Rogers: Government Will Not Shut Down

Add to Briefcase
March 16, 2011, 8:33 a.m.

Need to know when your fa­vor­ite can­did­ates are de­bat­ing? Want to be there when Pres. Obama or House Min. Lead­er John Boehner stump in your dis­trict? Book­mark this to check out up­com­ing events. And add an­oth­er book­mark to re­call what’s already happened.

We’ll pub­lish today’s events in each edi­tion of The Hot­line, but you can al­ways find our com­plete list at those per­man­ent homes.

Have events we should in­clude? Email Aman­da Mun­oz-Temple to add your fun­draiser, de­bate, rally or oth­er gath­er­ing.

Wed., Oct. 13

“¢ First Lady Michelle Obama fun­draises for Sen. Russ Fein­gold (D) in Mil­wau­kee and then heads to Chica­go where she will fun­draise for Sen­ate can­did­ate Alexi Gi­an­nouli­as, Reps. Debbie Halvor­son and Bill Foster and House can­did­ate Dan Seals

“¢ Mi­chael Steele fun­draises for the RNC at the ‘Ele­phant Club’ lunch­eon in Min­nesota

“¢ Ex-Sen. Rick San­tor­um (R-PA) is the key­note speak­er for a lunch­eon with Linn Eagles, an or­gan­iz­a­tion com­mit­ted to fur­ther­ing a strong GOP pres­ence in Linn County, IA. Then at­tends a fun­draiser for state rep. Jeff Kaufmann (R-79)

“¢ Newt Gin­grich (R) stumps and fun­draises for Rep. Aaron Schock (R) in Wash­ing­ton, IL

“¢ CO GOV can­did­ates John Hick­en­loop­er (D), Dan Maes (R), Tom Tan­credo (Const.) de­bate in Den­ver

“¢ ID GOV can­did­ates Keith Allred (D) and Gov. Butch Ot­ter (R) will de­bate at the Col­lege of Idaho

“¢ PA-15 can­did­ates Rep. Charlie Dent (R) and John Cal­la­han (D) de­bate

“¢ CT GOV can­did­ates Dan Mal­loy (D) and Tom Fo­ley (R)de­abte

“¢ VT GOV can­did­ates Peter Shum­lin (D) and Bri­an Du­bie (R) de­bate

“¢ AR SEN can­did­ates John Booz­man (R), Tre­vor Drown (I), John Gray (G), Sen. Blanche Lin­coln (D) de­bate the Univ. of Cent­ral AR in Con­way at 10 am

“¢ DE SEN can­did­ates Coons (D) and O’Don­nell (R) de­bate

“¢ AR-04 can­did­ates Joshua Drake (G), Beth Anne Rankin (R), Mike Ross (D) de­abte the Univ. of Cent­ral AR in Con­way at 3 pm

“¢ NV-03 can­did­ates Rep. Dina Tit­us (D) and Joe Heck (R) de­bate

“¢ CA-47 can­did­ates Rep. Lor­etta Sanc­hez (D) and Van Tran (R) face off in a pub­lic TV de­bate

“¢ NY-20 can­did­ates Scott Murphy (D) and Chris Gib­son (R) de­bate

“¢ KS-03 can­did­ates Kev­in Yo­der (R) and Stephene Moore (D) de­bate at a Lawrence Cham­ber of Com­merce for­um

“¢ MI-07 can­did­ates Rep. Mark Schauer (D) and Tim Wal­berg (R) de­bate

“¢ CT-05 can­did­ates Rep. Chris Murphy (D) and Sam Ca­li­gi­uri (R) de­bate

“¢ Grover Nor­quist key­notes a fun­draiser for the NH House Re­pub­lic­an PAC

Two icon­o­clast­ic new stud­ies chal­lenge the grim fa­tal­ism sur­round­ing the con­gres­sion­al su­per com­mit­tee charged with identi­fy­ing the next steps to­ward tam­ing the long-term fed­er­al debt.

The glum, grow­ing con­sensus in Wash­ing­ton is that the su­per com­mit­tee is more likely to per­petu­ate than re­solve the parties’ stale­mate over the de­fi­cit. The bet­ting is that, with Re­pub­lic­ans still re­ject­ing any tax in­creases (even though fed­er­al rev­en­ues, as a share of the over­all eco­nomy, now stand at their low­est level since 1950), Demo­crats won’t ac­cept any mean­ing­ful re­straints on en­ti­tle­ment spend­ing (even though pay­ments to in­di­vidu­als now con­sume more than three-fifths of the fed­er­al budget, squeez­ing all oth­er lib­er­al pri­or­it­ies). Con­ven­tion­al wis­dom now as­sumes that the com­mit­tee will of­fer just enough sav­ings to avoid com­plete fail­ure (which might fur­ther rattle spooked fin­an­cial mar­kets) but not enough to truly con­front the long-term prob­lem.

From Na­tion­al Journ­al: PIC­TURES: Heck­lers of the 2012 Race ‘New’ Vir­us Catches CDC’s Eye Lough­ner Could Stand Tri­al VIDEO: Has Rom­ney Flipped on Edu­ca­tion? Gov­ern­ment Shut­down Scares Through the Years

Yet the two re­cent stud­ies from un­usu­al left-right co­ali­tions show the op­por­tun­ity for great­er bold­ness. In each re­port, groups that star­ted with dia­met­ric­al ideo­lo­gic­al views about the role of gov­ern­ment co­alesced be­hind re­form pro­grams that would sub­stan­tially re­duce the de­fi­cit by elim­in­at­ing pro­grams that are either in­ef­fect­ive or that un­ne­ces­sar­ily sub­sid­ize spe­cial in­terests.

