Yesterday I wrote an article praising Senator Mitch McConnell for a tremendous compromise idea he came up with regarding raising the United States' debt ceiling. He deserves praise for finding a way out of the dead end that the President and Congress were in.
Today, I hear that he is "selling" the idea to his fellow Republicans as something they need to do to keep President Obama from being re-elected, rather than as something they need to do in the best interests of the American people and the world.
How sad.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Praise for Mitch McConnell
Yesterday, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did something responsible, and he deserves a great deal of praise for doing it.
He proposed a compromise in the negotiations for raising the United States' debt ceiling that will work.
As I understand it, the Congress would pass legislation that allows the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative, without the approval of Congress. He would have to do it in steps, and there are details to those steps, but they really aren't relevant to the core of the idea proposed by Senator McConnell.
However, to raise the debt ceiling at any of the steps, the President would have to notify Congress of his intention to do so and propose specific budget cuts equal to the amount by which the debt ceiling would be raised. The Congress would then have to pass a "resolution of disapproval" to take away the President's authority to increase the debt ceiling at that step. However, the President could veto the Congress' resolution, and unless the Congress could get two-thirds of each house to override the President's veto, the President could raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative.
Later, at the time the Congress approves the budget, they could enact the President's proposed budget cuts, or some of them, or none of them, or different ones.
It is an elegant and statesmanlike compromise.
If the President thinks the debt ceiling should be raised, he can do it, no strings attached, as it ought to be, but he takes full responsibility for doing it and he has to put our money where his mouth is and propose budget cuts in an equal amount.
If the Congress thinks the debt ceiling should not be raised, they can vote against it, but they can't stop it unless they can get two out of every three of their colleagues to vote with them.
Later, the Congress can debate spending when spending out to be debated - when the budget is adopted. If they think we shouldn't be borrowing so much money, they can vote to stop spending so much money.
And, if the Congress takes the budget cuts the President proposed when he raised the debt ceiling, he can't complain, because they were the budget cuts he proposed. If they don't - either because they made different budget cuts or weren't willing to cut as much as he proposed - they have only themselves to blame. And, by the way, the voters also have them to blame, if they want to blame someone.
No one can really keep the other from doing what they think is right, and voters can judge each elected official by what they do, not by what they were strong-armed into doing by the other side.
If there are enough adults in the room, it should work. If there are enough adults in the room.
Of course, if we don't do something to control global climate change, and soon, the debt ceiling crisis will look like a game of Trivial Pursuit, no matter how it comes out. None of this will really matter.
He proposed a compromise in the negotiations for raising the United States' debt ceiling that will work.
As I understand it, the Congress would pass legislation that allows the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative, without the approval of Congress. He would have to do it in steps, and there are details to those steps, but they really aren't relevant to the core of the idea proposed by Senator McConnell.
However, to raise the debt ceiling at any of the steps, the President would have to notify Congress of his intention to do so and propose specific budget cuts equal to the amount by which the debt ceiling would be raised. The Congress would then have to pass a "resolution of disapproval" to take away the President's authority to increase the debt ceiling at that step. However, the President could veto the Congress' resolution, and unless the Congress could get two-thirds of each house to override the President's veto, the President could raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative.
Later, at the time the Congress approves the budget, they could enact the President's proposed budget cuts, or some of them, or none of them, or different ones.
It is an elegant and statesmanlike compromise.
If the President thinks the debt ceiling should be raised, he can do it, no strings attached, as it ought to be, but he takes full responsibility for doing it and he has to put our money where his mouth is and propose budget cuts in an equal amount.
If the Congress thinks the debt ceiling should not be raised, they can vote against it, but they can't stop it unless they can get two out of every three of their colleagues to vote with them.
Later, the Congress can debate spending when spending out to be debated - when the budget is adopted. If they think we shouldn't be borrowing so much money, they can vote to stop spending so much money.
And, if the Congress takes the budget cuts the President proposed when he raised the debt ceiling, he can't complain, because they were the budget cuts he proposed. If they don't - either because they made different budget cuts or weren't willing to cut as much as he proposed - they have only themselves to blame. And, by the way, the voters also have them to blame, if they want to blame someone.
No one can really keep the other from doing what they think is right, and voters can judge each elected official by what they do, not by what they were strong-armed into doing by the other side.
If there are enough adults in the room, it should work. If there are enough adults in the room.
Of course, if we don't do something to control global climate change, and soon, the debt ceiling crisis will look like a game of Trivial Pursuit, no matter how it comes out. None of this will really matter.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Now the Democrats
A few weeks ago, I criticized the Republicans in Congress for predicating a vote to increase the United States' debt limit on an agreement to cut spending. I said then and I say now, even the prospect of defaulting on our debt is too grave to play games with.
Now, the Democrats have said they won't vote to increase the debt limit unless the Republicans agree to increase taxes (or decrease tax spending or enhance revenue or whatever it's called these days). That's just as bad!
Someone needs to step up to the plate and say, "We can't play this game. We all need to vote for a clean, straight up increase in the debt ceiling without any deals or restrictions. This is too important. Important to our nation, important to its people, and important to the world."
Are there really no patriots left?
Of course, if we don't do something about global climate change, and fast, none of it will matter anyway. It may already be too late.
Now, the Democrats have said they won't vote to increase the debt limit unless the Republicans agree to increase taxes (or decrease tax spending or enhance revenue or whatever it's called these days). That's just as bad!
Someone needs to step up to the plate and say, "We can't play this game. We all need to vote for a clean, straight up increase in the debt ceiling without any deals or restrictions. This is too important. Important to our nation, important to its people, and important to the world."
Are there really no patriots left?
Of course, if we don't do something about global climate change, and fast, none of it will matter anyway. It may already be too late.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Shame!
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated a bill to raise the U.S. debt ceiling. Failure to raise the debt ceiling will mean that the United States will default on its debt. That would be devastating for not only the U.S. economy, but the world's economy. Even the potential that the United States might default on its debt can injure the United States financially in major ways. The United States never defaults on its debt. That's why United States Treasury Bills are the safest investment in the world.
While there were both Republicans and Democrats voting against the bill, the Republicans went on record saying that the defeat of the bill was intended to send a message to President Obama that the Republicans in the House will not agree to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama and the Democrats agree to significant cuts in the current federal budget.
Unfortunately, that also sends the same message to every investor in the world - all those who purchase the debt of the United States government. If nothing else, that raises the cost of borrowing money for the United States, which runs up the deficit even higher, which isn't good. It is supposedly the thing the Republicans are most concerned about, but obviously they aren't.
In any event, the Republicans are playing chicken with the world economy. They know better.
The U.S. Congress should pass a clean bill raising the federal debt ceiling, so all the world will know that we won't, under any circumstances, default on our debt. Then they can argue about how much to cut the budget.
Even if the Republicans and Democrats can't agree on how much to cut the federal budget, or whether to cut it at all, the world needs to know, beyond any doubt, that we won't default on our debt. If you buy a U.S. government security, you're going to get paid. No matter what.
The phrase "as sound as a dollar" didn't become trite for no reason and it is crucial that it remain true.
Shame on the U.S. House of Representatives for risking the well-being of everyone in the world! Because that's what they're doing. Shame on them!
While there were both Republicans and Democrats voting against the bill, the Republicans went on record saying that the defeat of the bill was intended to send a message to President Obama that the Republicans in the House will not agree to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama and the Democrats agree to significant cuts in the current federal budget.
Unfortunately, that also sends the same message to every investor in the world - all those who purchase the debt of the United States government. If nothing else, that raises the cost of borrowing money for the United States, which runs up the deficit even higher, which isn't good. It is supposedly the thing the Republicans are most concerned about, but obviously they aren't.
In any event, the Republicans are playing chicken with the world economy. They know better.
The U.S. Congress should pass a clean bill raising the federal debt ceiling, so all the world will know that we won't, under any circumstances, default on our debt. Then they can argue about how much to cut the budget.
Even if the Republicans and Democrats can't agree on how much to cut the federal budget, or whether to cut it at all, the world needs to know, beyond any doubt, that we won't default on our debt. If you buy a U.S. government security, you're going to get paid. No matter what.
