Associated Press
For quite a while, congressional Republicans have maintained, with unnerving unanimity, a simple response to Democratic budget requests: no tax increases on anyone at any time by any amount for any reason. Full stop.
It came as something of a surprise, then, when Rep. Rick Crawford, a conservative Republican from Arkansas, threw the political world a curve ball last week, announcing his support for a surtax on millionaires and billionaires "as part of a broader fiscal responsibility package." It was the first visible crack in the GOP's anti-tax wall seen in many years.
What was unclear, however, is what Crawford expected in return. He was willing to accept the surtax, but what would Democrats be expected to give as part of this "fiscal responsibility package"? As it turns out, he's asked for far too much.
Mr. Crawford, a freshman from Arkansas, offered Democrats a deal -- a 5 percent surtax on incomes greater than $1 million in exchange for passage of a balanced budget [amendment to the U.S. Constitution].
Mr. Crawford said that a few Republicans had privately told him they liked the idea, but that none would go public. [...]
It was that impasse that Mr. Crawford said he hoped to break, with $400 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases on the very wealthy, coupled with the long-sought amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget.
Well, so much for that idea.
I expected Crawford to seek steep concessions -- I assumed privatization of Medicare would have been the most likely price Dems would be asked to pay -- but a modest surtax in exchange for a ridiculous constitutional amendment guarantees that no sensible lawmaker in either party will take this proposal seriously.
Crawford's plan went from courageous creativity to jarring joke with remarkable speed.
The fact remains that a balanced budget amendment would devastate the economy and make responses to future crises effectively impossible. Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and Bush administrations, explained recently that this is a "dreadful" idea that is "frankly, nuts."
In addition to all of the usual reasons a BBA is a tragic mistake, I’d just remind Crawford of a couple of related points.
First, the whole idea of the amendment is a cheap cop-out. Policymakers who want to balance the budget can put together a plan to balance the budget. It's hard work, of course, and would require sacrifice and compromise, but those who take this goal seriously can put in the effort and craft a plan.
Backers of this amendment generally don't want to bother. Instead of drafting a plan to balance the budget, Crawford wants a constitutional gimmick that will mandate a policy goal lawmakers can't figure out how to accomplish on their own. That's not responsible policymaking; that's the opposite.
And in case this isn't already obvious, even the point of this endeavor is misguided. Sometimes, running deficits is the smart, responsible thing to do, and to assume that the budget should always be balanced is fundamentally misguided. It's not even about left vs. right, since conservative priorities would be crushed, too. The entire Reagan agenda would have been unconstitutional in the 1980s, and Paul Ryan's budget plan couldn't even be considered if a balanced budget amendment were ratified.
It's a "pathetic joke" of a proposal. Trading it for a surtax that should be on the table anyway is madness.
Leave a Comment:
Just one more:
Please see the following video from these two AMAZING girl scouts before your show...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCEbUFl11tw
Thanks!
J. Patrick Malone
Just for you, I'm going to learn how to block people.
@Fran,
Great plan!! When you find out how....please share with me!!!
Just click on the person's name above their comment and you're taken to their account page, where by their profile on the top right there is an option to "Ignore this author."
This might have been the wrong thread to post this video, but I am really glad I saw it -- and I am sharing it everywhere! These girls rock!
@Lynn - I wouldn't mind so much if this were the only place he did it. But he's plastered this all over the blog.
Ah! But we can be sure that David Brooks will call it a "moderate" and "bipartisan" idea.
And! Six months or a year from now, repuknicans will be touting it (along with Simpson-Bowles) as things that Obama prevented from happening.
The Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, when asked if he didn't think the requirements involved in his endorsed transvaginal invasion of women was a little too much, responded with what turns out to be the mantra of the Republican Party:
If you they don't like it, they can just close their eyes.
Larry Leeds
They can just bend over and clench their teeth when they are required to have a prostate exam to get Viagra!
Some enterprising senator or representative needs to introduce a budget-cutting bill that does the following to avoid raising taxes.
Anyone unwilling to do these things is voting to raise taxes.
When the hell did Lewis Black turn into Fred Armisen as Nicolas Fehn, "riffing" on today's events on Weekend Update?
At least Crawford is using his brain and presented an alternative with courage. It may be he just doesn't comprehend the high national risk of his "compromise".
If he doesn't comprehend, then he isn't using his brain. More likely, he's hung a tiny baby carrot off the end of his big ole Louisville Slugger of a stick, to try and claim that he's somehow compromising with the Democrats.
This proposal is going to be one of many because the Republicans need cover for renewing the Bush tax cuts. There is no incentive for Dems to negotiate any deal with Republicans because the clock is ticking on those tax cuts. If the Republicans see they are going to lose the elections, these proposals will be coming fast and furious before the elections because the Republicans will be desperate for a deal. Any Republican who advocates renewal of the Bush tax cuts and ambiguous spending cuts needs to be exposed as a fraud. The media must force them to pinpoint what government programs will be cut.
I totally agree with you sir,and im thinking they are loosing the battle everytime one of them opens his mouth!
Nice. What this DOES show is that the GOP has no idea what they ask for. They don't do their homework. But I guess it doesn't matter if you're funded by the SUPERPACS and they 'promise' you that you will be 'taken care of'.
Congratulations Mego,
You've hit on the number one reason why Republicans don't get it. They don't do their homework. They do no research. They have absolutely no idea what their actions mean to their constituents, the country and the world. It's all about politics.
BTW: this "balanced budget" amendment is a cop out so politicians don't have to make any decisions or take responsibility for the decisions they do make.
If we had a balanced budget amendment, we never would have gone into Iraq and as the article says: "The entire Reagan agenda would have been unconstitutional in the 1980s, and Paul Ryan's budget plan couldn't even be considered."
Be careful what you wish for.
Crawford is doing this because he has two Democrats running for his position here in the 1st district of Arkansas. Crawford is running scared.
The Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, when asked if he didn't think the requirements involved in his endorsed transvaginal invasion of women was a little too much, responded with what turns out to be the mantra of the Republican Party:
If they don't like it, they can just close their eyes.
I believe the original phrase refers to advice given to young women who dread unwanted sex:
Close your eyes and think of England.
It goes back to Victorian days. I am sure that it what he was paraphrasing and that was his intent as well.
Sure you're being raped but just endure it for the love of country.
He has a golden thing and will not let it go for nothing. If a democrat had said that he would be in jail for 14 years!!
Free Blogo.
I wonder what the Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist will do as he signed the pledge? I guess he is not really in violation because "proposing" is not the same as "voting"...
Has everyone- here, and in Congress- gone daft?
Amending the Constitution is a long, arduous process that almost never succeeds.
The last amendment-( the 27th)-was proposed on September 25, 1789 and finally enacted in 1992. . .
that's true of the very last amendment. But the Amendment prior to that took four months to approve.
Cut the military down to a sane number and you could balance the budget. What do you think are the chances of that happening while a large majority of the congress and the president are males?
Give 'em enough rope...
I think Dee Kat is on to something... There needs to be a lot more women in government than there are now. That's what will bring at least a little sanity and straight thinking to the process. Women aren't governed by all those crazy T's (testosterone.) This is not to say that there are indeed no men who can think straight and intelligently. Obama is surely one of the good guys. Intelligence plus for him.
Just another reckless, ridiculous republican. Who seriously expected more?
It would be interesting to see if anyone takes him up on his offer. Since the process of amending the Constitution takes a while, we could get the tax increase on the uberwealthy and at the same time eventually see this stupid amendment die a well deserved death.
I wonder how many would fall for it.