Editorial -- The Time for Partisan Ideology is Over.

The American people have spoken -- Barack Obama will be the President for the next four years. The American people don't completely buy into his ideas, given that they reelected a Republican Congress. But based on the election results, they feel he is still the best person for the job. Now that he's reelected, we need to let him be President. I would have said the same thing had Mitt Romney been e

lected.

Now is not the time for ideology or stonewalling. President Obama is not a socialist and most people who supported Romney are not racist. The President and Congress were elected to work together, not engage in partisan grandstanding. We need to get a budget passed and we need to decide what direction we wish to go. The way our political system is set up, nobody is going to get their way all the time; sometimes, we have to give up some of what we want so that our system of government can continue to function. To do otherwise will mean that billions of dollars of farm subsidies, upon which a lot of us live off of, will be in jeopardy along with funding for roads, bridges, and schools.

 

The time for partisan ideology and grandstanding is over. Today, we were driving over Route F, which had been cobbled together by the Highway Department a few times since 2006. It is getting into bad shape. We have driven along Route C from Allendale to Albany, which had always been a good alternative to 169, which was getting into bad shape. Now, that is no longer possible; there are places along C which are not passable at speeds greater than 30 miles per hour. Just as an example, for Congress not to act and reach a deal with President Obama would risk turning all of our roads into similar shape, not just our lettered roads. There would no longer be adequate funding for our roads and bridges should the massive automatic spending cuts be triggered in January of next year.

The Pew Research Center has done research into the attitudes of the American people towards deficit reduction and the great majority of the American people have spoken -- most people want compromise and not confrontation. 67% of Americans want Republicans to work with Obama while 72% of Americans want Obama to work with the Republicans.

There is another broad area of agreement as well -- most Americans (56%) want a smaller government providing fewer services instead of a bigger government providing more services. And (same link), most Americans want a combination of higher taxes and reduced services (69%), not one or the other. There are two common sense ways of reducing the size of government that will not threaten basic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security -- one was put forward by a CEO on NPR's Morning Edition on Wednesday, November 21st, who pointed out that by simply eliminating duplication of tests in Medicaid and Medicare, we could save $750 billion annually. The same CEO was willing to pay more taxes in order to get rid of the deficit and pointed out that most of his fellow upper-income friends were willing to do the same thing. Another hundreds of billions can be saved by identifying and eliminating defense programs that have been passed by politicians engaging in pork barrel politics, but which the Department of Defense identifies as a want instead of a need.

 

 The problem comes when identifying specific programs to cut. Many people want to reduce the size and scope of government, but don't want their pet projects cut. So what we should do is focus on cuts that most of us agree on and have a debate over others in which there is a partisan split. Ideas which are opposed across the board should be off the table.

With that in mind, here is what the Pew polling finds general agreement on:

--Reduce Medicare income for higher income seniors;

--Limit tax deductions for large corporations;

--Raise tax on high income earners;

--Freeze salaries of federal workers;

--Raise Social Security cap for affluent earners.

Those areas in which there is a partisan split are as follows:

--Raise income taxes on income over $250,000 -- Will this take a substantial chunk out of the deficit, or will the government be taking money that would have otherwise been invested in the economy?

--Reduce military defense spending -- Now that we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, what are our biggest national security concerns and how do we pay to address them?

--Raise taxes on investment income -- See the question on income taxes over $250,000.

--Reduce funding to help lower-income Americans -- Is it necessary to help people get back on their feet, or is it an incentive for people not to find work?

--Reduce aid to the world's needy -- Do we have a moral obligation to give to the world's needy, and if so, how do we keep it from going into the wrong hands?

These are areas in which we should not necessarily include as part of the package, but that we should have a constructive debate over.

Areas which voters have expressed disapproval of and which should be off the table include:

--Limit home mortgage interest deduction;

--Gradually raise the Social Security retirement age;

--Raise peoples' Medicare health care contributions;

--Reduce funding for college student loans;

--Reduce funding for scientific research;

--Reduce federal funding for education;

--National sales tax;

--Raise Medicare contributions;

--Reduce federal funding to states;

--Raise the gas tax;

--Tax employer-provided health insurance. 

