issue: Fiscal Policies

Wingnut Watch: Cain’s Latest Problem

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Herman CainAs the November 23 deadline for congressional action on a “supercommittee” package to reduce budget deficits by $1.2 trillion and avoid automatic domestic and defense cuts approaches, conservative activists have been steadily ramping up the pressure on supercommittee Republicans to hold a hard line against any tax increases. This missive from Heritage Action for America is pretty representative of the drumbeat:

Unfortunately, the “super committee” is veering off course and the odds are growing that massive tax hikes will be part of a final deal. Even worse, not all Republicans are willing to take massive tax hikes off the table. According to news reports, more than 100 House members–Republicans and Democrats alike–sent a letter to the “super committee” urging a “big, grand bargain–taking nothing off the table.” In Washington, that is code for a tax increase.

A few anti-supercommittee conservatives are willing to come right out and say that allowing across-the-board defense cuts to be enacted is an acceptable price to pay for avoiding tax increases. The most common rationalization is that these “sequesters” would not take effect until 2013, and a newly triumphant Republican president and Congress could fix the problem after the 2012 elections. Using the same kind of arguments, many activists have long claimed that a “grand bargain” that included major changes in federal retirement programs in exchange for tax increases would be unacceptable on grounds that Democrats would never keep their promises on spending in the future.

At an earlier point in the process, it appeared conservatives might allow some “wiggle room” for the supercommittee on taxes by considering the idea of a package that includes base-broadening “tax reforms” without raising actual rates on the wealthy or any major category of corporations. But the renewed popularity of sweeping, radical tax system overhauls, as reflected in the adoption of variations on the regressive “flat tax” idea by presidential candidates Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, has undermined what little support existed on the Right for revenue-raising elimination of “loopholes” under the general framework of the current tax code.

The same wingnuts who are having little trouble sticking to their no-compromise guns on deficit reduction are having a bit more trouble settling on a presidential candidate. A week ago, the big debate in Republican political circles was whether presidential polling front-runner Herman Cain would transform himself into a serious if unconventional candidate with a real organization and a consistent presence on the campaign trail, or instead would fade in the wake of either a comeback by Rick Perry or a sort of resigned acceptance, first by conservative elites and then by the rank-and-file, of Mitt Romney as the nominee. The betting line was not in Cain’s favor.

Then came Politico’s October 30 bombshell story revealing that the National Restaurant Association had settled two claims of sexual harassment against Cain during his presidency of the trade group in the last 1990s, and a couple of days of shifting stories from Cain and his campaign in reaction to the allegations.

Although the mainstream media has concluded from almost the very beginning that the Politico story means curtains for an already implausible Cain candidacy, it looks very different from Wingnut World. Though a few conservative opinion-leaders (mostly those thought to be friendly to Mitt Romney) have either kept their mouths shut or suggested Cain should come clean, the general reaction has been to defend him, with varying degrees of heat. The most common conservative media meme, one that Cain himself has encouraged, is to compare him to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an outspoken African-American conservative who is being smeared by the “liberal media” and “the Left” generally, who are fearful that he will liberate his people from the “plantation” of subservience to Big Government and the Democratic Party.

Beyond the chattering classes, the very initial evidence is that rank-and-file conservatives are inclined to give Cain the presumption of innocence, and perhaps of innocence persecuted. Politico itself posted a headline today reading: “Iowa yawns at Herman Cain allegations.” The story attached to it had this very revealing passage:

Gregg Cummings, the Tea Party Patriots’ Iowa state coordinator, said among tea partiers the story of Cain’s sexual harassment allegations pales in comparison to the desire to have a conservative—“not Romney”—win the caucuses and the nomination.

“Hardly anybody is talking about it,” he said. “It’s not a big issue, in other words. I think the urgency of making sure that we get a conservative candidate to win the primaries is of greater concern to most of the tea party folks right now.”

More tangibly, the first poll taken entirely after the original Politico story broke, by Rasmussen in South Carolina, showed Cain with a ten-point lead over Mitt Romney and the rest of the field, his best showing to date in any South Carolina poll.

Sometimes damaging information about candidates just takes a while to build up steam in an array of media outlets and then penetrate the public’s consciousness. So Cain is hardly out of the woods, aside from the fact that more graphic details of his behavior, or indications of a cover-up, could soon emerge. But given the impulsive reaction in Wingnut World, it’s also possible, ironically, that this is exactly what the Cain campaign needed to distract attention from his lack of interest in world affairs, his waffling on abortion, or the details of his tax plan, and instead make him a martyr to the “constitutional conservative” cause that is still in search of a champion against Mitt Romney.

Photo credit: roberthuffstutter

Supercommittee Puts GOP on Spot

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Is the supercommittee President Obama’s revenge?

After last summer’s showdown over raising the debt ceiling, Obama was roundly criticized for agreeing to a deficit-reduction deal that was all spending cuts and no tax hikes. Democrats, disconsolate over this seeming capitulation to House Republicans, saw it as the low-water mark of his presidency.

Yet the deal also created the bipartisan supercommittee, which was charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion (over 10 years) in additional cuts by Nov. 23. The supercommittee has a strong incentive to succeed, since its failure will trigger an automatic, equivalent cut in domestic and defense spending.

Now, as the supercommittee spars over dueling Democratic and Republican plans for meeting the target, Republicans are on the hot seat.

Democrats this week reportedly proposed a $3 trillion package over the next decade, including $1.2 trillion in revenue increases. Republicans came back with a smaller counteroffer of $2.2 trillion. The reason, of course, is that the GOP’s anti-tax fanaticism prevents it from matching the Democrats’ debt-reduction plan without proposing truly punishing cuts in federal spending.

The Republicans claim their package includes revenues ($640 billion worth) but much of it seems to come not from actual changes in the tax code, but from increased fees and co-pays in Medicare. The rest is supply side fairy dust—around $200 billion from the higher growth supposed to be generated by future tax reform.

The upshot is that Democrats now look like they are more serious about getting the nation’s debt under control, and in a way that spreads the pain of fiscal retrenchment more equitably. Republicans look like their top priority isn’t restoring fiscal discipline, but shielding the wealthy from higher taxes.

