Joe Biden tried to convince House Democrats yesterday that the administration was finally going to get off its ass and do something about job creation.
"There was a sort of a sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's head. This is the debt limit. And it was -- I don't want to use pejorative terms -- but it was used as the means by which, unless certain compromises were made, we would default on our debt.... From the moment this passes, if it passes, when it's signed in to law, we will talking about nothing from then but about jobs."
The only problem with that is that, well, it's not true.
The question, of course, is how does the administration go from deflationary economic policy towards demand-increasing and job-creating policy?
The obvious answer is infrastructure spending. Highways, bridges etc. Put more people back to work, build public goods, take advantage of historically low borrowing costs.
The only problem?
The White House allowed infrastructure to become the new hostage.
According to . . . the White House!
4. A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER
•The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.
•Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.
•Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table: If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education. That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.
First of all, the idea that the triggers will "make all sides come together" is so funny it makes rational people want to cry. Apparently the author of this fact sheet did not pay attention to the debt ceiling debate. Or the previous Congress.
The Republicans in Congress are not capable of good faith negotiations. They cannot compromise any more than a dog can fly.
Moreover:
Furthermore, Feehery says, Democrats will resist entitlement reform and Republicans won’t want to give Obama a victory on tax reform as he’s gearing up for reelection. “It doesn’t make sense,” he says. “If the president gets reelected, you do it then. If he doesn’t, then you make a deal with a Republican president.”
Feehery predicts Republicans won’t name people like that to the special committee. “I’m pretty sure neither Boehner nor McConnell is going to put anyone out there who might possibly go wobbly on taxes,” he says. “I don’t think Coburn will be one of the three. I like Tom Coburn. I like what he did, but I just don’t know if McConnell wants to take that fight on.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
Indeed. No revenue increases has always been the sticking point. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are sacrosanct.
But, for those who love compromise and bipartisanship, not all is lost.
Reid suggested Monday that he is not inclined to name anyone whose views are already known. “It’s extremely important that I pick people who are willing to make hard choices but are not locked in,” he told reporters at the Capitol. “I think it doesn’t bode well for me to choose somebody that the world knows how they feel about it before they go into it.”
So, let's repeat: Job creation and infrastructure development, as well as "win the future" type education stuff, is a hostage to the Super Committee, and will get shot in the head unless that Committee produces an agreement. But, that committee will not produce an agreement that raises revenues. So, if there is an agreement, it will have to be Democrats who accomodate Republican demands.
Anyone care to wager what the Democrats wind up surrendering? Do they just say 'fuckit' to job creation, or do they agree to cave on taxes and raise the Medicare eligibility aid in order to fund Race to the Top and infrastructure?
Or, what is the administration's plan to talk about 'nothing but jobs?" Or, is it their plan to just talk about jobs, but not do a damn thing and hope voters choose to re-elect the President in the midst of a double-dip recession?