Any agreement that comes out of the present talks between the Obama administration and House Republicans must respect the wishes of the American people. It must protect everything that our people have identified as needs and not wants. To do otherwise would undermine the foundations of our democracy and make a mockery of our political system even more than it is now. Politicians of both parties will suffer at the polls come 2014 and 2016.

Federal Budget Cuts Could Affect Area Poor

The US House approved 13% cuts in nutritional assistance, cuts to meals for low-income seniors, and cuts to food banks around the country. The vote was taken last Thursday. Congressman Sam Graves voted for the cuts. It would also cut the WIC program, which includes pregnant women and children under 5. This was part of the 2012 Ag Appropriations Bill.
Mary Jo Fletchall of Community Services in Worth County said that the extent of the cuts would depend on whether they would involve administrative cuts or actual cuts to the programs themselves. She said that there was a lot of fluff that could be cut. However, she said that the fear was that they would have to limit participation in their programs, which would really create a hardship. A lot would depend on how the various agencies would absorb the 13% cuts. In a news release, Congressional leaders maintained that such cuts could be made without affecting services and that strong programs could still be maintained with less money.
The Republican Congress has maintained that the cuts are necessary in order to achieve deficit reduction. However, the bill now goes to the Senate. The actual cuts may not be as much given that the Democrats control the Senate; this means that there would have to be some sort of compromise on the cuts and where they would be made.
There are risks that Congress is taking should the cuts target the actual programs themselves as opposed to administrative staffing. The risk is that less aid for preventative health services such as WIC, other nutritional assistance programs, cuts to food banks, and aid to low income seniors would result in more long-term health care costs, meaning that the risk is that Congress is sacrificing long-term benefits in return for short-term benefits. House Republicans have maintained that such actions are needed because the US has reached the debt ceiling, meaning that they cannot go into debt like they have in the past. However, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities maintains that the deficits are actually caused by the Bush tax cuts as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Opinion: America's March of Folly

By Dr. Marvin Folkertsma

The budget deficits from the first two years of the Obama administration are of sufficient magnitude to spring Dr. “Billions and Billions” Carl Sagan from his grave. Sagan could sue for copyright infringement for misuse of astronomical numbers.

On second thought, the figures now being bandied about are in the trillions, which no doubt would send the venerable atheist skulking back, perhaps muttering something about the “unsustainability” of it all.

Sagan would not be alone. Multi-trillion dollar deficits that generate debt obligations in the hundreds of trillions of dollars cannot continue even in the short run, at least not without that Fifth Horseman of Apocalypse—picture Darth Vader toting a wheel barrow filled with worthless script—showing up to hiss questions about the insanity of those who led America on its “March of Folly.”

Barbara Tuchman wondered the same thing in a book published with that name, in which she probed the mentalities and policies of political leaders who led their countries to destruction—and here’s the kicker—fully aware of what they were doing but not willing to stop themselves from doing it. More specifically, averred Tuchman, to qualify as “folly” a policy: 1) “must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely by hindsight;” 2) “a feasible alternative course of action must have been available,” and; 3) that alternative must have been in existence beyond the life of a single individual and recommended over time by significant political opposition.

By these criteria, the Renaissance popes, British government during the American Revolution, American presidents during the Vietnam War era, and several others as well, all get skewered, and rightly so. Their failures can all be explained by their “perverse persistence in a policy demonstrably unworkable or counterproductive.” To put the matter more colorfully, the leaders that Tuchman covered were lamentably immersed in “wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception.”

Echoes of wooden-headedness resound throughout history, from Trojans taking the wooden horse within their walls to current administration officials who continue to insist that the stimulus worked, the country is on the road to economic recovery, and Americans will learn to love a 2,300-page piece of legislation that few read and nobody understands. Lest Republicans feel too smug about Democrats’ current discomfort, they should be reminded that one of their own, George W. Bush, put his signature to a law roughly half that size—the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit—and even that most iconic of Republican leaders, Ronald Reagan, still failed to produce a balanced budget, even during times of prosperity.

Which means that wooden-headedness transcends time, place, and partisanship, and further that if “eating crow” means being forced to acknowledge one’s own errors, then that repulsive bird should replace bean soup on the Senate’s famed menu, at least until members of both parties in each chamber acknowledge that they have often marched on the road of folly holding each others’ hands, and that we’re all in this together.