If they refuse to deal on taxes, they’ll likely be blamed for the supercommittee’s failure and subsequent trigger of automatic spending cuts. The GOP may not care about slashing domestic spending—even though it includes critical public investments in science and technology, infrastructure and education—but they do care about defense spending, which would take a whopping, half-trillion-dollar hit.

Of course, Republicans could offer a minimum bid of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts to avoid across-the-board cuts, and call it a day. Supercommittee Democrats, however, shouldn’t let them off the hook without substantial concessions on taxes. Democrats don’t want to trigger big domestic and defense spending cuts either, but it’s better to force the issue of GOP intransigence on taxes now than during the debt ceiling debate, when America stood on the brink of default.

Even if the supercommittee does its job and approves a bipartisan debt reduction plan by Thanksgiving, it’s by no means clear that Congress will pass it. Members of Congress hate nothing more than being “shut out of the process,” and many bridle at the idea of delegating power to 12 supercommittee members to craft a massive plan and present it for an up or down vote.

Complaining that he has “no stake” in the outcome, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman added, “I find it an outrageous process, that 12 people could rewrite the laws of the United States and come up with ideas just setting there and getting into some mood that might influence them at the moment.”

Over on the right, there’s little love for the supercommmittee. Nothing is more predictable than that Tea Party zealots will rise in righteous condemnation of any plan that includes higher tax revenues, thus breaking the party of Lincoln’s solemn covenant with anti-tax gadfly Grover Norquist.

More favorable are congressional moderates, whose main concern is that the supercommittee won’t go far enough. Nearly 100 Members from both parties signed a letter urging the supercommittee to cut $4 trillion over the next decade, the amount most budget experts believe is necessary to stabilize the debt. For pain-averse lawmakers, the logic of “going big” and not having to keep repeating these excruciating political battles over spending and taxes is pretty compelling.

If the supercommittee fails, the economic and political consequences won’t be pretty. Fresh evidence that the nation’s political leaders are incapable of coming to grips with the debt crisis will no doubt cause the markets to nosedive, and could even lead ratings agencies like Standard & Poor to downgrade the nation’s credit again. This could cast a pall over the economy, just as it’s finally showing some signs of life.

Worst of all, it would deepen the public’s already explosive anger at Washington. A mere nine percent of the voters approve of the job Congress is doing, and 89 percent say they don’t trust the government to do the right thing. By going big on debt reduction, Congress could start earning back that trust.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey

Policy Brief: Another Kick in the Teeth: Loan Limits and the Housing Market

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

For weeks, August 2—the date on which the U.S. Treasury might have defaulted on its debts—was the deadline that drove policymakers toward a deal on raising the debt ceiling and lowering the nation’s spiraling debt and deficits.

Another pending deadline—October 1—has won far less attention. But it too could have far-reaching impacts on the U.S. economy if Congress allows it to expire.

This date is when the maximum size of a mortgage loan (the “loan limit”) that can be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or bought by government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSE’s) drops significantly. On October 1, these loan limits will fall in 669 counties in 42 states and the District of Columbia, with an average reduction of more than $50,000 and in some cases by more than $100,000. In these areas, many prospective homebuyers once eligible for an FHA loan would no longer qualify, while others may face the prospect of a higher-cost “jumbo” loan.

The result could be the potential sidelining of a key segment of homebuyers, which in turn would further weaken demand, depress home prices and drop another wet blanket on consumer confidence as Americans continue to watch their home equity evaporate. Needless to say, this is the last thing the housing market or the economy needs as it struggles toward recovery.

Without question, government should ultimately pare back its involvement in the housing market and let private capital play the leading role. But this should also happen when the markets are ready, not according to an arbitrary timetable. Unfortunately, the initial conditions that warranted the current loan limits in the first place have not improved substantially. Nor does it seem private sources are ready to jump in if government support were to end.

Read the entire brief.

Six Reasons the Supercommittee Will Succeed

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Senior Fellow Paul Weinstein finds six reasons to believe the Congressional Supercommittee will succeed:

Whatever you think of Standard and Poor’s decision to downgradeAmerica’s credit, their justification was fairly plain. Political gridlock has managed to scuttle several successive efforts to get a handle on the federal debt. And few, if anyone, is sanguine that the new “supercommittee” in Congress will have any better luck.

But a closer look reveals that, despite the nation’s pessimism, there are several reasons to believe that the 12-member supercommittee may be able to implement a plan that sets the nation back on track. The setup has been rigged to force a deal. So, in an age where “shorting” the market has become a sort of dirty word, the smart money may be in betting that Washington will enact a responsible comprehensive budget framework by the end of the year.

First, the dynamics of the committee itself suggest that that building sufficient support in the room will be that much more palatable. Negotiators need only corral seven of the twelve members (50 percent plus one) to send any deal straight to the floor of both houses of Congress. By comparison, the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission was required to receive a full 77 percent, and managed only 61. In essence, the fact that a decision by any single member could boost any proposal past the required threshold will compel every member of the commission to negotiate in a serious manner. That diminishes the likelihood that political shenanigans will scuttle this deal like they have undermined previous negotiations.

Read the other five over at Real Clear Politics.

Managing Austerity’s Axe

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the wake of Hurricane Irene, there has been consternation over whether the GOP proposed cuts to the United States Geological Survey signifies that they were actively endangering the public. Political scoreboard aside, while it is true that America as a nation could survive without quality weather surveillance, not needing a program does not automatically justify severe budget cuts.

Imagine America as a frigate. Our ship might be weighed down by our blossoming debt, but that does not mean we should be indiscriminately throwing our guns overboard in an attempt to lighten our load. Furthermore our focus on the crisis of the moment is also distracting us from one of the lessons of Hurricane Irene: the need to defend valuable government programs that cannot defend themselves. The national discussion needs to be reoriented from its current state to one about reducing the deficit in a way that does not prioritize politically expedient cuts over the budgets of beneficial government programs lacking political clout.

