House Republicans issued a formal “pledge to America” Thursday. If they win control of the House in the November elections they will, they say, cancel what’s left of the $787 billion economic stimulus appropriation, make the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush permanent, try to repeal the health care reform act, increase military spending to put a defense missile system into operation, “immediately” cut $100 million in “non-security” discretionary spending and cut all government ties to
mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It is an interesting wish list.
Two of the big money items in this wish list were put in place under Bush. The tax cuts made by President Bush were designed to die at the end of this year. Many of the Republicans now promising to make the cuts permanent voted to have them sunset . So were Republicans who voted for the taxes to go back up in 2011 just kidding? No, they correctly figured that a long term
calculation of the cost of the reductions would make it much more difficult to pass them then. It was, in other words, a politically expedient vote.
And it was President Bush who pushed through the rescue money for the big Wall Street firms that helped cause the recession. (Much of that money, by the way, has been returned to the treasury.)
It may be a good idea to cut the ties between the semi-private mortgage giants and the government. Perhaps that could be done without prolonging the recession in the housing industry. But a careful study should be made before Congress takes Uncle Sam out of the housing picture.
And then there is this business of making the tax cuts permanent.
The “Pledge to America” promises to cut the size of government and pay down the national debt. But as Democratic leaders were quick to point out, the Republican promise says not a word about protecting Social Security and Medicare — the entitlement programs which make up such a huge percentage of the national budget — from schemes to privatize them and leave them hostage to the roller-coaster ups and downs of the stock market.
Without a guarantee of federal financing, both Medicare and Social Security would be in danger of having to reduce benefits when another recession drove stock and bond yields down — that that would happen is guaranteed. It wouldn’t be a matter of if, but when.
THE BUSH TAX cuts reduce government in-come by about $1.8 trillion over 10 years. When they were passed in the first two years of the Bush presidency, the legislation stipulated that they would return to 2000 levels at the end of 2010. That proviso was accepted by the Republicans to make the reductions more acceptable to the public. For unless they do return to the old level, the cost to the budget increases every year and becomes un-manageable.
The promise to make the tax reductions permanent is a promise to send the nation more deeply into debt.
This threat is even more palpable because the Republican blueprint for the future envisions less federal income that can be calculated accurately, but specific offsetting cost reductions. Even if $100 million could be trimmed from “non-security” spending, that wouldn’t go far to balance a budget now about $1.35 trillion in the red.
Republican spokesmen said the “Pledge” was made with fanfare as an answer to the charge that theirs is only the “Party of No,” without a plan for the future.
Nice try, but no cigar.
The way U.S. Republicans could help restore America’s faith in Congress is to look for ways to work with Democrats to solve the overhanging problems that cloud the nation’s future. The pledge that would excite the American people and win the party great support would be a pledge to be truly bipartisan on the big problems: immigration reform, stability for the entitlement programs, budget control and so on down the list.
To look back at America’s governments over the years is to learn (once more) that the most successful presidents and Congresses have been those that thrived on compromise and governed from the center rather than from the ideological edges.
A pledge to return to those nation-building political principles would make all the difference on today’s political scene.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