Indeed, all Americans have to be, if one is to take recent CBO estimates seriously, which mean that unless America stops its march of folly, federal government spending will go beyond that region where even the expression “out of control” still makes any sense. The CBO March 2011 report indicated that for the 40 years prior to Obama’s election, federal deficits averaged around 35 percent of the country’s annual GDP; that number rose to 62 percent by the end of 2011, the highest level since the end of World War II. Absent significant policy changes, that percentage will climb to 87 percent over the course of the next decade, reflecting an additional $9.5 trillion in debt.

Certainly the attention devoted to this subject over the past few years has been huge, but as Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff point out in their excellent treatment, This Time It’s Different, these numbers reflect conditions that kill countries. Indeed, instead of treating the greatest country on earth like a pampered and suicidal adolescent, American leaders must grasp that nations crumble under such debt; nations and empires and entire civilizations. Further, viable alternatives have been offered as well, including those advocated by a bipartisan Senate group as well as those from the president’s own debt commission, and most recently, by Congressman Paul Ryan.

So, what is the solution? Honesty and courage. Honesty on the part of our political leaders to explain America’s perilous situation and courage to do something about it, regardless of consequences to their own political careers, or even to their lives. Both traits were illustrated in a marvelous vignette recounted by Joseph Ellis in his Founding Brothers. After signing the document that pitted the newly proclaimed country against the most formidable world power the world had ever known, Benjamin Harrison quipped to Elbridge Gerry that his size and weight gave him a greater advantage over his smaller colleague, in that when they were all hung for treason, the corpulent Mr. Harrison “would die in a few minutes,” whereas the lighter Mr. Gerry would “dance in the air an hour or two before [he is] dead.”

These men were honest about the stakes involved, which they faced with resolution and courage and, if necessary, their lives. Today’s circumstances require no less.

— Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and Fellow for American Studies with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."

Senator says we must compromise to avoid a government shutdown

Today, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill made the following statement after the Senate’s passage of a three-week continuing resolution, needed to keep the government running after the current funding expires March 18. McCaskill is continuing to stress the need for bipartisan compromise as the Senate works to address our deficit and debt in the long-term budget. McCaskill voted for today’s measure, which passed with a vote of 87-13.

“Today’s vote was a temporary solution to the much larger problem of how we’re going to fund the government while finding responsible spending cuts that will help reduce the deficit. It’s important to do everything we can to avoid a government shutdown, which would have a huge impact on ordinary Americans, but we’re going to have to get serious about compromise,” McCaskill said. “There’s no question that cuts have to be made, but they must be done so in a responsible way that are in line with the priorities of Missouri’s families.”

The Continuing Resolution came after the Senate voted to reject both the Democratic and Republican spending bill proposals last week. McCaskill voted against both measures. She opposed the Republican proposal because it focused all of its $61 billion in cuts on the 17% of the budget that goes to domestic discretionary spending and because it would have forced irresponsible cuts to priorities like education. She opposed the Democratic plan, which only cut $6.2 billion, because she did not feel it went far enough.

McCaskill has focused on spending restraint and fiscal responsibility since she came to the Senate. She has introduced legislation with her colleagues Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Bob Corker (R-TN), that would rein in spending both in the short- and long-term, respectively. She introduced Pay-As-You-Go legislation to require that any new tax cuts or spending be deficit neutral. She also supported legislation to establish a fiscal ‘task force’ to make recommendations on how Congress should approach the deficit and debt in the long term, which led to the creation of the President’s Fiscal Commission in 2010.

Senator Roy Blunt On Budget Battle

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today after the U.S. Senate failed to pass the U.S House of Representatives’ proposed budget cuts and the Democrat majority’s substitute to maintain the status quo in Washington:

“Once again, we’re at an impasse thanks to the Senate Democrats’ unwillingness to lead or support real and substantive budget cuts. Their plan to cut only $4.5 billion when our government is borrowing about $4 billion a day is unacceptable. And the White House’s assessment that this plan meets Republicans halfway is simply untrue – at best, their plan only goes one-sixth of the way, which is simply not far enough.

“Americans sent a clear message last fall, and we have a responsibility to listen. We can’t continue spending money we don’t have. We must rein in the out-of-control budgets that have driven our nation into record debt. But instead of heeding that message, the Democrats sent us back to square one today, and the government is at risk of shutting down because of the President and Senate leadership’s unwillingness to confront seriously this national issue.