The smallest instance of this concept is a recent Washington Post cause célèbre – defending the Statistical Abstract of the United States. Called “America’s databook” by Post Columnist Robert Samuleson and defended by other Post Columnists E.J Dionne and Ezra Klein, the abstract provides a single destination for various sorts of facts that one normally would have to spend hours trolling through government databases to discover. While not essential to existence of the United States, the abstract provides useful information and would be in a sense akin to losing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, making our country worse off by making us less knowledgeable. For $2.9 million – pocket change to the federal government, the abstract is an unnecessary sacrifice in a blanket effort to reduce the budget.

To think about it another way, in pure job creation terms, government spending on the abstract creates 24 jobs at $120,000 per job – less than the $200,000 per job cost Felix Salmon finds for infrastructure spending.

Another more tangible example of this debate is a $784 million cut to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) emergency response grants. These grants fund first responders, paying for the training of local and state emergency personnel. The training prepares them to manage current crises like Vermont floods. Before immediately writing FEMA off as wasteful spending, it’s important to note the steps FEMA has taken to redeem its sullied reputation. FEMA received positive reviews from both sides of the aisle in its response to Hurricane Irene.

Yet due to a slimmed budget, FEMA disaster relief money is running out, pitting two disasters against each other for catastrophe aid. With funding not yet appropriated to help the Joplin, Missouri recovery efforts, Missouri Senators are already warning about diverting funding from rebuilding Joplin to recovering from Irene.

“Recovery from hurricane damage on the East Coast must not come at the expense of Missouri’s rebuilding efforts,” Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Monday in a statement.

Competition should not exist between states for disaster relief. Not only is it immoral to declare one disaster more worthy of funding than another, but it also represents a basic betrayal of citizens who depend on the government for at least their very security.

Conservative economist, Doug Holtz-Eakin has a two-part test for creating government programs, “Does the economy fail to deliver something? And second, could the government do it better?” As Samuelson notes, there is no private market equivalent of the Statistical Abstract and I seriously doubt that a private corperation could provide disaster relief better than FEMA can. There is no denying that deficit reduction needs to occur, but legislators should think twice about government’s basic responsibilities before subjecting agencies without political clout to austerity’s axe.

Photo Credit: U.S Coast Guard

Obama Needs New Growth Story

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President ObamaThe White House this week is dribbling out new details about Obama’s forthcoming jobs package. Liberals already are complaining that the president is thinking too small, while conservatives dismiss his ideas as just more “stimulus” in drag.

Neither critique gets to the heart of the problem. The U.S. economy is enduring an investment and job drought that began well before the Great Recession hit late in 2007. The public is strikingly pessimistic about the nation’s economic prospects and has lost confidence in the conventional remedies pushed by both parties.

More than a batch of new programs, Americans need a new story about how to regain our economic dynamism. We need a fundamentally new model for economic growth, and the president’s kit-bag of new micro-initiatives doesn’t add up to one.

His proposals mostly seem sensible, but absent a new vision for dealing with the economy’s structural problems, they give off a whiff of spaghetti-against-the-wall desperation. The administration is hoping that something, anything will move the needle on job creation and get unemployment trending down.

Here, according to various media accounts, is what the White House job package is likely to include:

  • A $5,000 tax credit for hew hires.
  • A five percent reduction in payroll taxes on any net increase in wages.
  • $50 billion in new spending on infrastructure.
  • An overhaul of patent laws to encourage faster innovation.
  • A new mortgage refinancing scheme to help “underwater” homeowners avoid foreclosures that are depressing housing prices.

Liberals have a point in arguing that these initiatives are unlikely to have more than a marginal impact on jobs and economic growth. The tax credit and payroll tax reduction will likely expand employment, but they also will reward companies for hiring workers they would have hired in any case. Michael Greenstone, former chief economist for the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates the tax credit will create 900,000 additional jobs at a cost of $30 billion. The United States must create 21 million new jobs over the next decade to return to full employment.

Modernizing America’s antiquated infrastructure is essential, even if the immediate job gains are likely to be modest. While it’s conceivable that $50 billion could leverage large-scale private investment in new infrastructure, there’s a catch: The administration does not envision funneling that money into a truly independent infrastructure bank. That’s likely to scare off private investors, who need assurances that big capital projects will be chosen on economic rather than political grounds.

The real problem, however, isn’t that Obama isn’t spending enough. It’s that this spray of programmatic buckshot won’t deal with structural impediments to economic innovation and growth. As PPI has argued, U.S. policy makers need a new model of economic growth centered on production, not consumption; on saving and investing, not borrowing; and on exports, not imports.

Obama needs to fit his specific initiatives within the broader story of an American economic comeback sparked by a shift from debt-fueled consumption to domestic production. This narrative should explain how overconsumption—by both U.S. households and governments—helped to create the job slowdown, wage stagnation, financial bubbles and exploding debts that have plagued our economy since 2000. It would connect America’s twin economic imperatives: creating jobs and controlling the national debt. It would say: If we don’t curb the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending (mostly for health care consumption), we will squeeze out strategic public investments the nation’s physical, human and knowledge capital—infrastructure, skilled workers, and new technology.

But a “producer society” narrative doesn’t just reinforce progressive demands for more strategic public investment. It also lends weight to conservative calls for policies that create a climate more conducive to innovation, entrepreneurship, and business creation. In fact, it will take a new fusion of liberal and conservative economic prescriptions to get America moving again.

Key elements of such a fusion include a sweeping overhaul of personal and corporate taxes, a light-handed approach to regulating companies that invest heavily in innovation, stronger constraints on Medicare and Medicaid spending, new investments in technical education to supply workers for advanced manufacturing, and the transformation of our archaic K-12 school system by choice and digital learning. And, as I’ve written elsewhere, it also requires a new partnership between U.S. workers and those companies that are investing in creating jobs in the United States.

President Obama’s ideas for spurring job growth are fine as far as they go, but they don’t go nearly far enough. He needs to offer the country a new story of economic success, that once again makes America a dynamo of production and middle class job creation.

Photo credit: OFA

Defense’s Careful Contribution to Deficit Reduction

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI’s Will Marshall and Jim Arkedis have a piece in the Detroit News this morning on the defense budget. Here’s an excerpt:

Recently, Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress unveiled their choices to head the so-called “super committee” entrusted with forging a long-term agreement to reduce the nation’s deficit.

