidate's Jobs Plan Pass Congress? - The Atlantic (news.google.com)
• Tribal Self-Determination and Congress (indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com)
• Will voters respond to a pro-gridlock message? (washingtonmonthly.com)

Cantor - no tax hikes

House's Cantor says tax hikes off the table | Reuters:

"(Reuters) - House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said he told bipartisan talks on the U.S. deficit that tax hikes were off the table as far as the Republican-run House of Representatives was concerned."

The foolishness just roles on and on when it comes to the budget and taxes. Some relevant facts:

• Total tax breaks in the US tax code are roughly $1 trillion per year
  
• US tax rates are at or near historic lows
• In the last 50 years the tax burden has been systematically shifted to individuals and away from business
  

Clearly in Mr Cantor's mind common sense need not apply to tax breaks, tax rates, or who pays. It's long past time to look at booth sides of the budget, both spending and revenue. That's just common sense.

The direct cost of Congress

Common Sense thought it might be interesting to take a more detailed look at what Congress, our employees, actually cost.  Now Congress is the Legislative branch.  It includes both the Congress proper and a number of supporting agencies like the Congressional Budget Office and the Library of Congress.  That said the overwhelming bulk of Legislative spending is Congress proper.  It turns out that the GAO and Treasury issue Financial Statements of the U.S. Government, usually in the December following the close of the federal fiscal year, which occurs September 30.  These detail actual spending as opposed to budget by various parts of the Federal Government including, happily for our purposes, the Legislative branch.

So Common Sense took a look and compiled the data.

To put this into some kind of perspective, the 1997 annualized CPI was 160.  In 2010 it was 218.  So in 13 years the CPI, that's a good measure of what you and I had to spend rose by a factor of 1.4.  On the other hand the cost of Congress increased by a factor of 2.5!

As the discussion of the national debt, controlling spending, and taxes goes forward Common Sense thinks that Congress should get a grip spending for itself.

How to double FY 2011 savings and save an additional $40 billion over the next 10 years

Even in an era of budget cuts, these government programs won’t die - The Washington Post

In brief the article that four programs that neither Republicans nor Democrats want and that both Republican and Democratic presidents have tried to cancel cost the US taxpayers $337 million a year.  Remarkably, contrary to all common sense, these programs were NOT defunded in the recent $38 billion 2011 budget deal.  You remember that deal; that's the one that actually saved $352 million in FY 2011 and some $20 to $25 billion in the next four years.

So here's a Common Sense suggestion to double FY 2011 actual savings; kill these four programs!

Common Sense notes that it cost the US taxpayers roughly $5 billion per year in direct expenses to pay and fund Congress.  That's not $5 billion in budget but a real expense against the treasury of $5 billion per year.  As a point of reference in 1963 when John Kennedy was president Congress costs a paltry $192 million!

So here's another Common Sense suggestion to save $40 billion over the next 10 years in addition to the $38/$25/$20 billion Congress could find.  Lets cut Congress's budget to $1 billion per year.  That's still 5 times what it was during the Kennedy administration.  Surely Congress can manage on five times what they once spent.

Common Sense wonders if Congress should be on the list of four programs that ought to be cut!  Common Sense definitely believes that Congress needs some, well, common sense when it comes to spending on itself; not just spending on the rest of us.

PolitiFact | President Obama says Republican Medicare plan would cost people $6,400 more in 10 years

PolitiFact | President Obama says Republican Medicare plan would cost people $6,400 more in 10 years

Interesting piece on Medicare and the current debate. Common Sense believes that the proposed voucher 'solution' is just a way of stepping away from insuring that elders and the poor actually have reasonable health care. Many many of us have relatives and friends that use these programs. For my part both my parents' lives were extended and dramatically enhanced through Medicare. I've friends and relatives that depend on Medicaid to help them deal with long term debilitating illnesses.

Controlling the cost of medical services and thus Medicare and Medicaid expenses is clearly needed. Here it's worth noting that medical cost vary widely across treatment locations, often by factors of four or more. Indeed, Common Sense has relatives that travel to Mexico for some medical services. They note that they receive treatment by doctors trained in the US using US and EU manufactured equipment at costs a small fraction of US costs! Common Sense thinks that much of the problem with Medicare and Medicaid expenses is rooted in the US medical delivery system and its unreasonable cost structure.