The agen­das offered by these odd-couple al­li­ances alone are not suf­fi­cient to sta­bil­ize the long-term budget — that can only be done by re­strain­ing en­ti­tle­ments and rais­ing more rev­en­ue. But these plans show how aus­ter­ity can en­able re­form: They un­der­score the op­por­tun­ity to use the de­fi­cit chal­lenge to re­think fed­er­al ex­pendit­ures that are now jus­ti­fied by little more than the strength of the lob­bies pro­tect­ing them. Equally im­port­ant, the re­ports should sig­nal to Con­gress that, with enough cre­ativ­ity and de­term­in­a­tion, it’s pos­sible to bridge even gap­ing ideo­lo­gic­al di­vides.

One of the stud­ies, called “Green Scis­sors,” pro­poses $380 bil­lion in sav­ings over just the next five years in pro­grams that, as the re­port ar­gues, “both harm the en­vir­on­ment and waste tax­pay­er dol­lars.” The plan was as­sembled by two lib­er­al groups (Friends of the Earth and Pub­lic Cit­izen) and two staunchly con­ser­vat­ive or­gan­iz­a­tions (the Heart­land In­sti­tute and Tax­pay­ers for Com­mon Sense). “In some ways, [these groups] are fur­ther apart than Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress “¦ on the role that gov­ern­ment should play,” said Ben­jamin Schreiber, a Friends of the Earth tax ana­lyst who helped write the study. “When we can agree on $380 bil­lion in po­ten­tial sav­ings, it shows just how much is out there to save by elim­in­at­ing harm­ful pro­grams.”

One series of re­com­mend­a­tions pro­poses that Wash­ing­ton stop sub­sid­iz­ing private in­terests by char­ging so little for ac­cess to fed­er­al re­sources such as tim­ber, graz­ing land, hard-rock min­er­als, and oil and gas leases on pub­lic lands; as the re­port notes, the Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice has cal­cu­lated that U.S. roy­alty rates for oil and gas pro­duc­tion are among the world’s low­est. An­oth­er set of re­com­mend­a­tions would roll back dir­ect sub­sidies for en­ergy pro­du­cers — such as tax breaks for do­mest­ic oil pro­duc­tion and loan guar­an­tees for an ar­ray of en­ergy pro­jects, from nuc­le­ar power plants to al­tern­at­ive en­ergy. A third buck­et would re­trench or elim­in­ate fed­er­al in­sur­ance pro­grams that sub­sid­ize farm­ers to put new land in pro­duc­tion (of­ten in en­vir­on­ment­ally fra­gile areas), en­cour­age homeown­ers to build on ter­rain vul­ner­able to floods, and lim­it the li­ab­il­ity of off­shore oil drillers for spills. “This is a long list of pro­grams that lots of people can agree are ter­rible ideas,” said Eli Lehr­er, a vice pres­id­ent at the Heart­land In­sti­tute. “This is the real low-hanging fruit in the fed­er­al budget.”

In the same spir­it, the con­ser­vat­ive Na­tion­al Tax­pay­ers Uni­on and U.S. PIRG — a lib­er­al, cam­pus-based, pub­lic-in­terest or­gan­iz­a­tion — re­cently re­leased a re­port (“To­ward Com­mon Ground”) that iden­ti­fied more than $1 tril­lion in po­ten­tial sav­ings over the next dec­ade. Some of those es­tim­ates may be a bit ex­uber­ant. But the re­port con­tains dozens of bit­ingly spe­cif­ic re­com­mend­a­tions for eco­nom­ies or­gan­ized around four large themes: end­ing cor­por­ate sub­sidies (par­tic­u­larly for ag­ri­cul­tur­al and en­ergy in­terests); re­form­ing mil­it­ary spend­ing (mostly by im­prov­ing con­tract­ing and elim­in­at­ing ques­tion­able weapons sys­tems); stream­lin­ing gov­ern­ment op­er­a­tions (es­pe­cially by build­ing on ini­ti­at­ives that Pres­id­ent Obama has already launched to mod­ern­ize com­put­ing sys­tems); and pur­su­ing rifle-shot re­forms that tar­get du­bi­ous pay­ments in Medi­care and So­cial Se­cur­ity.

Few people would sup­port all of the changes in either re­port. And, for each party, a few of the ideas touch raw ideo­lo­gic­al nerves. But most of the pro­pos­als sidestep the left-right im­passe. In­stead, they raise a dif­fer­ent ques­tion: In pur­su­ing de­fi­cit re­duc­tion, will Con­gress tar­get weak claims or only weak cli­ents?

The vast ma­jor­ity of pro­grams chal­lenged in both re­ports rep­res­ent trans­fers to power­ful in­terests that have ap­plied their for­mid­able clout to de­fend­ing spe­cial treat­ment. Once, these sub­sidies might have been more eas­ily jus­ti­fied be­cause most at least par­tially serve some pub­lic pur­pose — for in­stance, en­cour­aging more do­mest­ic oil pro­duc­tion. But now, with every fed­er­al pro­gram un­der pres­sure, the bal­ance between private gain and pub­lic be­ne­fit for all of these pro­grams de­serves much stricter scru­tiny. If the su­per com­mit­tee doesn’t ap­ply that scru­tiny, it can’t say it’s be­cause no one told it where to look.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.