The Sabotage Of American Democracy

Negotiations Continue On Capitol Hill One Day Before Debt Limit Deadline

I suppose I shouldn’t in any way be shocked by the extraordinarily vehement attitude of Tea Party Republicans after they nearly destroyed the US and global economy. And yet I am somewhat grateful I can still be shocked by a column on Fox News’ website. Here’s how it starts:

American taxpayers have once again been trampled by establishment Republicans – a thundering herd of chicken-hearted Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) galloping to the Left. The debt ceiling deal struck between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a victory for President Obama and Democrats. ObamaCare is still the law of the land. The government is still spending money it does not have. And thousands of government workers just got a two-week vacation courtesy of the taxpayers.

Let’s take the last three disappointments/wishes from the non-chicken-hearted.

“ObamaCare is still the law of the land.”

Yes, it is. But that’s because the president who proposed it and the Senate that voted for it were re-elected in 2012. That’s how our system works. Is it possible Todd Starnes doesn’t know this? No, it isn’t. So it is fair, I think, to infer that he believes that because his party regards this centrist, private-sector-dependent reform as an “abomination”, the federal government should be shut down permanently and the country’s credit destroyed, prompting a global depression. And that’s why this episode has been so disturbing. It is not that the GOP doesn’t have a perfect right to vote against Obamacare a zillion times; it’s that they responded to their electoral loss in 2012 by threatening to destroy the entire polity and economy. That is not a tactic or a strategy; it’s a declaration of war against the system of American government.

“The government is still spending money it does not have.”

Yes, it is. But almost all the current debt is a function of massive tax cuts in 2001 that were never paid for (by the GOP), two bank-breaking wars that were never paid for (by the GOP), a big new entitlement for seniors, Medicare D, that was never paid for (by the GOP), and the usgs_line.phprevenue sinkhole provided by the worst recession since the 1930s (begun before Obama took office.). The scale of the debt thus acquired is vast. I think Starnes is absolutely right to make its reduction a priority. The question is a pragmatic one – how do we cut entitlement and defense spending along with raising revenues to get there?

One side is prepared to consider cuts in entitlement programs it cherishes; the other side is resolutely opposed to any net revenue increases at all. One side could begin to negotiate a debt deal that was 2-1 spending cuts to tax hikes; the other side refuses to negotiate even a 10-1 deal. What, for example, does the GOP offer the Democrats on fiscal matters right now? I see nothing. If one side is prepared to give nothing, no deal can be done. And if the Tea Party is right about the urgency of cutting the debt, no deal is very bad fiscal news.

And part of the pragmatic solution is recognizing that immediately ending the government’s current deficit by spending cuts alone would so vitiate economic growth that it would be counter-productive. Starnes is therefore not actually serious about the debt, and neither is the Tea Party.

Their proposal for an immediate balancing of the budget would deepen the debt; and their absolute refusal to countenance any net new revenues to the federal government means they will never get an actual compromise that would actually cut the debt in a meaningful long-term way. In other words, their absolutism on taxes essentially destroys their debt-reduction position … as long as we remain in a constitutional democracy with two parties trying to represent all the people. If the president were saying that he does not care about the debt at all, it would be one thing. But, this president, on current trends, will have brought the deficit down from more than 10 percent of GDP when he took office to around 3 percent when he leaves, during a still tepid recovery (see graph above). What more can these people demand – except, of course, his resignation?

And again, that’s why this episode should not be regarded as anything but a deeply serious political and constitutional crisis. One party is refusing to accept that the other one exists, that not all of America agrees with them, and that democratic norms require compromise in that context.

“Thousands of government workers just got a two-week vacation courtesy of the taxpayers.”

This demonization of government itself, and generalized slur against all those who work for it (and who are also tax-payers) is not just an insult added to injury.

It is another attack on the entire system. As we found out in the fiasco, even Ted Cruz likes government sometimes. For him, it is about keeping monuments open. For other Republicans, it is about scientific research.  And the broader point is that government is the point of politics. There has to be a governing authority that commands universal assent in any functioning democracy. Yes, it should be solvent and run surpluses in peacetime. But it must exist. And conservatism in its proper sense is about governing firmly, securing the rule of law, and sustaining the legitimacy of the democratic system.

