So, Congress has passed a bill to raise the federal debt, the US isn’t going to default, and armageddon has been avoided.. well, put off for a few weeks.
After all the tension, and all the rage directed at D.C recently, we’re in for a period of rejoicing. In the next few days, markets will surely bounce, borrowing costs will no doubt fall, poll ratings will surge, and Congress, and Obama, will be praised for coming together in a moment of crisis. The people, meanwhile, will default to a generally positive view of their country as an example to the rest of the world.
There is little to celebrate, though. First, it is a bad deal. It takes money out of the economy at a time when the US should be spending, not cutting. And it takes from the poor, in the shape of spending cuts, while maintaining tax cuts for people who should be asked to pay a share.
Second, it is not really a deal at all, in the sense of resolving the main arguments. By farming out the difficult decisions to a bipartisan committee, the players are simply re-arranging the problem in a different form (OK, getting 12 people to agree to $1.5 trn of cuts will be easier than two houses of Congress, but the possibility for stalemate remains).
What the debt deal shows – or rather what the lack of a real debt deal shows – is a deeper dysfunction in US politics, where the needs of democracy and governing are out of whack. The US system of divided government is rightly praised for providing checks and balances. But in the age of “hyper-partisanship”, it is leading to gridlock, and a lack of clear direction. At a time when the US has big decisions to make, it is either putting them off for later, or failing to get bills through both houses. Hundreds of important pieces of legislation now die each year in the Senate, unable to overcome the 60-vote barrier (necessary to avoid a filibuster). And even mid-level government appointments have trouble getting confirmed, as opposition parties exploit every angle, sometimes over what seem relatively minor issues.
If the Congress couldn’t agree on a proper deal when the US was facing a calamitous default and government shutdown, there is not much hope for legislation proposed during normal times. Generally, the system is incapable of somehow adjudicating or mediating the extreme differences between the parties. In the old days, reasonable men disagreed, but eventually compromised. Now, they simply disagree and put the problem off for another day.
Having three centres of executive power, as the US effectively has, is no way to run a country. Either it should do away with one or two of those branches (not really an option) or seriously reform Congress, so that the party that wins an election can actually carry out what it was elected to do. Checks and balances are all very well, but ultimately decision-making should take precedence.
(Image: Imagined Reality)
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments