When Washington politicians give something a catchy name, it usually means one of two things: they want to confuse you, or they want to distract you. The now ubiquitous “Fiscal Cliff” does some of both.
Cliffs are extant geographic features, left by God or erosion, beyond which is a fall to near certain death. Neither is true of our fiscal situation.
America was not cruising along happily until a precipice inexplicably appeared in the distance. President George W. Bush put a time limit on his tax cuts to get them passed. In 2010, President Obama and Congress extended them until the end of this year.
In August 2011, they agreed to push the debt ceiling off until early next year. That November, the supercommittee predictably failed to reach an agreement, setting the painful spending cuts known as the “Sequester” to start in 2013. In February, they set the payroll tax cuts to expire near the same time.
Paul Krugman’s “austerity bomb” is a better description than fiscal cliff, at least in the sense that the problems are manmade, and we know who set the fuse. Still, both evoke an all-encompassing tragedy that takes place in the blink of an eye. That’s not true either. Changes in tax withholdings can be delayed to give more time for negotiations. The sequester cuts can be spread over the year. Thus the “fiscal slope” description.
As badly as the fiscal cliff metaphor confuses the blame and timeline, its ability to distract from the real problem is even worse. If the bottom is likely to drop out of anything, it is faith in government’s ability to solve problems.
With Congressional approval ratings in the low 20s, America appears to have gone over the confidence cliff some time ago. Now we’re running on air, the economic embodiment of Wile E.Coyote. The real danger of the fiscal mess is that something will make the markets look down, at which point … splat.
Even if Congress and the president avoid the current economic challenges, the confidence splat will be in our future until government works again. Filibuster reform is a good place to start. Considering how close we got to a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, filibusters probably shouldn’t go away entirely. But the current situation, where 41 senators representing 11 percent of Americans can thwart any legislation is untenable.
Often overlooked, but also in need of reform, is the “majority of the majority” policy in the House of Representatives. Until the late 1990s, bills sometimes passed through ideologic middle of the House, with moderates from both parties coming together in the cause of governing. Speaker Hastert then decided that he wouldn’t bring any legislation to the floor that didn’t have majority support from his own party, a policy largely continued by both Speakers Pelosi and Boehner.
Whatever the negotiations on the economic issues, the filibuster and the “majority of the majority” policies should be on the table. Neither is in the Constitution. In fact, fixing them doesn’t even require legislation.
The filibuster is a rule that can be changed by the Senate alone, and Speaker Boehner can simply choose to bring legislation to the House floor. He could start with a bill already passed in the Senate that would extend the Bush era tax rates to 98 percent of Americans. Not only would it be an olive branch to President Obama in fixing the fiscal whatever, but it would restore some faith in government and might just keep the markets floating until we can build some stabilizing consensus underneath.