What the Tea Party represents, in stark contrast to conservatism, is a radical attack on the very framework of our governing system. It is not right or left within our democratic system. It is a form of secession from it and a de facto abandonment of the notion of one country under one rule of law. It is about sabotage rather than opposition. It is bad enough when one party will seek to sabotage the law of the land – by attempting to rally the public to spurn the new healthcare law, in the hopes of causing it to collapse. But when the dominant faction of one party is bent on sabotaging our democracy, it must not simply be tolerated or appeased the way John Boehner shamefully did. It must be defeated. Anything less is a form of appeasement of forces and ideas that are truly antithetical to the democratic way of life and to constitutional governance.

Yes, in my view, the situation is that grim. If the Republican right’s fanaticism still blinds them to the error of their ways after they nearly destroyed the global economy (and brutally damaged the American one), it becomes clear that only a total collapse of the American government and economy could truly teach them the futility of their deluded aspirations. The rest of us cannot and must not tolerate that. We must draw a line. That line, for those who still believe in the regular order of our democracy, is November 2014.

(Photo: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) answers questions from the media after meeting with Republican senators regarding a bipartisan solution for the pending budget and debt limit impasse at the U.S. Capitol October 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. By Andrew Burton/Getty.)

Yglesias Award Nominee

“[The Obamacare defunders] hurt the conservative movement, they hurt people’s health care, they hurt the country’s economic situation and they hurt the Republican party … These are the people who said, ‘Plan: Step One, Invade Iraq. Step Two, It turns into Kansas,’ Could I ask if there’s anything in between Step One and Step Two? ‘Oh ye of little faith,’” – Grover Norquist.

Update from a reader:

Just wanted to point out that Norquist didn’t have much criticism for the Republicans during the shutdown.  Here are some of his tweets:

Which make his quote today all the more remarkable. (Award glossary here, for new readers.)

How The House GOP Vote Breaks Down

House Vote

Nate Cohn provides details:

[R]ed state and Southern representatives voted overwhelmingly against the Senate compromise: 27-91 in the redstates, 25-88 among Southern representatives. Republicans from the Northeast and Pacific voted “yes” by 30-16 margin; the blue states voted “yes,” 32-17. But compared to the fiscal cliff vote, the GOP might be even more cleanly divided along lines of vulnerability and ideology. Republicans from more competitive districts, with a Cook PVI of R+2 or more Democratic, voted almost unanimously for the Senate compromise.

Kilgore adds:

[A]ny way you slice it, the majority of the [Republican] Conference voted to continue a government shutdown and a debt limit threat that were not working very well for the GOP or for the country.

Yes, it gets worse. Surveying the far right this morning, much worse.

The Markets Bet On A Deal

Drum deems Wall Street a shutdown winner:

They didn’t panic because they figured Congress would do the right thing at the last second, just like always. They were right.

Sarah Binder has mixed feelings about this:

[M]arkets have wised up to Congress’s brinkmanship habits.  Anticipating that Congress would inevitably raise the debt ceiling, markets showed only a tepid reaction this week to the threat of default.  To be sure, we saw nervousness in bond markets as the Treasury came close to hitting its borrowing ceiling.  Still, we are a long way from TARP I: The defeat of the first TARP bill in September 2008 precipitated a market free-fall that forced the parties to the table.  With markets a bit more attuned to how polarized parties legislate, we can no longer count on adverse market reactions to discipline recalcitrant leaders into coming to the table.  This may prove a worrisome development in future episodes of brinkmanship when the blame game delivers a less decisive blow to one party or the other.

The Tragedy Of Ending The Shutdown

All those shutdown beards are getting shaved:

Booooo MauiHollyday. Boo. Liar.

But all is not lost:

The Democrats Have Finally Grown A Spine, Ctd

A reader is feeling good this morning:

After watching Democrats throughout my life continually bungle political opportunity, for once it’s really nice to bask in the utter incompetence of the Republicans for a change.  Had they just continued to be uniform in their resistance to the Affordable Care Act and then seized upon its horrendously planned, bureaucratically challenged, abysmally orchestrated roll-out, the Republicans would all be in tall cotton right now, with the mid-term elections just around the corner.

