Monday, August 1, 2011

A truly sad compromise?

Let's hear it for our heroic congresspeople who have averted an apocalyptic federal default!  ...Ignoring for the moment that it was a crisis of their and their colleague's own making.  But now that the deal has been all but approved, all that's left is for the talking heads to determine who won and lost in this whole debacle.

I've come across an old saw that "a really good compromise is the one that leaves both sides equally dissatisfied" in a few different and eclectic contexts recently -- the NFL lockout, A Dance with Dragons.  So potentially, both sides should be and, indeed, are "find[ing] fault with [the] bill."  However, not all of those opinions are easy to reconcile with each other or the standard partisan storylines.

Who better to turn to to Monday-morning-quarterback the debt deal than TMQ?  As usual, Gregg Easterbrook promptly chimed in with a diatribe against government bureaucracy, waste and duplicity.  While I don't always find his overall arguments convincing (parse the comments here), he's usually good at pointing out obvious doublespeak.  I'd noticed that the spending cuts are spread out over ten years -- more than enough time for the current class of politicians to retire to a rich life of consulting, speaking and ghostwriting fees while their successors gut the deal's restrictions.  And, does anyone really trust that another committee will come up with meaningful cuts?  It all does smack of sophist passing of the buck.

So the deal must be a big disappointment for those who want to roll back big government, right?  But for a head-scratching reversal of the defeatist script above, the Wall Street Journal is touting the deal as a victory for the Tea Party.  Hold the phone -- this evasion of real government cutbacks is a win for the most ardent fiscal conservatives?  What gives?

Well, for a start, WSJ's disagreements with TMQ are in some spots based on a higher level of faith in the deal.  Their editorial claims that "The immediate spending cuts are real," qualifies that "If the cuts hold," and also touts abstract victories such as a "reshaped... U.S. fiscal debate."  And it does acknowledge both that "liberals are howling" and that "conservative Republicans and their talk radio minders may denounce this deal as a sellout," albeit far apart in the article.  Time will tell if the deal actually has teeth or if the pessimists, including Easterbrook, are right. 

Now for my own reflections...  I don't have much respect in Congress to lose, but it's depressing to see political grandstanding take precedence over making important compromises.  Congresspeople, do your jobs!  Your decisions may directly impact my own future well-being, either indirectly through undermining the economy or by taking money straight out of my pocket in taxes to pay down the debt.  I've got a streak of fiscal conservatism already, but I also accept that the government has important roles that require its citizens' money.  At this point, though, I seriously doubt that congresspeople on both sides of the aisle have it in them to agree on spending for the worthy causes while reducing the excess.  I'm disappointed enough to not bother looking for any semi-relevant images for the post.

OK fine, you get one political cartoon:



No comments:

Post a Comment