S.&P. Lowers Outlook for U.S., Sending Stocks Down - NYTimes.com

S.&P. Lowers Outlook for U.S., Sending Stocks Down - NYTimes.com

Common Sense observes that it is entirely clear that actions have consequences. In this case what turned out to be entirely pointless partisan political gamesmanship (you do remember what the real budget savings were for 2011, don't you) the consequence is clear. S&P votes no confidence in the US Government. Common Sense hopes, as we all should, that Congress will take note and act responsibly to both control spending and rationalize taxes to bring the Federal budget into balance in the very near future. Certainly extending the debt ceiling quickly and without a repeat of the recent foolishness is just plain common sense. Beyond that it makes a great deal of common sense to quickly agree to a 2012 budget without holding the nation's government and now economy hostage to unrelated social agendas.

‘Gang of Six’ in the Senate Seeking a Plan on Debt - NYTimes.com

‘Gang of Six’ in the Senate Seeking a Plan on Debt - NYTimes.com

Now and then Common Sense finds some, well, common sense. Perhaps the rest of Congress could take a lesson in how to govern from these senators. Perhaps, just perhaps, the political fringe could be interested for a bit in the welfare of US citizens. At least Common Sense hopes so.

In Budget Debate, Democrats and Republicans Reassess Government's Role - NYTimes.com

In Budget Debate, Democrats and Republicans Reassess Government's Role - NYTimes.com

This is an interesting and thoughtful article that's well worth reading. It has Common Sense thinking about the issues we face today and into the future.

Conservatives have made much of adhering to the founding principles of the United States. While these principles have served the US well they are not entirely fixed. Indeed, national constitutions are by their nature living documents that must evolve to meet changing conditions in the governed society and the world as a whole. That this is true is abundantly clear when one considers the history of nations.

Consider that when the US was created society and the world were much different places. Gigantic organized capital didn't exist in the way it does today. Neither did multinational corporations, or enormous financial institutions. There were far fewer people to govern. International trade was far different. Communications and travel far more difficult. Warfare not nearly as massively destructive. These and other changes in society and the world have, of necessity, lead to changes in the role Government should play in a just society.

Common Sense believes that the only justification for government is to provide for the welfare of the governed society.  It's worth remembering the preamble to the US Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Those that call for adhering to founding principles should keep the preamble foremost in mind.  They should note that the basic motivation for the US government is clearly rooted in the welfare of the governed as a society.

This perspective has real implications in current debates about the role of government.  It provides a guiding principle that cuts through ideological purity to focus government action clearly on the needs of the governed.  It rejects the notions of a "nanny government" while recognizing that safe food, safe drugs, clean water, healthy air, and many other government programs in fact clearly address the general welfare.  Likewise, it rejects the notions of "minimalist government" and recognizes that it is a proper role of government to protect the govern from the abuses of  powerful forces and events well beyond the capacity of an individual to confront.

Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected - The Washington Post

Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected - The Washington Post

So it seems that after much sound and fury and almost shutting down the Federal government that the actual money saved in the fiscal 2011 budget was $352 million dollars! That's right million not trillion, not even billion! When pressed both the House and Senate Congressional leaders argued that the cuts were real in that they set a lower base for future spending, more precisely by reducing spending authorization previously approved.

As the article points out, the Federal budget isn't a simple thing and spans multiple years. That's all good and well, but fails rather badly a common sense test. The Federal government has to continue to borrow very heavily to pay current bills not money appropriated but not yet actually spent! Not money in the future, but money today.

As of January 31, 2011, Treasury was $215 billion below the debt limit of $14.294 trillion. Now we're about to have to raise the Federal debt ceiling again. So in the last three or four months the Federal government has spent $215 billion more than tax revenue. OK, so while Congress almost shuts down the Federal government and saves a real $352 million in fiscal 2011 the Treasury borrowed $215 billion, some 600 times as much money in three months!

Common Sense wonders are we suppose to believe Congress is actually doing its job? While Common Sense doesn't think much of the Tea Party's extremest position to reduce spending while leaving taxes alone, they are entirely right that there is a real problem. Spending is certainly part of the problem, but so are taxes. A tax code that over $1 trillion in deductions and credits just doesn't pass the common sense test.

Common Sense thinks it's time to reform both real spending and real taxes. Common Sense thinks that it's time for Congress and the President to deal with Federal spending and taxes realistically. Claiming billions of savings when the actual number is millions while the Treasury borrows billions is not simply deceptive, it's a disservice to voters! It's also simply put a lie! Common Sense thinks that Americans deserve better, much better, from our employees.

Common sense and the Federal budget

What's wrong with spending cuts?  Nothing really.  But, when you think about budgets there's another side - income.  If all Congress and the President does is look at spending then they ignore one of the most valuable budget balancing measures - taxes.

Think not?  Here are the facts.

According to the President's Debt Commission reforming the tax code by 1) lowering tax rates for individuals and corporations, and 2) reducing or eliminating tax breaks in the tax code would yield over $1 trillion, that's right TRILLION, in additional tax income!  Depending on which version of the numbers you like the 2010 deficit is $1.3 trillion.  Simplifying the tax code and eliminating tax breaks by itself solves way more than half the problem!  Even if all tax breaks were not eliminated, say the mortgage interest deduction, tax rates could still be reduced, though not as much, and still yield over $1 trillion in additional revenue!

Adopting President Obama's proposed increased taxes on individuals making over $200,000 and couples over $250,000 would yield over $1 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years according to the CBO!  Perhaps the most well to do Americans should pay a bit more.

Letting the Bush era tax cuts expire would yield over $3 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years according to the CBO.  You remember the Bush era that lead up to the near collapse of the US financial services industry and trillion dollar Federal bailouts that contributed to ballooning Federal deficits.  Perhaps they weren't all such a good idea.

Common Sense's point is that balancing a budget and reducing debt is about BOTH controlling spending and generating revenue.  To try and solve the budget deficits by focusing only on spending will lead to gutting programs that benefit many, often the most vulnerable, Americans like your parents on Medicare or the single mother that can't afford to feed her children while working a minimum wage job and needs food stamps.  Common Sense thinks America is better than that, much better.

Making changes to the tax code that eliminate corporate welfare, reduce or eliminate excessive and irresponsible tax breaks for everyone, and have more reasonable rates for everyone is just plain common sense.  Not doing so because it offends the purity of political dogma is not only irresponsible but clearly leads to devastating social outcomes that ultimately are bad for all Americans.  It's time for some common sense discussions about taxes.

Does the President really matter? Not so much!

The ongoing nonsense with the 2011 Federal budget has Common Sense wondering: does the President really matter?  Common Sense thinks "not so much!"   Consider what we all just saw.

Round 1 back in 2010 when Congress was supposed to pass a budget.  Remember back then when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.  President Obama proposed a budget.  It didn't get passed.  Among the reasons was that then House Speaker Ms. Pelosi couldn't get the Democratic House to agree.  Of course getting the Democrats, or as we have recently learned the Republicans, to agree is rather like herding cats.  But, hey, what do you expect when you don't elect adults to Congress.  The point is that President Obama didn't really matter.  The House Speaker couldn't get her own caucus to agree to a budget!

Spin forward a bit.  Now we have a Republican House with a radical right committed to both less spending and extreme right cultural ideology.  In this case Mr. Boehner couldn't get his caucus to agree.  So we still don't have a budget for the current fiscal year.  In this most recent round there was a very private, that is to say the American public who has to live with the result doesn't get to know what transpired, negotiation between House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  While it's true that President Obama had a voice, when it came right down to it the Congress lead by the Speaker and Majority Leader had to act BEFORE President Obama even mattered!

That's Common Sense's point.  While the President has considerable power in some areas when it comes to legislation he is virtually impotent!  It's Congress that passes legislation!  Without a Congress willing to act in the interest of the American people the President doesn't matter very much!

In recent years Presidents used to have rather more influence on Congress.  Likewise, Congressional leaders could actually lead.  But today things have changed.  Today we have undisciplined political parties,  particularly on the right.  We have representatives that are not especially interested in good governance for the American people but in cultural ideology.

In Common Sense's view, Congress is badly broken and congressional reform long overdue.  It's time we focused less on who's President and more, much more, on who we elect to Congress.  It's time we stopped voting for cultural and ideological demagogues and started electing common sense adults interested in the good of the American public!

Should employees that don't do their job be paid?

The most recent nonsense about the 2011 Federal budget has Common Sense wondering, why do we continue to pay congress when they don't do their job?  In the real world if you or I don't do our job for 6 months we get fired.  But congressmen are apparently immune to the the realities the average citizen has to deal with.  They continue to get paid and don't get fired!  Why is this?

