Fresh off his exit from the ‘Gang of Six,’ Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) takes the Senate to task for “stalling on the debt debate.” In a fantastic new op-ed in the Washington Post, Coburn singles out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) for presiding over “the least deliberative ‘greatest deliberative body’ in the world” and “failing to direct attention to the central challenges of our time.” His overriding message is clear: Enough with the “gangs” and closed-door meetings, let’s have this debate on the Senate floor where the American people can see it:
We are facing what Democrat Erskine Bowles calls the most predictable economic crisis in history. There is no excuse for not having bills on the Senate floor with an open amendment process that allows the American people to fully comprehend not only the magnitude of our problems but the possible solutions. The people need to hear the Senate debate the central issues of our time. The limited progress that has been made to bring sobriety to Congress, such as the end of the earmark orgy, was made possible through a relentless floor campaign publicizing amendment after amendment and cut after cut. Change happens when the American people see real debate, not partisan political theater.
As the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid bears special responsibility for failing to direct attention to the central challenges of our time. His floor strategy seems to be focused on saving Democrats more than democracy. I would relish a debate on tax earmarks, spending cuts and competing budgets (if there were competing budgets), yet the votes he seems most interested in scheduling — such as tax breaks for big oil companies — are designed for short-term political gain rather than long-term deficit reduction.
This graph is likely to grab the most attention (paging Grover Norquist):
It is not realistic to expect six members to pull the Senate out of its dysfunction and lethargy. Some will ask why we should have more hope in an open, deliberative process, in which all senators are engaged, when a dedicated few did not succeed. The America I know comes together when tough times call for us to do so. It’s time for the Senate to earn its reputation as the world’s greatest deliberative body and help lead that effort. The constituency to help 60 senators agree on a balanced deficit-reduction plan already exists among the public. The public rightly prefers spending cuts over revenue increases, but numerous polls indicate the vast majority of Americans would support the only type of plan that would ever make it out of Congress and be signed into law: one that favors spending cuts over revenue increases but includes both.
But this one is perhaps the most noteworthy:
Getting there, however, will require the Senate to put forward specific solutions and win public support for serious entitlement reform and tax reform. In the coming weeks I’ll be putting forward my own proposal that puts everything on the table and cuts $9 trillion in spending over the next decade. I hope my colleagues present their ideas as well. I’m confident that in a free and open debate, the best solutions for America will prevail, but only if we have the debate.
Let the debate begin, indeed.
Read the whole thing here.
Coburn is one of the more fiscally aware members of the Senate, but I bristle whenever I hear anyone talk about the amount they're going to cut over the next decade. There's simply no chance that the planned cuts will be made, and since they won't, the number is a fiction.
Congress makes one budget a year. Members have a responsibility for that budget. In times like these, they have a responsibility to cut deeply (eliminate departments) so as to get back on track. It's no good laying out a plan for what future congresses will do in other years. Those plans won't get followed. Those cuts won't get made. Our fiscal state won't improve.
The year to make big cuts is always this year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlain English translation (no offense to Sen. Coburn, who is a good man and a good physician but, after all, a politician):
Senators from both parties will grandstand and get all the press conferences and air-time they can milk this for.
At the end of the day, the demise of the Gang of Six -- and I mourn the demise of that entity not at all -- means that the Senate GOP isn't going to come up with anything to replace the House's (Ryan/Path to Prosperity) plan.
At the end of the day, if there's a deal to be cut, it will start with the Ryan plan because the Dems are literally afraid to produce one that they would actually have to vote for on the record.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI fully expect, by the way, that massive changes would have to be made to the Ryan plan before any compromise based on it could get Obama's signature. The changes are so massive that I do not think either House or Senate Republicans would agree.
So we're going to have continuing resolutions through the November 2012 election, friends and neighbors, with every one of them a chance to nip a few billion off and help further educate the public. This is good news (and why I'm glad for the demise of the Gang of Six).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMeh -- reflexive underestimation on my part. Change that to "every one of them a chance to nip a few hundreds of billions off and help further educate the public."
The key is how the hand is played. There is grave danger of overplaying it. And this hand is not the hand for the whole tournament -- the showdown will be in the November 2012 election, where the GOP must needs make Obama's economic disasters into THE determinative issue. (Which is entirely doable -- if we can keep a decent stack until the showdown.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMeh.
Not that impressed at all. Coburn blew it by being part of the "Gang" in the first place. Anyone with half a brain knew that any "Gang" where Dick Durbin is a member will never achieve anything.