The phrase "as sound as a dollar" didn't become trite for no reason and it is crucial that it remain true.
Shame on the U.S. House of Representatives for risking the well-being of everyone in the world! Because that's what they're doing. Shame on them!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Supporting President Obama
This spring, President Obama announced that he would run for re-election as President of the United States. It wasn't exactly a huge surprise, but now it's official.
I want to support President Obama in his re-election bid, but I have one question for him. I'll put it here, since I don't think he'll read my e-mail.
"Mr. President, I'd like to support you in your re-election for President, but I have a problem. You see, I want to be truthful, so when my friends ask me, I'll have to tell them the truth about why I support you. So, before I announce my support for your re-election, I want to give you the chance to decline my support, since I'm not sure how many votes it will actually get you when I tell my friends I'm supporting you because you aren't as bad as the Republicans."
I want to support President Obama in his re-election bid, but I have one question for him. I'll put it here, since I don't think he'll read my e-mail.
"Mr. President, I'd like to support you in your re-election for President, but I have a problem. You see, I want to be truthful, so when my friends ask me, I'll have to tell them the truth about why I support you. So, before I announce my support for your re-election, I want to give you the chance to decline my support, since I'm not sure how many votes it will actually get you when I tell my friends I'm supporting you because you aren't as bad as the Republicans."
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Are Americans' Taxes Too High?
According to USA Today, "Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958 ... .
"The total tax burden - for all federal, state and local taxes - dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter [of 2011] ... .
"By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s - a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year."
Maybe 23.6% is too high. I don't think so, not compared with all I get for those taxes, but maybe it is. Nonetheless, I was surprised to learn that it was so low. I was particularly surprised to learn that it was so low by comparison to how high it had been in previous decades.
If one listens to the "debate" in the public market place of ideas, one would conclude that the share of our incomes being taken for taxes was higher than it had ever been. Certainly the tax protesters would have one believe that, and I suspect that they believe it themselves. I do not remember one time when anyone has made it clear that our tax rate as a percentage of our incomes is lower than it has been in decades.
I think that's important to know when trying to decide whether we should begin to balance the federal budget by raising taxes, cutting services for the poor and powerless, or a combination of the two.
It is really important to make sure we are speaking truth to ourselves in this public market place of ideas. Really important.
"The total tax burden - for all federal, state and local taxes - dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter [of 2011] ... .
"By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s - a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year."
Maybe 23.6% is too high. I don't think so, not compared with all I get for those taxes, but maybe it is. Nonetheless, I was surprised to learn that it was so low. I was particularly surprised to learn that it was so low by comparison to how high it had been in previous decades.
If one listens to the "debate" in the public market place of ideas, one would conclude that the share of our incomes being taken for taxes was higher than it had ever been. Certainly the tax protesters would have one believe that, and I suspect that they believe it themselves. I do not remember one time when anyone has made it clear that our tax rate as a percentage of our incomes is lower than it has been in decades.
I think that's important to know when trying to decide whether we should begin to balance the federal budget by raising taxes, cutting services for the poor and powerless, or a combination of the two.
It is really important to make sure we are speaking truth to ourselves in this public market place of ideas. Really important.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Public Employees' Benefits
This is personal.
This week I read about a survey in which a majority of Californians believe that public employees in California should give up some of their retirement benefits to help balance the state budget.
I don't know about California. I don't know how their public employee benefits are structured or how generous (or not so) the retirement plan(s) for public employees is in California.
But, I know about Travis County, Texas.
I have been an employee of the Travis County Attorney's Office for over 29 years. For many years, I have been the Executive Assistant Travis County Attorney, one of the two lawyers who report directly to the County Attorney. I supervise the civil (as opposed to the criminal prosecution) side of our office. It is the equivalent of being a senior partner in a law firm of 75 or so lawyers.
During my career working for the Travis County Attorney, I have been well- and fairly-paid. I have no complaints about the salary I've received. But, it has been a small fraction of the salary I would have received in an equivalent position in private practice, even though, over the years, the lawyers we have faced, both in transactional negotiations and in litigation, have been the senior partners of major law firms, and we've done pretty well.