Common Sense thinks it's time that's changed.  Perhaps it time congressional pay is tied to performance.  Who knows, perhaps performance based compensation would put a stop to the incessant idealogical purity wars, talking points imitating for reason, and political posturing.  Perhaps no pay would cause the worst of the ideologues out of congress and allow some common sense legislators to be elected.  Just a common sense POV.

Union Busting: Wisconsin governor signs bill restricting public workers' rights

Wisconsin governor signs bill restricting public workers' rights


Raises would be tied to the rate of inflation, unless state voters approve an exception. The legislation also requires unions to hold a new certification vote every year, and unions would no longer be allowed to collect dues from workers' paychecks.

Some weeks ago when this affair began Mr. Walker, the governor, repeatedly said that this was about the Wisconsin budget deficit, a deficit that he helped create.  Unable to pass a budget bill because the minority Democrats in the state senate left the state and the senate couldn't muster the quorum needed to pass a spending bill, Mr. Walker and his Republican partisans removed the spending measures and passed a union busting bill.

First, this was never really about spending.  Rather it was a mean spirited move to break the state employees union.  While Common Sense is not a great fan of unions, this bill with its requirement for yearly recertification is simply wrong.

Second, it is not plainly clear that Mr. Walker is more concerned about idealogical purity than the Wisconsin budget.  Throughout the process the union indicated a willingness to compromise on money.  As things now stand Wisconsin's budget issues have not been addressed and the state employee's union is justifiably outraged.   It appears that many of the state's voters are likewise disgusted with the blatant hypocrisy  displayed by Mr. Walker and his radical Republican cohorts as evidenced by several recall petitions.

In Common Sense's view this is not the politics of democratic common good.  Rather it is a sad example of radical ideological purity perverting government.  When a majority disregards the legitimate concerns of a minority democracy is simply mob rule.  When a majority is unwilling to negotiate with those that disagree with them based on ideological purity then democracy has been replaced by religious rule.  This is a sad case study in what is wrong with American politics and a wakeup call for serious reform and the need for a centrist political party.

Juxtaposed: Education, reality, and Pennsylvania

Corbett nominee says new high school tests will be delayed


By Adrienne Lu


Inquirer Staff Writer


HARRISBURG - Gov. Corbett's nominee to lead the state's Education Department said at his confirmation hearing Monday that implementation of the new Keystone high school graduation exams would be delayed because field tests had indicated students were not well enough prepared for them.


The first exams were to be given at many schools this spring in Algebra 1, biology, and literature. Tests in seven other subjects were to be phased in by the 2016-17 school year.


"It's a good time to take a step back and make sure that, when we go forward to implement a higher-stakes test, that our students are able to pass the test that . . . we're forcing them to pass," Ronald Tomalis said. "The preliminary indications are that it's going to be very challenging in many areas."

Recently American education has been much in the news.  The 2011 Federal budget proposes cuts that would impact education spending nationwide; President Obama has focused on improving education visiting several schools and calling for increased education spending; and the Governor of Wisconsin has proposed a law that would effectively strip government employee unions, particularly teachers, of much of their collective bargaining rights.  Into this mix add the state of Pennsylvania where the governors Education Department nominee called for delaying objective performance tests for high school students noting that it was important that students should be able to pass the tests.

Common Sense has a couple of observations.  Clearly Mr Tomalis, the Education Department nominee, believes that a significant number of Pennsylvania high school students could not pass the proposed tests.  In other words, the education establishment in Pennsylvania at least is unable to actually educate enough students and if students are tested the results will be poor.  Proof positive in Common Sense's view that education is broken.

Noteworthy as well is Mr Tomalis solution - don't test, at least until passing can be guaranteed!  That amounts to arguing that the solution to incompetent and ineffectual education is to sweep it under the rug at least for a while.  But what about the students that are being sent through the education system and not educated?  What about the taxpayers that are spending money for education and not getting it?  Isn't it time the education establishment started living in the real world where results matter?  Common Sense thinks so.

Beyond that though there is an underlying assumption that high school students should be able to pass.  That's something of a two sided notion.  If education works then indeed the majority of students should be able to pass.  But, and it's an important but, a high school diploma should not simply be an attendance certificate.  Rather it should reflect a level of competency.  As such not everyone would have the same competency and indeed some would not be sufficiently competent.  Perhaps it's time to take an accomplishment view of high school.

Just a Common Sense POV.