Instead, they decide to try to suicide-bomb Obamacare, knowing that Democrats have to blink for them to “win” (a strategy where they do not control their own destiny) and all the media can talk about is the idiocy of the Republican party.  The Obamacare rollout mess doesn’t even register within the noise of the shutdown and kamikaze debt-ceiling threats.  Heck, if they would have done nothing but complain loudly, Kathleen Sebelius would have resigned by now and the President’s signature legislation would look like a huge failure.

Instead, the administration gets to fix it under less media scrutiny, and Obama’s negotiating is getting compared to Michael Corleone: “My offer is nothing.”

The Utter Disaster Of Healthcare.gov, Ctd

A reader writes:

I’ve gotta push back a little against all the howling about how bad the online insurance exchanges are.  I just signed up yesterday in New York and had no prob whatsoever.  Took me about 20 minutes.  Smooth sailing, no hanging, no repeat entries, and pretty simple to use from a UI standpoint.  I even called customer service and was on hold for maybe a minute.  Ask me how long I’m on hold for Verizon, Dell, etc, whenever I call them.  My cousin also signed up yesterday – same experience, and I have two friends who enrolled last week, more or less same.

Furthermore, the fact that a lot of “lookers” aren’t “buyers” yet is fairly irrelevant, in my opinion.  Every time I’ve had to change my insurance I’m used to seeing a very small number of plans I can afford and must compare.  New York showed me 124 (?!).  For people who aren’t used to making financial comparisons, I’m sure there’s gonna be a lag time between info gathering and pulling the trigger.

On a more substantive note:

I’ve worked for myself for about 15 years and insurance shopping has always been a nightmare.  Last time I had to change my plan was a few years ago and I had about five options – all wildly expensive, most fairly sucky.  I ended up with an okay plan for my wife and me which, with double-digit annual increases, is now $1400/mo (not a typo).  That’s $16,800/year, or roughly 22% of my usual income, and I can’t write it off.  Yesterday, the exchange listed 124 plans, the great majority of which were less expensive than I have now.  I got literally exactly the same plan as I have now, from the same carrier, for ~ $1000/mo, and with the subsidy, I’ll be down to ~ $700/mo.  This is a life changer for us.

I know people’s mileage may vary, and I’m sure some of the exchanges have problems, but that’s my story.  I have direct firsthand knowledge of four people’s forays onto the exchange and all of them were good.

Update from a reader:

You posted a response from a reader noting that New York’s exchange is working well and gave them 124 options to choose from. New York is a state that created its own exchange, along with California, Kentucky, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and a few others. The states that created their own are performing fairly well, so your reader’s story is not surprising. What we haven’t heard yet are any success stories from the 36 states that relied on the federal government to build its website. The exchanges built by the Feds continue to appear to be an utter failure.

Another writes:

When judging Obamacare, you have to remember the following: 1. Each “application” can/probably does represent more than one person; 2. You have to count all of the “up to 26 year olds” that can stay on their parents insurance plan; 3. You have to count all of the people who got insurance through the expansion of Medicaid (e.g., California alone added 600,000+). In other words, you have to count ALL of the people who now have or soon will have healthcare because of Obamacare.

Another:

Please don’t forget the people who are getting their insurance greatly improved under the ACA. Not everyone needs subsidies. We have a small family business and purchase our own health insurance. Under the ACA, we will pay the same amount but get a much better policy with no underwriting and no chance of losing insurance if we actually use it. Unfortunately, there is no current benchmark to gauge how many people are getting this benefit, but it should also be included in the discussion.

One more:

Because so many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, most people aren’t going to want to part with hundreds of dollars until they need to, which in this case would be December. As for those who tried to get insurance and failed, it’s not like a news site being down where people can just get their news from somewhere else. In this case, they can’t get it anywhere else – that’s why the ACA exists! – so most people will return once the site is fully functional.

Face Of The Day

Newark Mayor And Senate Hopeful Cory Booker Attends Election Night Gathering

Newly elected U.S. Senator Cory Booker walks on stage to speak after winning a special election on October 16, 2013 in Newark, New Jersey. Booker, the current mayor of Newark, defeated Republican Steve Lonegan to replace Frank Lautenberg, who died in June. By Spencer Platt/Getty Images. Booker becomes the first African-American elected to the US Senate since Barack Obama and will join a very short list of black Senators in American history.