In an interesting article, the Washington Post today sets forth the plan of president Obama to deal with the impending budget talks in Congress. In September, Congress has to pass the next spending authorizations in order to fund the federal government. As usual, the Republicans want to spend less than the Democrats. Indeed, Obama wants to use the occasion to undo the spending cuts he put in place with the sequester. On the other hand, some Republicans want to refuse to authorize any spending if it includes money to fund implementation of Obamacare. Right now, both sides are in the dancing phase of these negotiations; that is where they all dance around the basic issues and make strong pronouncements designed to please their base. The expectation is that at the last minute both sides will approve some sort of compromise that keeps the government going.
I think it is time for the Republicans to change tactics in part. They should adopt the following procedures:
1. The House should continue to complete and pass spending bills for the various federal departments that increase good programs and cut or delete those which do not work well. The goal should be a further decrease in federal spending coupled with a more efficient government that achieves more for lower cost.
2. If any of these bills gets passed by the Senate or worked out in a conference committee, that will take care of the funding for the agency or department in question. This is highly unlikely by September, however. That will bring Congress back to the need for a continuing resolution to fund federal activities.
3. The House should break up the continuing resolutions by department and agency. For example, it should pass one resolution for Defense and Homeland Security. By breaking the resolutions up, there can be some for which the Senate can have no reason not to pass them. In other words, if the House passes funding for America's armed forces at levels that Obama and his party should find acceptable, there is no way that Obama can use the threat of cutting off the troops from their pay as a means to put pressure on the GOP to accept other spending increases.
4. The continuing resolutions passed by the House regarding agencies or departments whose spending needs to be cut should be for no more than 30 days. After 30 days, if there is no final agreement on spending, the House should pass another continuing resolution for these agencies but reduce spending by 1%. This process should be repeated until the House gets these agencies down to the spending levels that the House has approved.
5. The House should also start work on a bill to achieve tax reform. It should be designed to get rid of deductions and loopholes (particularly ones that let companies like GE pay no tax) and lower rates to promote economic growth. Obama may have no idea how to grow the economy, but that does not mean that Congress should give up the battle.
This plan could possibly result in a partial government shutdown if Obama chooses to fight spending reductions. That shutdown should be his choice. The Republicans should be in position to tell America that they have already passed spending bills that will fund the government operations. They should say that they want to spend more on programs that work and less on those that are failures. Let Obama argue why no program can be cut. Let Obama explain why everything that the federal government does is so critical that even a reduction of 1% cannot be tolerated. Even Obama could not say that with a straight face.
I think it is time for the Republicans to change tactics in part. They should adopt the following procedures:
1. The House should continue to complete and pass spending bills for the various federal departments that increase good programs and cut or delete those which do not work well. The goal should be a further decrease in federal spending coupled with a more efficient government that achieves more for lower cost.
2. If any of these bills gets passed by the Senate or worked out in a conference committee, that will take care of the funding for the agency or department in question. This is highly unlikely by September, however. That will bring Congress back to the need for a continuing resolution to fund federal activities.
3. The House should break up the continuing resolutions by department and agency. For example, it should pass one resolution for Defense and Homeland Security. By breaking the resolutions up, there can be some for which the Senate can have no reason not to pass them. In other words, if the House passes funding for America's armed forces at levels that Obama and his party should find acceptable, there is no way that Obama can use the threat of cutting off the troops from their pay as a means to put pressure on the GOP to accept other spending increases.
4. The continuing resolutions passed by the House regarding agencies or departments whose spending needs to be cut should be for no more than 30 days. After 30 days, if there is no final agreement on spending, the House should pass another continuing resolution for these agencies but reduce spending by 1%. This process should be repeated until the House gets these agencies down to the spending levels that the House has approved.
5. The House should also start work on a bill to achieve tax reform. It should be designed to get rid of deductions and loopholes (particularly ones that let companies like GE pay no tax) and lower rates to promote economic growth. Obama may have no idea how to grow the economy, but that does not mean that Congress should give up the battle.
This plan could possibly result in a partial government shutdown if Obama chooses to fight spending reductions. That shutdown should be his choice. The Republicans should be in position to tell America that they have already passed spending bills that will fund the government operations. They should say that they want to spend more on programs that work and less on those that are failures. Let Obama argue why no program can be cut. Let Obama explain why everything that the federal government does is so critical that even a reduction of 1% cannot be tolerated. Even Obama could not say that with a straight face.
No comments:
Post a Comment