The stakes are high for the Department of Defense. Should the super committee fail to propose legislation, or a divided Congress fail to pass a compromise, the deal to avert national default would automatically trigger a $500 billion cut from the Pentagon’s budget. Added to the $350 billion already cut by the deal, the Pentagon’s budget could shrink by $850 trillion over 10 years.

If the Department of Defense is forced to make such a substantial contribution to deficit reduction, one point is clear: Our political leaders remain unwilling to tackle the national deficit’s two main cost drivers — entitlements and taxes.

Nothing is set in stone, but the congressional super committee now faces two crucial questions: Should defense contribute more toward deficit reduction? And, if so, how do we save?

Our answers are that defense can contribute, but carefully.

Continue reading in the Detroit News by clicking here.

Photo credit: Brave Heart.

Should America Pork Out?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On his show last week, Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball recommended that the president “pork out.” Remember those pet infrastructure projects Republicans sacrificed at the altar of declared fiscal discipline? Matthews wants the president to serve up a feast of pork as a temporary jobs plan.

The basic premise of the Matthews’ plan is that the president packages–in one bill–all of the pet projects that were requested over the past two years by Congress but failed to become law. Discarding the projects that are wasteful or don’t create jobs, the president sends the bill to Congress testing where the GOP’s allegiance lies: with the nation’s 25 million unemployed or the political gain of depressing the economy.

Can a serving of pork really pass Congress and create jobs?

Possibly. Much of the pork spending is basically targeted infrastructure spending. Bipartisan support for earmarks has been historically pervasive, and remains widespread today despite a House enforced moratorium. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-Tenn.) threatened to shutdown the Senate over $50,000 toward deepening the Charleston harbor, and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) sneaked a $700 million bridge overhaul past the earmark ban by not listing the actual cost of the bridge in the bill.

Quick calculations state that if every $1 billion of federal spending spent creates 11,000 job-years and the jobs are temporary, one year long, then allocating $10 billion would create roughly 110,000 gross jobs. Funds could be weighted to ensure the states with the highest unemployment rates receive the most money.

Furthermore the current state of the economy is a rare moment of slack in the inherent tension that exists between federal spending and private investment. Worries that earmark spending muscles out the private businesses are exemplified in a Harvard study that found earmarking by certain Congressman can lead to a 15 percent decrease in that districts’ private sector spending — a worrisome proposition. Except, right now corporations are not spending and instead are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. Federal spending repercussions are lessened because there is little private spending to crowd out.

To preempt deficit hawks, the plan should be part of a long-term deficit reduction package or paired with back-loaded spending cuts to be revenue neutral. An ideal deficit reduction plan would include a much-needed boost to the job market through targeted short-term infrastructure spending supported by former IMF chief economist Ken Rogoff while reducing the deficit over the long term. While a national infrastructure bank would be idyllic, political realities make pork a workable substitute for targeted infrastructure spending.

A good bully pulpit speech could help extinguish any other political opposition. The specificity and detailed local impact of the pork makes the plan a powerful political cudgel.

Envision the president trotting out to the Rose Garden bill in hand, declaring, “The economy is hurting, but I have a jobs plan right here that’ll create over 100,000 jobs right now at a time when 9.1 percent of Americans are out of work. It won’t add one dime to the deficit but it will pay for a wastewater treatment plant in Nevada where the state unemployment rate is 12.9 percent. Yet your representative, Dean Heller, won’t support it. It won’t add one dime to the deficit, but it will pay for a college in Florida where the state unemployment rate is 10. 7 percent. Yet your representative, John Mica, won’t support it.”

Rinse and repeat that speech for three days, and it’s hard not to expect a few Republican defections. Standing tall for spending cuts is fun and games until your district gets hurt. Even if for some reason the plan doesn’t pass, the tenor of Washington will finally be attuned to what the people want and need – jobs.

Photo Credit: Kejonbro

 

 

Did the Debt Deal Open the Door to a Third Party?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Most political reporters have chalked up the debt ceiling deal as a “W” for House Republicans and a humiliating loss for President Obama. But when we consult actual voters, the political scorecard looks quite different.

Americans, says veteran pollster Stan Greenberg, aren’t just irritated by the games politicians play, they are “explosively angry” at Washington. There’s no love lost for either party, but Congressional Republicans now actually rank lowest in public esteem. The only “winners” in the debt limit fiasco were potential third party candidates.

According to Greenberg’s latest Democracy Corps survey, a majority of Americans (53 percent) say they would consider voting for a third party candidate. That could just be a momentary measure of public disgust, but it also points to the first serious opening for a challenge to the two-party duopoly since Obama took office. And when you break down the numbers by party affiliation, or lack of it, things start to get interesting.

By a whopping, 45-point margin (70-25) independents are the most receptive to a third party candidate. These voters swung decisively toward Obama in 2008, cementing his majority, but they are utterly up for grabs in 2012.

Democrats, on the other hand, are the most solid in their partisan commitment. By 57-39 percent, they reject the idea of a third party challenge. The big surprise is how open Republicans seem to be to bolting from their party’s ticket. A substantial majority (58-38) say they are willing to consider a third party alternative, with 38 percent “strongly” willing.

It’s hard to know exactly what to make of this. Maybe these numbers register tepid enthusiasm for GOP front runner Mitt Romney (the poll was taken before Michele Bachmann won Iowa’s straw poll and Rick Perry threw his Stetson in the ring). It’s possible GOP voters just don’t see the candidate yet who can unhorse Barack Obama. But since there aren’t many GOP moderates left, there’s another, more chilling possibility: Maybe the current crop of GOP hopefuls aren’t conservative enough for a sizeable chunk of the Republican base.

In any case, what Greenberg describes as the “unsettled” nature of Republicans’ partisan attachment could be good news for Obama and the Democrats. It could portend renegade candidacies that splinter conservatives; it’s not difficult, for example, to imagine Ron Paul running on a libertarian line if he doesn’t win the GOP nomination.

