comments_image Comments

A Cruel, Irresponsible and Dysfunctional Budget Deal

Forcing others to lurch from crisis to crisis so that you can tell yourself you have taken “a step in the right direction” is socially and economically dysfunctional.
 
 
Share

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray speaks at a press conference announcing a bipartisan budget deal, as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan looks on at the US Capitol on December 10, 2013 in Washington, DC

 

The following article first appeared in the Nation. Sign up for their newsletter here. 

The trouble with making “functional” government the great aspiration of the American experiment – as so many pundits and politicians now do – is that a smoothly operating Congress is not necessarily moral, humane or even economically smart.

It is important to remember this disconnect as we consider the budget deal  announced late Tuesday by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, and Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray, D-Washington.

“This agreement breaks through the recent dysfunction to prevent another government shutdown and roll back sequestration’s cuts to defense and domestic investments in a balanced way,”  said Murray. “It’s a good step in the right direction that can hopefully rebuild some trust and serve as a foundation for continued bipartisan work.”

Ryan was equally self-congratulatory, declaring that – after a fall the saw a government shutdown, nasty wrangling over the historically uncontroversial task of raising the debt ceiling and general congressional dysfunction – he and Murray had achieved “ a clear improvement on the status quo.”

“This agreement makes sure that we don't have a government shutdown scenario in January,”  he added. “It makes sure we don't have another government shutdown scenario in October. It makes sure that we don't lurch from crisis to crisis."

Murray and Ryan are excited that they had stopped fighting for long enough to agree to $63 billion in “ sequester relief” – as opposed to an actual end to sequestration – and $23 billion in net deficit reduction. They're also glad that they have set the discretionary spending level for fiscal year 2014 at $1.012 trillion, while setting the level at $1.014 trillion for fiscal year 2015. That apparently qualifies – in the eyes of the budget negotiators – as a sufficient alternative to lurching from crisis to crisis.

But the agreement does not address the crises that matter. “This plan won't create jobs, get the economy back on track, or meaningfully cut the deficit,” explains Congressman  Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon.

And that's not the worst of it.

The following piece first appeared in the Nation. For more great content, sign up for their newsletter. 

What of the 1.3 million jobless Americans who – with a fully Dickensian twist – now stand to lose Federal unemployment benefits three days after Christmas?

The budget agreement does not look like a “step in the right direction” for them. And unless Democrats succeed in renewing benefits in a distinct piece of legislation that apparently must pass this week – as Congress is moving rapidly toward recess – many of the most economically vulnerable Americans will be “lurching from crisis to crisis” very soon.

Their crisis is our crisis. According to the non-partisan  Congressional Budget Office, extending benefits for the long-term unemployed would boost a still slow economy by two-tenths of a percent in the coming year – creating 200,000 needed jobs. As the CBO explains: “Recipients of the additional benefits would increase their spending on consumer goods and services. That increase in aggregate demand would encourage businesses to boost production and hire more workers than they otherwise would, particularly given the expected slack in the capital and  labor markets.”

Without providing for the extension, something that easily and appropriately could have been done in the budget agreement, Ryan and Murray failed in their most basic humanitarian and economic duties.

And what of the  federal workers and members of the military who will be required to take what is effectively a pay cut in order to pay more for their retirement benefits?

 
See more stories tagged with: