No Bonus for Statesmanship

Politicians in Washington are frequently criticized for being more concerned with their political careers than the needs of the nation. Such is the case in the ongoing debate over the budget crisis. The numerous obstacles to reaching an agreement on avoiding the "fiscal cliff" are attributed to members of Congress looking to satisfy  important constituencies in their districts thereby preserve their careers. This is sometimes referred to derisively as "pandering". It is no such thing. It is representing your constituents. It is what members of Congress are supposed to do.

Why is Congress so reluctant to curtail federal spending? Because the American people have come to rely on government spending for their living and well being. From cancer research, to defense contractors, to social welfare programs, to college students, to the elderly and farmers, along with virtually everything else you can think of, all Americans rely on federal spending in one way or another. Every dollar spent by Washington has a constituency. When it comes to federal spending, one man's pork is another man's bacon. A congressman from New York might see the reasonableness of curtailing farm subsidies whereas a congressman from Nebraska might see AIDS research as a legitimate target for trimming. There are 435 members in the House representing 435 different districts. There are 100 members of the U.S. Senate representing 50 different states. Each of those districts and states has its own peculiar concerns. It is when the particulars come up that consensus to solve the budget crisis breaks down.

Everyone, well, almost everyone, agrees that something needs to be done. You can find agreement that spending needs to be cut and revenue must be raised. It is in determining how that revenue will be raised and where cuts are to be made that bipartisanship evaporates and politics enters the equation. Reforming Social Security, for example, generally has broad support in the nation and in Washington. But when the issue comes up it quickly becomes mired in the specifics. Will some people be required to pay more? If so who? How much? Will benefits have to be cut? If so, whose will be cut and by how much? The same can be said of raising revenue. There is popular agreement that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. In itself, that is certainly not an objectionable proposal. They should. But where the issue becomes sticky is in determining who is "wealthy" and how much more and in what manner they should be required to pay. How much money can a family of four earn before it is considered "wealthy"? What is a fair rate they should be taxed at?

Hard choices have to be made in Washington. That means hard choices have to be made by the public. Americans have to decide what they need, what they can do without, and what they can get by with less of. It is fantasy to believe that taxes can be raised enough to cover the deficit, let alone pay down the debt. The level of taxation required to achieve those goals would spawn a rebellion. Some entertain the notion that an economic turn around would refill the nation's coffers. That is highly unlikely. First, it would require an economic turn around of historical proportions. Secondly, it would require that spending remain constant long enough for revenue to catch up. Thirdly, and perhaps most unlikely, it would require Washington to apply any surplus to paying down the debt rather than than indulge their pent up frustrations and pursue their ambitions. That is the least likely scenario because the career of a politician depends on tending to the interests of her constituents, not the interests of the nation. Even if it can be demonstrated that a particular policy or project will benefit every American except the members of a particular congressman's district, you can rely on that congressman to oppose it. Compounding this is a tendency for members of Congress to see what is good for their district as good for the nation. Setting aside billions to upgrade a harbor is ensconced in the notion that the nation will benefit from a refurbished harbor, not just the district that harbor is in. This is a fashionable conceit in many congressmen because it allows them to justify steering federal money to their own districts under the guise of helping the nation's economy.

It is wholly unrealistic to expect politicians to fall on their swords. It has common to portray congressmen who adhere to policies that benefit their districts as small minded. That is a mistaken view. Politicians who look after their constituents are doing their job. You should not expect politicians to fall on their swords and deny their constituents for the benefit of people to whom those politicians are not unaccountable to. That is precisely why Congress has consistently relied upon setting future limits and consistently avoided them when they are reached. By setting a limit they get credit for tackling the problem while avoiding the painful task of actually doing anything about it. They once again have promised to get spending under control: tomorrow.

The so called "fiscal cliff" is nothing more than a past promise to get government spending in hand by setting the clock. Now that the clock is going off, many in Washington want to hit the snooze button. If and when they do, the nation should not snuggle up and get cozy.  The alarm is set to go off again in February when it is predicted that the next debt ceiling will be reached. At that time, the $2.314 trillion allocated by the federal government that was supposed to last until October will be spent. The president says the debt limit must be raised if the country is to avoid fiscal calamity. Of course the debt limit has to be raised. What choice do we have? The only thing to be worked out is what concessions Congress can squeeze from the White House before it gives in. The struggle over the debt ceiling is in the details.

There is no bonus for statesmanship in Washington. You either keep your constituents satisfied or you lose your job. As it stands, there is little chance that the deficit can be taken in hand without a great many Americans becoming dissatisfied and a great many politicians in Washington becoming unemployed. If you want to learn how the country got into the mess it is in today I suggest you look in the mirror. Odds are you will see one of the culprits.