On the other hand, the public’s increasingly sour mood toward politics as usual has thrown the spotlight on a new political venture called Americans Elect. It’s a non-profit (full disclosure: I’ve volunteered to help) that is organizing a virtual or online nominating convention next June. The basic idea is to use the internet and social media to bypass the duopoly and give voters who don’t feel at home in either party a way to directly chose their own presidential ticket and platform.

Americans Elect isn’t a third party but is offering what it describes as a “second process” for choosing the next president. And it’s working to ensure that whoever wins the internet-based convention will be guaranteed ballot access in all 50 states.

I’ll have more to say about this intriguing experiment in empowering voters later. For now, it’s enough to say that the debt debacle has whetted Americans’ appetite for something completely different in national politics – and political entrepreneurs are responding.

Wingnut Watch: Wisconsin Recall Relief and Iowa Showdown

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

There is joy and relief in Wingnut World today thanks to the narrow failure of Wisconsin Democrats to win enough recall elections to take over the state’s Senate chamber (needing three new seats out of the six being contested, Democrats won two and lost the crucial third by just over 2,000 votes). Though this was a very unusual election in which vast quantities of last-minute conservative money (a total of $8 million was spent in the pivotal district, a bit more than the average state legislative race) probably made the difference, you can expect many jabberers from the Right to call this the final, definitive victory of the people over “labor bosses” determined to keep Scott Walker from giving job-creators the encouragement they need to invest in the state. Next week’s recall elections for two Democratic senators, which are not expected to go well for Republicans, probably won’t get as much national attention. Democrats will then have a tough decision to make about whether to seek a recall of Walker next year. But overall, the main importance of the Wisconsin struggle is that it will likely become a sort of laboratory for what the contending parties—and their ideological allies—will do nationally in 2012.

Aside from Wisconsin, and the continued preparatory skirmishing over the budget timeline set out in the August 1 debt limit, there are two main preoccupations among conservative activists and talkers. One is the war of interpretation over economic developments, including the threat of a double-dip recession, the Standard & Poor’s downgrading of its rating for federal bonds, and the extreme instability of U.S. and global stock markets. So far few, if any, conservatives are bending their general line on the ontological necessity of sharp and immediate federal spending cuts and radical deficit reduction measures in the face of poor economic growth indicators. For example, conservatives have shown no signs of interest in the president’s call for extension of the payroll tax cuts agreed to last December. Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann gets points for audacious consistency in arguing that the bond downgrading, explained by S&P as in no small part attributable to pessimism about future debt limit agreements because of Republican fanaticism on taxes, was actually caused by the debt limit agreement itself.

The second preoccupation in Wingnut World, as in the broader world of political junkies, is with the developments in the Republican presidential race that will unfold over the next few days. In Iowa, a presidential candidate debate on Thursday will immediately be followed by Saturday’s State Republican Party straw poll in Ames. The debate, sponsored by Fox News and the conservative Washington Examiner, will include not only the candidates competing in the Straw Poll, but also Mitt Romney, who is not, and could therefore be the target of zingers from rivals desperately trying to create some turnout-generating buzz in Ames.

In terms of what is likely to happen at the Straw Poll, there is a general consensus that Tim Pawlenty has the best organization but little enthusiasm; Michele Bachmann has the most enthusiasm but a questionable organization; Rick Santorum could well surprise people by doing better than Herman Cain; and Ron Paul, with the right combination of committed supporters and superior organization, could win the whole thing if turnout is not very high. Both Pawlenty and Bachmann really need a win in Ames. But it’s Pawlenty who needs it the most, having focused on Iowa for many months and positioned himself to become the “electable conservative alternative to Mitt Romney” down the road. His limited financial means and terrible poll standings across the country—and the impending entry of another “electable conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” Rick Perry—could mean curtains if he doesn’t pull off the Straw Poll victory.

Speaking of Perry, he’s apparently going to announce or at least semi-announce his candidacy in South Carolina in the friendly confines of the annual get-together of Erick Erickson’s Red State community. The fact that his speech in Charleston occurs the very same day as the Straw Poll has caused some angst among Iowa Republicans, who view it as an effort to horn in on their media attention. So it’s not surprising Perry is planning to scurry up to Iowa (to Bachmann’s original home town of Waterloo) on Sunday. From Perry’s point of view, a Paul win in Ames, damaging Bachmann and perhaps finishing off T-Paw, and making the entire exercise (which he skipped) otherwise irrelevant, would be ideal. But even before announcing, Perry has managed to vault himself into the top tier of candidates, essentially succeeding in taking over T-Paw’s spot as the putative “unity candidate” between the electability-challenged Bachmann and the ideologically-challenged Romney. That’s quite a feat for a guy who keeps flip-flopping on hot-button social issues; has gotten dangerously cozy with religious extremists; has a habit of startling his fellow-conservatives with stunts like his 2008 championship of Rudy Guiliani; and has never been terribly popular in his own state.

Photo credit: WordShore.

Wingnut Watch: Pivoting to Ames

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Formally, at least, Wingnut World was divided over the big votes earlier this week on the debt limit increase “compromise” package. Even as conservative blogs (generally) urged a “no” vote, with varying degrees of heat, House Republicans approved the bill by a robust 174-66 margin. The House Tea Party Caucus even favored it 33-29, though the major “splits” were less ideological than institutional; virtually anyone with a connection to the House GOP leadership or in a senior committee position voted “yea.”

But in the immediate wake of the vote, conservatives seem to have united in a strategy of utilizing the “deal” to plot an incessant, scorched-earth campaign for more spending cuts, and particularly an assault on entitlements. The deal certainly does provide many opportunities for additional fights: an appropriations battle prior to the end of the fiscal year (less than two months from now), which will almost certainly involve another effort to shut down the government; a “disapproval” vote for the president’s scheduled second-stage increase in the debt limit, which will probably occur in early October; the “debt committee” struggle over additional deficit reduction measures in November, which will occur against the background of pending automatic spending cuts that will occur in December if no action is taken; and then a longer-term fight over tax policy in 2012 in anticipation of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of that year.