That he now critisizes "Gangs" is fine, but he really sounds hypocritical considering just a week ago Coburn critisized others who questioned his involvemnet in this "Gang".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ YoungSwartz: Your point's well taken. But it is genuinely important that budgeting be done with a 10-year horizon. Even though our budget projects for 10 years out from this year will become increasingly off the mark as each single year's spending is approved, there are many multi-year commitments that become senseless if they're subject to single-year whims. The 10-year budget is a product of genuinely bi-partisan reform from the 1970s, IIRC, and in fact there's good reason to be suspicious of budget plans (like some of Obama's) that run longer than 10 years because they're deviating from the standard.
(SolveMedia is 'tinker's dam,' which ought to be 'tinker's [a word which the spam filter would use to block my comment].)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ John Galt: I don't blame Coburn for being insufficiently cynical (although he was). His intentions were good, and he was trying to set a good example.
The entire Democratic party, however, is holding its collective breath, hoping that they can get to November 2012 and get Obama re-elected without another decimation of the sort they suffered in the 2010 mid-terms.
That means continuing resolutions through November 2012. That's a briar patch I'm glad to see the GOP in, if it has some cunning to exploit properly. Coburn's votes will be there for the team, and he did have the courage to pull out forthrightly notwithstanding a considerable investment of credibility that he had to write off in the process. He's still a good guy IMHO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHypocritical? To some extent, probably. But at the same time, I think we all need to thank Coburn for stating the obvious in public. Unfortunately, since Reid does whatever Reid wants, I doubt this will alter his trajectory one bit, especially as it came from the other side of the aisle.
We can only hope this makes Reid and his band of useless idiots look even more irrelevant so 2012 will give us 2010-like results.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe way I read this is that Senator Coburn isn't going to get much of a debate if Reid has his way. I think Reid, Pelosi, and Obama are content to let the shot clock expire, and if there are undesirable consequences they can point fingers. They are going to call Boehner's bluff.
The Ryan plan is dead for at least 2 years. There probably wont be any significant grand bargain to increase the debt ceiling because Boehner already conceded that he's not going to let that happen. Boehner got rolled the last time there was a showdown and all indications are they are going to try to do the same again. Unless there is a million-man tea party rally the Ds should win this fight, too, because the media is framing the battle with their language, and there is nobody except Boehner who is willing to take Obama head-on. McConnell is a cautious player so I think he'll decline to get into a war of words until reinforcements come in 2012, leaving Boehner high and dry, too vulnerable to fight this round. Even with 242 House seats we still have fewer chips than Obama and have to be judicious with how they're played. I actually don't mind if Boehner gets rolled again if that opens up the WH in 2012. No sense overplaying your hand. The big question: who is going to be occupying the WH? The front-runner, I dare say, is probably Romney if the WH changes hands. If this is the case, shouldn't Romney start to weight in on these issues? Isn't that to be expected? Or did I miss his position statement? Should Romney hang back and let Boehner take the fall so that Romney doesn't get damaged by this fight, or does being a leader mean you step unto the breach and lend Boehner support?
Obama and Meyers took Trump out of the race at the Correspondents' dinner. Shouldn't we be seeing whether Romney can stand toe to toe with Obama now before it's too late to enlist other Republican presidential candidates?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGrover Norquist, take a bow.
As YoungSchwartz mentioned below, the only number that matters is next year's spending. Anything beyond that is fiction.
And I am fairly certain that next year's spending will not be less than this year's spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSenator, you used the phrase "revenue increases." The proper term is "taxes."
What's happened to you the past few years? You get reinforcements after years of being the only 1 or 2 conservatives in the Senate, and suddenly you can't abandon your principles soon enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust asking: When did 'graph' become a suitable replacement for paragraph?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The yield on 10-year Treasuries has slipped back to just a hair over 3% – despite the fact that the US has hit its legal 'debt ceiling'. The fresh reversal in yields appears to be further evidence against the ongoing hard-money fears that the combination of quantitative easing, deficit spending, and a falling Dollar are sure to spell inflationary doom. As Paul Krugman likes to quip, the bond market vigilantes remain invisible."
External Link
Take a chill pill, Tom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason the price for Treasuries dropped is because the US stopped selling new bonds because we hit the debt limit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The public rightly prefers spending cuts over revenue increases, but numerous polls indicate the vast majority of Americans would support the only type of plan that would ever make it out of Congress and be signed into law: one that favors spending cuts over revenue increases but includes both"
Correct. Now get on with it, already...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse