Political and legislative activity in Washington was largely suspended in the immediate wake of the shootings in Tucson. As anyone who’s been sampling the news media since the weekend is aware, there’s been a discussion about whether there ought to be a debate over possible connections between the tragedy in Tucson and the type of overheated anti-government and even insurrectionary political rhetoric we’ve heard of late from conservatives, some of it aimed at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords herself. The “let’s don’t debate” side appears to be winning. Indeed, conservative outrage at the alleged “politicalization” of the shootings has rivaled outrage over the shootings themselves.
Not surprisingly, scattered calls for a fresh look at the ready availability of the kind of weapons and ammunition deployed in Tucson haven’t gotten much traction. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has reintroduced her bill to ban certain high capacity ammunition magazines, which is a way to reduce the lethal effect of firearms without banning the weapons themselves. But it’s not likely to see the light of day in the Republican-controlled House. A more likely avenue of response to the shootings is via interest in care (voluntary or involuntary) for the violence-prone mentally ill. Still, the very eve of perhaps the most intensive effort ever to reduce discretionary social spending isn’t the best possible time to call for a boost in mental health services.
With or without any formal sanction, beefed-up security for Members of Congress and other elected officials is almost certain to emerge, along with significantly greater caution about public events and casual contact between elected officials and constituents. (Typically, conservative blogger Ben Domenech suggested arming congressional staff). Again, the timing isn’t great, given existing levels of public unhappiness with government and politicians, much of it motivated by the sense that officeholders have “lost touch” with the citizenry.
The hiatus on activity in Washington has not extended to state and local governments (other than in Arizona), where a difficult new year is unfolding under the shadow of one of the worst fiscal crises since the Great Depression. A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that in December alone, state and local governments laid off 20,000 employees. Overall, state and local payrolls have dropped by 397,000 since August 2008, with just over half the reductions attributable to local school districts, even though national public school enrollment levels have risen by 741,000 since the beginning of the recession. with revenues still bottoming out and stimulus funds scheduled to run out soon, state and local employment is likely to drop even further in 2011. This even without taking into account many new Republican officeholders determination to public employees for cutbacks while cutting taxes for corporations and high-income individuals.
Just last week there was a development within the conservative movement that may pour cold water on Republican “tax reform” efforts at the state level, which were aimed at paying for income tax cuts with increases in sales taxes. Conservative policy commissar Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform condemned a Republican-sponsored proposal in Georgia to boost net revenues through a broadening of the sales tax base accompanied by income tax cuts. Any “reform” plan, said Norquist, would violate the no-tax-increase pledge his group has secured from a vast number of GOP pols unless it reduces the overall tax burden, not just the portion borne by corporations or the wealthy. This ukase has obvious implications for similar talk of a more-revenues-through-base-broadening-and-lower-rates deal in Washington. And aside from the impact on tax progressivity, an abandonment by conservatives of schemes to raise more revenues via more regressive taxes will increase the pressure on public spending, as Norquist made plain by calling for major reductions in the “size and scope of government.”