While many wingnuts are relishing these battles, they will involve some intra-conservative tensions, especially in terms of the priority assigned to protection of defense spending and avoidance of revenue increases, and the relative emphasis placed on entitlements cuts as opposed to even deeper discretionary spending cuts than are already baked into the cake in the debt limit deal. On the former front, it’s worth noting that three presidential candidates who opposed the deal—Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann—all cited fears of defense cuts as a factor. Efforts to resolve the conflict between defense hawks and anti-tax militants will probably push conservatives into the perilous territory of insisting on major cuts in Social Security, Medicare benefits and Medicaid. The programs are all protected in the “deal” from automatic cuts and the cuts themselves are unpopular and reinforce Democratic attacks on earlier Republican support for Paul Ryan’s radical Medicare and Medicaid proposals. Indeed, one of the major conservative grievances about what is otherwise a pretty solid victory for their cause is that the “deal” did not provide bipartisan cover for significant changes in the big entitlement programs.

All these issues, of course, will be problematic for the GOP presidential candidates, for whom the schedule of regular fiscal battles through the nominating process and into the general election campaign, will represent at best a major distraction, and at worst a long series of right-wing litmus tests in which there is only one right answer. Without question, this scenario will make it hard for any eventual nominee to “pivot” to a swing-voter friendly general election strategy.

At the moment, though, the would-be 45th presidents have other, more immediate, fish to fry. The candidates competing in the August 13 Iowa GOP Straw Poll are moving into the pre-event mobilization phase, buying tickets for anyone they think will vote for them in Ames that day, gassing up the vans and buses, planning entertainment for attendees, and managing expectations. The big question according to most handicappers is whether Pawlenty’s statewide organization can overcome Bachmann’s enthusiasm and momentum. There’s some talk that Ron Paul could sneak past both Minnesotans and pull off an upset. Rick Santorum’s organizational efforts could well push him past Herman Cain, who does a lot better in the polls but hasn’t spent much time in the state.

Meanwhile, a candidate who is not competing in Ames but is expected by most observers to announce his candidacy soon afterwards, Rick Perry, is having some issues with his outreach to the Christian Right. After last week’s conspicuous Perry flip-flop towards support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he’s now executed a similar maneuver on abortion, eschewing earlier statements in favor of state control of that subject and endorsing a federal constitutional ban. Additionally, there are signs that the big prayer rally he is sponsoring in Houston this weekend could have an attendance problem. A spokesman for the event, however, had this to say:

We are not really concerned with the quantity of people that come. It’s frankly more about the powerful event that will speak to those who do come. It’s never been about the numbers.

That’s probably code for what matters to Team Perry–who is on the podium representing important Christian Right factions, not who is in the seats taking in the show. They are basically props.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

STATEMENT: PPI Supports Debt Deal, but Warns It’s Not Enough to Stabilize Debt

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PRESS CONTACT: Steven Chlapecka – schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931

WASHINGTON D.C. — PPI President Will Marshall issued the following statement on the debt limit agreement before Congress:

“The final compromise reached in the debt ceiling debate marks a disappointing end to a standoff that had already reached new lows in self-destructive political brinksmanship. After holding the U.S. economy hostage for weeks in the name of principled deficit reduction, congressional Republicans have exacted a deal that fails to address the structural drivers of our deficits. We were taken to the brink of economic catastrophe, yet this deal still won’t stabilize the debt, reform the tax code, or ensure Social Security’s long-term solvency.

“President Obama, for his part, passed on the opportunity to stand behind the balanced deficit-reduction approach endorsed by his own Fiscal Commission. The negotiated proposal passed by the House and before the Senate today includes a significant down payment on deficit reduction, but it is an inauspicious start for any long-term plan to pay down our debt. The cuts included in this package focus too much on discretionary spending alone, while tying Congress’s hands to balance those cuts with additional revenue from comprehensive tax reform.

“For all its flaws, the deal has defused the Tea Party’s time bomb and given us another chance at forging a constructive, bipartisan deficit plan. The key to those hopes lies with the special committee of Congress. Unless the committee is willing to go beyond the target in the legislation and tackle revenues and entitlement, this deal will fall far short of what it is needed.

“We need to watch carefully who is chosen to serve on the special committee—whether they are simply stalking horses for the leadership or in fact willing to make hard choices for the benefit of the country. In addition, it is vital that the Obama Administration be engaged in direct and regular communication with the special committee, otherwise this process cannot succeed.

“We are happy there is a trigger built into the deal, in case the special committee fails to deliver its proposals, but we are concerned the triggers do not go into effect until a year after the special committee is created. Furthermore, the one-sided enforcement mechanism also tips the scales too much toward discretionary spending reductions, Excessive cuts of $850 billion would be slashed from the Pentagon’s budget—an amount larger than recommended by the Simpson-Bowles Commission. We wish the trigger had applied to revenues as well.

“We hope that President Obama will show the resolve Americans need from their president to salvage this situation and recapture the political debate going forward. The surest approach to doing that is to fight for the principles endorsed by his Fiscal Commission, including broad tax reform to lower rates and eliminate tax expenditures to raise significant money for deficit reduction. And parallel to that, the president and Congress must put real entitlement reform on the table. Republicans have succeeded in ensuring spending cuts will be included in any deal—it’s now up to President Obama and congressional Democrats to restore balance to the final package between now and 2013.”

Stimulus for Entrepreneurs

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The debt-ceiling stalemate is distracting policymakers’ attention from what should be their number one economic priority: putting Americans back to work. Big jolts of conventional stimulus, through public spending or tax cuts, are off the table for now, but Washington could try a different tack — stimulating entrepreneurship.

So says economist Robert Litan of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, who unveiled last week a creative menu of proposals for rebooting America’s entrepreneurial spirit. These ideas have been incorporated into the Startup Act, a bipartisan proposal endorsed by an unlikely pair of political bedfellows, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Litan’s offering came on the heels of a new Kauffman study that shows why Congress should be thinking about ways to spur entrepreneurship. Startup job growth, which Kauffman says is the main engine behind net job growth in the United States, has been slowly declining. This drop began before the Great Recession. What’s more, the survival rate of new firms is declining, along with the number of jobs created on average by new startups.

No one seems to know why start-ups have been losing momentum. But Litan, also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued that public policy can be a catalyst for new business creation, just as it can also put obstacles in the way of entrepreneurs. The Startup bill’s provisions fall in four main baskets: selective immigration reform, easier access to capitol, streamlining the commercialization of new ideas, and resetting the regulatory burden on businesses.

Immigration reform: The bill advocates green cards for any foreign student that completes a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) degree at a U.S university and more easily available visas for non-American future entrepreneurs. Litan specifically suggested targeting talented individuals currently working in America on 6-year H-1 visas, a demographic that starts new firms at a higher rate than the rest of the workforce, as an easy starting point for reform.

Financing startups: At a time when credit is tight, the bill would generate capital to finance new startups from two sources: tax breaks and easier access to public markets. It proposes a capital gains exemption for long-term investments (those held over five years) in startups with a market value of less than $50 million. To give more startups a fighting chance to survive, the bill also would exempt them from the corporate income tax for the first five years. In addition, the act suggests would allow shareholders of startups under $1 billion in market value to decide whether or not to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, arguing that the cost of compliance for startups far outweighed any benefits compliance could provide.

Patent Reform: The bill also endorsed recent patent reform passed by both the House and Senate designed to make the process more efficient. Under this approach, smaller startups would be allowed to pay less for a priority patent review.

Regulatory Reset: Finally the plan calls for regulatory reform as well as data collection on individual states – ranking them on how well they create a favorable climate for startups. It would require a cost-benefit analysis for all proposed rules and subject them to automatic, 10-year sunset requirements. State rankings would provide states with the motivation to decrease their regulatory burden and attract more new business.

At a recent forum, Litan noted that the government seems to be out of fiscal policy bullets to jolt the economy back to life. By creating a climate more conducive to the birth and survival of new firms, however, the U.S. could spur job creation at a relatively modest cost that won’t break the bank.

Photo Credit: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Wingnut Watch: Jim DeMint’s Filibuster, T-Paw and Bachmann’s Catfight.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Like most politically active Americans, the residents of Wingnut World are heavily focused on the debt limit negotiations. Unlike many politically active Americans, hard-core conservatives by and large are just fine with a failure to reach any agreement. In some cases, it’s because they don’t buy the idea that failure to raise the debt limit will cause a default on federal government obligations. The “Full Faith and Credit Act”, introduced some time back by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Club for Growth) and backed by most Tea Party groups, is designed to bolster that case by directing the Treasury to pay creditors, the armed services, and Social Security recipients first if the debt limit is reached (this approach, of dubious legality, would virtually guarantee a major shutdown of unprotected federal programs).

Then there are those conservatives who don’t necessarily dispute that a debt limit increase is necessary to avoid a default, or that a default would produce economic havoc, but nonetheless argue that cutting federal spending, taxes and debt is more important (economically and morally) in the long run. Thus, they are adamantly opposed to any deal that doesn’t meet the politically impossible “Cut, Cap and Balance” template. This is the official position of the 183 conservative organizations, including those that have signed onto the “Cut, Cap and Balance” Pledge, along with nine presidential candidates (ten if you count likely candidate Rick Perry), 12 senators and 39 House Members. There is no deal anywhere in the works that these folks can support without subjecting themselves to charges of hypocrisy and betrayal. And the senators among them—including wingnut Big Dog Jim DeMint—have regularly threatened a filibuster against any deal they don’t like, which would produce highly dangerous delays even if it is not backed by sufficient votes to thwart the majority.

Outside this circle of solemn oaths to wreck the national economy if it’s necessary to pursue their ideological agenda, conservatives vary in what they might consider acceptable, with some focused on the precise extent of the concessions that might be wrung from the administration and congressional Democrats, and some standing with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in making political point-scoring against the administration the top priority. Virtually no conservatives have conceded the possibility of a deal including revenue measures that aren’t pared with tax rate cuts. And on top of everything else, profound institutional rivalries between House and Senate Republicans that have already become a problem in coordinating GOP strategy will make expeditious final action difficult. It’s going to be a very long week.

Meanwhile, on the presidential campaign trail, the rivalry between those Minnesota twins, Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty, has been heating up. T-Paw has recently taken several shots at Bachmann’s record in Congress—and lack of executive experience—along with making what looked to be a thinly veiled reference to her medical condition as a possible problem (he later flatly stated he had never seen Bachmann suffer from any incapacity in fulfilling her duties). Bachmann fired back harshly with a denunciation of Pawlenty’s earlier positions on health reform, climate change, and TARP, suggesting he had a lot in common with Barack Obama.

The knife-fight reflects the fact that Pawlenty is fighting for his political life in Iowa, and can ill afford to lose badly to Bachmann at the August 13 Iowa GOP Straw Poll. But both Minnesotans are increasingly laboring under the tall shadow of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is reportedly 99% sure to announce a candidacy next month. Already in the double-digits in national and some state polls (a statute that poor T-Paw has yet to reach after months of campaigning), Perry probably benefitted from the decision of the Iowa GOP to keep him off the Straw Poll ballot, which means he doesn’t have to rush his announcement and won’t suffer from a poor showing in Ames. But Perry also courted controversy on the Right the other day by expressing indifference to New York’s recent legalization of same-sex marriage on states’ rights grounds:

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, Colo. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

This comment immediately attracted criticism from Christian Right leaders, including Gary Bauer and Iowa kingmaker Bob Vander Plaats, who don’t think their “marriage is between a man and a woman” stance is a matter of state preference any more than individual preference. Perry’s stance, and the casual attitude he conveyed in talking about it, could give Bachmann fresh traction in her struggle to compete with the Texan for Christian Right support.

No Bargain for America

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

When you compromise between a good plan and a bad plan, you get a less good plan. So what happens when you compromise between two bad plans? We’re about to find out, as Congress this week tries to reconcile deficit reduction blueprints drawn up by House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

That we are now reduced to fallback House and Senate plans reflects the failure of the nation’s political leadership to rise to the occasion and forge a common approach to solving the debt crisis. The road not taken was the “grand bargain” every serious budget analyst knows is substantively and politically the only way to control the debt: trade more tax revenues for cuts in the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending.