This fractional salary fact is and has been true for most, if not all Travis County employees. Virtually all of us make less than our private-industry counterparts and always have, even though we do the same work that they do.
Over those years, I have heard, over and over, from elected officials and from members of the public, that it was fair to pay us, the county employees, less than our private-industry counterparts because (1) we had more job security and (2) we got such generous benefit packages, including our retirement plan.
And there is some truth to that, though not as much as I suspect people think. Our benefit packages are not all that much more generous than many in private industry, and not as generous as some in private industry. Nonetheless, there is some truth to it.
In particular, this has been said during times of an expanding economy when private-industry salaries were rising fast and far out-pacing our salaries as county employees. "You don't get paid as much because you get such good benefits."
So, for many years, the public servants of Travis County have received less for our work than our private counterparts with the promise that it would even out when we retired.
Now you want to reduce our retirement?
I'm sorry. I worked for that retirement. It's been part of what I've been promised - by my fellow citizens - if I would continue to work on their behalf in public service. I've sacrificed countless nights and weekends for that retirement. I've watched my private-practice counterparts live in huge houses and drive expensive cars and take fancy vacations to ski resorts in Colorado and trips to Europe, none of which I could afford. And the reason given to me for why I should feel okay that I wasn't able to afford what they had - even though I was facing them in the courtroom and beating them - was always that I had better benefits than they did.
Now you want to reduce our retirement?
Shame on you! Keep your promises! We've kept ours! Pay us what you agreed to pay us when we were doing your work for you!
I told you this was personal.
This week I read about a survey in which a majority of Californians believe that public employees in California should give up some of their retirement benefits to help balance the state budget.
I don't know about California. I don't know how their public employee benefits are structured or how generous (or not so) the retirement plan(s) for public employees is in California.
But, I know about Travis County, Texas.
I have been an employee of the Travis County Attorney's Office for over 29 years. For many years, I have been the Executive Assistant Travis County Attorney, one of the two lawyers who report directly to the County Attorney. I supervise the civil (as opposed to the criminal prosecution) side of our office. It is the equivalent of being a senior partner in a law firm of 75 or so lawyers.
During my career working for the Travis County Attorney, I have been well- and fairly-paid. I have no complaints about the salary I've received. But, it has been a small fraction of the salary I would have received in an equivalent position in private practice, even though, over the years, the lawyers we have faced, both in transactional negotiations and in litigation, have been the senior partners of major law firms, and we've done pretty well.
This fractional salary fact is and has been true for most, if not all Travis County employees. Virtually all of us make less than our private-industry counterparts and always have, even though we do the same work that they do.
Over those years, I have heard, over and over, from elected officials and from members of the public, that it was fair to pay us, the county employees, less than our private-industry counterparts because (1) we had more job security and (2) we got such generous benefit packages, including our retirement plan.
And there is some truth to that, though not as much as I suspect people think. Our benefit packages are not all that much more generous than many in private industry, and not as generous as some in private industry. Nonetheless, there is some truth to it.
In particular, this has been said during times of an expanding economy when private-industry salaries were rising fast and far out-pacing our salaries as county employees. "You don't get paid as much because you get such good benefits."
So, for many years, the public servants of Travis County have received less for our work than our private counterparts with the promise that it would even out when we retired.
Now you want to reduce our retirement?
I'm sorry. I worked for that retirement. It's been part of what I've been promised - by my fellow citizens - if I would continue to work on their behalf in public service. I've sacrificed countless nights and weekends for that retirement. I've watched my private-practice counterparts live in huge houses and drive expensive cars and take fancy vacations to ski resorts in Colorado and trips to Europe, none of which I could afford. And the reason given to me for why I should feel okay that I wasn't able to afford what they had - even though I was facing them in the courtroom and beating them - was always that I had better benefits than they did.
Now you want to reduce our retirement?
Shame on you! Keep your promises! We've kept ours! Pay us what you agreed to pay us when we were doing your work for you!
I told you this was personal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)