“The status quo is not a solution. Americans understand that Washington cannot keep living outside of its means. We must make the cuts to balance our budget just like every family and job creator in Missouri and nationwide is forced to do on a daily basis.”

Claire McCaskill: Washington Needs some Show-Me Common Sense

by US Senator Claire McCaskill

One of the most important parts of my job is visiting with and hearing from Missourians across the state. That's why I love coming home to Missouri every weekend, and it's why I enjoyed a recent opportunity to spend an entire week traveling throughout the state listening to your input and ideas at town hall forums and meetings with local groups. Everywhere I went I heard from people who are frustrated with Washington and want to see Congress play by the same rules as everyone else. Some Show-Me State common sense would go a long way in Washington. We started the year off with a big victory by stopping the worst abuses of secret holds when the Senate passed a resolution that cracks down on a senator's ability to anonymously block legislation and nominations. I had been pushing for this legislation for months because the public deserves to know who is blocking the Senate from doing the people's business. But we can't stop there. I've introduced a package of additional congressional reforms that will bring new accountability to Congress while forcing members to do their part to begin addressing the budget crisis. This package focuses on doing what's right, rather than maintaining the status quo. Americans have to live within their means and when there is a budget crunch, they feel the pain. Members of Congress have been too immune to these realities in recent years. As the country's budget has spun out of control, federal law continued to give members of Congress an annual pay raise. This has to end immediately, so I introduced legislation to end the automatic Congressional pay raise. But I am also trying to do more by returning 10 percent of my office budget each year. Over the past four years, I have returned approximately $1.6 million dollars total. In order to bring new accountability to Congress, I also proposed a bill that would establish some common sense rules for government-paid foreign travel so we can be sure that members of Congress aren't abusing the system. It's time to crack down and make public the details of Congressional foreign travel. To add a new layer of accountability to Congress, I have also introduced legislation to create an independent watchdog to investigate, audit, and review Senate operations. The role of Senate Inspector General would be to help identify waste and inefficiencies in the Senate. As a former auditor, I believe that keeping track of how the government is spending money should be our first obligation to the taxpayers, and an Inspector General will help us do that. I'm already looking forward to my next round of town hall meetings and having the opportunity to hear more from you about reforms you want to see in Washington. The best ideas come from real people, and I hope to hear from all of you soon.

Senator Roy Blunt Issues Statement On Short-Term Budget Extension

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today regarding the two-week budget extension compromise, which Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has agreed to move for a vote this week:

“This short-term solution represents a reasonable approach and a good start, but the fact remains that Washington is simply spending more than the federal government is taking in.

“Washington is the only place where we measure how much we care about a program by how much we spend on it, rather than the results we get. The government must start operating under the same rules that families across America face every day when balancing their budgets.

“Everything must be on the table, and as today’s non-partisan GAO report highlights, there’s an enormous amount of waste and duplication that should be eliminated in order to streamline government’s operations.

“Looking forward, Congress needs to come together to identify long-term solutions to ensure the federal government is meeting its key functions while living within its means.”

Senator Roy Blunt: President Breaks Promises on Stimulus

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today marking the second anniversary of the passage of President Barack Obama’s $816 billion stimulus:

“As we mark the second anniversary of the passage of President Obama's so-called stimulus plan, it's clear the President’s pledges about this taxpayer-funded spending were not pledges that could be kept.

"Instead, our children and grandchildren are now saddled with over $800 billion in new debt thanks to this massive spending bill, which failed to reduce skyrocketing unemployment and failed to focus on much-needed private sector job creation nationwide.

“There must be a better way. Moving forward, we must focus on creating real sustainable jobs, spending less money, and letting the private sector grow."

Senator McCaskill's speech on her deficit reduction measure

McCaskill Proposes Deficit Reduction Plan Including Plan to Cut Medicare, Social Security

Claire McCaskill is lead sponsor of a plan that Republicans say is needed to do deficit reductions. It would involve across the board cuts including Social Security and Medicare. She is the only Democratic senator to sign off on this so far. The problem is that people value action on the economy more than they do on the deficit.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_44a43006-2e26-11e0-8d97-0017a4a78c22.html