While it’s easy to assume a posture of Olympian detachment and blame both sides for this failure of nerve, it’s wrong. The grand bargain died because House Republicans killed it. As President Obama said last night, it was scuttled by the “ideological rigidity” of Tea Party extremists who are trying to dictate national fiscal policy from the House.

Recall that once it was clear that he couldn’t get a “clean” bill raising the debt limit, President Obama decided to go big. That is, he pushed for a big debt reduction package of about $4 trillion, which would stabilize and eventually shrink the debt. That idea appealed to Boehner – at first. But when House GOP freshmen made it clear they would not vote to raise revenues, insisting that our massive deficits be closed through spending cuts alone, Boehner walked away from talks with the President. Not once, but twice.

As liberals ruefully noted, the House GOP’s zero-concessions approach contrasted sharply with Obama’s pliability. First he agreed to trillions of dollars of domestic spending cuts. Then he offered to put entitlements on the table, causing conniptions among the “progressives” who oppose long-overdue reforms in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The president endorsed a package that was 3-1 spending cuts over tax revenues. Rather than accept it and declare victory, conservatives demanded unconditional surrender.

So now the spotlight shifts to the Boehner and Reid plans. Both fall well short of what the country needs. Boehner calls for a two-step process: First, Congress would cap discretionary spending and raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion. Then a bicameral joint committee would be charged with finding another $1.8 trillion in savings. If Congress approves the second tranche, it would lift the debt ceiling by the same amount.

The Reid bill also would cut discretionary spending by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade, and leave revenues untouched. But as critics have rightly pointed out, that includes savings from military spending as the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down that have been accounted for already. Nonetheless, Obama last night endorsed Reid’s approach, which has the virtue of extending the debt ceiling until after the next presidential election.

Neither bill, of course, offers a permanent solution to the debt crisis. It’s not even clear that each could pass its respective House of Congress. It’s not hard to imagine Tea Party types balking because the bill doesn’t cut deeply enough, or because they’d rather force the country into default as a way of defunding federal programs. Some Senate liberals are chafing over Reid’s approach, which does not ask the rich to pay higher taxes or even close tax loopholes, thereby putting the entire burden of debt reduction on domestic spending.

In the end, as everyone expects, some kind of package will be cobbled together to avoid a prolonged default. But that means the whole sorry spectacle, replete with dogmatic posturing and politically evasive behavior will drag on into next year.

Photo Credit: Robert Reed Daly

Welcome Back, Gang of Six

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Not a moment too soon, the Gang of Six has resurfaced in the U.S. Senate, breathing new life into hopes for a bipartisan “grand bargain” on deficit reduction.

Even if Eric Cantor were abducted by aliens, there’s no way that Congress could pass the Gang’s elaborate plan to solve the debt crisis before Aug. 2. But the Gang’s resurgence, with growing support from GOP Senators, adds to mounting public pressure on House Republicans to end their self-isolating intransigence on taxes.

Several weeks ago, the Gang looked moribund after a key member, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) went on walkabout. To their immense credit, however, Gang leaders Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) persevered, got Coburn back in the fold, and unveiled their new plan before 46 Republican and Democratic Senators this week. President Obama, who has stood strangely aloof from the Gang’s efforts to find common ground, pronounced the new package “consistent” with his views.

The new blueprint, like the original, is based on the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission plan. It envisions two steps: First, an immediate, $500 billion “down payment” on deficit reduction; followed by more comprehensive reform. Altogether, the Gang calls for $3.7 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade. That’s about what budget experts say is necessary to first stabilize, then start shrinking, the national debt.

Another Gang leader, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-Mont.), said today there is talk on Capitol Hill of using the $500 billion cut to win a short-term extension of the debt limit. That could give lawmakers more time to hammer out a permanent solution to the fiscal crisis that includes both increased tax revenues and entitlement reform.

The Gang’s revised plan proposes deep cuts in Medicare and other health spending, while – sorry Rep. Ryan — apparently maintaining the structure of Medicare and Medicaid. It would achieve about $1 trillion in savings by capping domestic spending, including defense, over the next decade. These cuts are way beyond cosmetic.

The new plan also embraces the fiscal commission’s key proposal on tax reform. It would raise around $1 trillion over the next decade by closing tax loopholes, using the savings both to dramatically lower income and corporate tax rates, and reduce the deficit. Spared are tax credits for low-wage workers and families with children. More affluent taxpayers will welcome the Gang’s call to abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The fiscal commission achieved a political breakthrough when Republicans Senators embraced tax reform, and some Democrats agreed to cut Social Security benefits for affluent retirees and raise the retirement age. Here the new blueprint disappoints. Basically it punts to the Senate Finance Committee, which is charged with drafting a plan to assure Social Security’s solvency over the next 75 years. The Gang also says efforts to reform Social Security should only take place “on a separate track – any savings from the programs must go toward solvency.” This may placate liberals, but could alienate conservatives who suspect Democrats aren’t really serious about entitlement reform.

The big question, of course, is whether the Gang’s plan could ever get through the House. For starters, it violates the Tea Party’s Prime Imperative — that revenues can be raised for no other purpose than cutting tax rates. Moreover, Ezra Klein reports that it also appears to assume the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. If House Republicans won’t yield on taxes, don’t expect House liberals to deal on entitlement reform.

Still, a lot depends on how the debt limit battle plays out. New polls show voters are more likely to see Republicans as standing in the way of compromise than Obama and the Democrats. If things get really ugly – if the federal government can’t pay salaries or mail benefit checks on Aug. 3 – such suspicions could quickly turn into a furious backlash.

In any case, the Gang’s initiative illuminates a growing rift between House and Senate Republicans, both on taxes and negotiating tactics. By saying, in effect, “Hell no” to balanced proposals to cut deficits, House Republicans are forfeiting a rare opportunity to get Democrats to swallow huge, multi-trillion-dollar cuts in federal spending. Apparently, real conservatives prefer big government to tax hikes.

On the other side, progressives aren’t likely to get a better offer than the one Warner and company are offering. No one knows this better than President Obama, who’s been beating his head against the wall of GOP recalcitrance for weeks. And that’s why, once the debt limit is raised, he ought to throw in with the Gang of Six.

Photo Credit: TalkMediaNews