Let me just state at the outset of this discussion that I believe it's important for our country to reduce its structural, long-term budget deficit. This deficit, of course, is driven largely by rising health care costs and pensions for an aging (and not particularly healthy) population, plus the costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the absence of revenues to pay for all of this (thanks George W. Bush and Republican Party for squandering it on tax breaks for your rich and powerful friends). Looking at the familiar budget pie illustrates where the money goes: 23% to Medicare and Medicaid, 21% to Social Security, 21% to Defense (not counting some of the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan), and very little (17%) for "non-defense, discretionary" programs. In addition, it's important to point out that expenditures on the mandatory parts of the budget - especially health care and pensions - have been growing far faster than the rest of the budget. Thus, "[o]ver the past 40 years, mandatory spending for programs such as Medicare and Social Security have grown as a share of the budget, while defense and other discretionary categories have declined." Meanwhile, faced with this situation, George W. Bush and the Republicans passed enormous tax cuts in the early part of this decade, wiping out the surpluses we had under Bill Clinton not in order to invest in our country's future, but in order to give the money to the richest of the rich. Crazy.
The point is that getting the long-term deficit under control is going to be a matter of one or more of the following: a) growing the economy fast enough that sufficient revenues pour in to fund all this stuff (note that "growing the economy" will require investments in physical and human "capital" - education, infrastructure, etc. - which of course will cost money in the short run); b) reducing the amount of money spent on non-defense discretionary programs, which primarily means getting control over health care, pension and military expenditures; and c) increasing taxes, preferably in a progressive manner such as increasing taxes on the richest Americans (also, a carbon tax would accomplish the goal of slashing carbon emissions and kick-starting a "clean tech"/"green jobs" revolution this country, which would be a huge plus). Note what I didn't mention in here, because they're small (albeit easily demagogued) portions of the budget? That's right, the dreaded "earmarks," which make up a miniscule (and not growing like "entitlements") portion of the budget but are great for know-nothings on both sides of the aisle to rant and rave about, distracting people from the gigantic gorilla(s) in middle of the room.
All of which brings us to yesterday's House vote on the $154 billion "jobs bill," about half of which "will be paid for with money from a $700 billion federal fund for bank bailouts approved by Congress last year." The bill includes "$48 billion for ready-to-go construction projects and $27 billion to cash-strapped states to keep teachers, police and other public-sector employees on the payroll." The vote on this bill was 217-212, with every single member of the "party of no" voting...you guessed, it "no."
Sadly, it's not surprising that House Republicans, under the irresponsible (not to mention heartless) "leadership" of Eric Cantor and John Boehner, would vote against jobs for Americans, given that they've spent the past year voting "nay" on other measures to create jobs, at least when they're not otherwise occupied in talking down the economy. What is somewhat surprising - although perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by anything at this point - is to see 38 Democrats voting against this bill. In Virginia, Democrats voting for creating jobs were Rick Boucher, Jim Moran, Tom Perriello and Bobby Scott. (Thank you to those four!) Democrats voting against creating jobs were Glenn Nye (what else is new?) and Gerry Connolly (huh?). Even more disappointing than the "nay" votes by Nye and Connolly, however, is the fact that this was not a "free vote," but a closely contested vote and a top priority of Democratic leadership. Check out "The Hill" story for more, including a "heated discussion" between House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and Connolly. Also, check out this Huffington Post story:
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), president of the freshman class, was worked over hard on the House floor by a red-faced George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and a close Pelosi ally. At one point, Connolly tossed his hand in the air, dismissing a Miller argument. Miller pressed Connolly, arguing that if the House doesn't preserve the unspent bailout funds now, they'll be lost for good, Connolly said later.Wait a minute, here. Congressman Connolly conceded Pelosi's point about the bailout money going to reduce the deficit, but still didn't vote for the jobs bill? I'm baffled. Also, wait a minute here, deficit reduction is a higher priority in the short run than creating jobs?!? I mean, that simply makes no sense, politically or economically (or morally), especially considering that - as we discussed at the beginning of this piece - the vast majority of the deficit is related to entitlements (health care, pensions, etc.) and defense spending, none of which are going to be seriously addressed in the next few months. In addition, tax revenues are down right now because of the Republican recession, combined with the huge Bush tax cuts which threw everything out of whack in the early part of this decade (after years of surpluses under the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton).
Pelosi tried Connolly next, energetically making her case. But he leaned forward, put his right hand on her left arm, and told her he couldn't give her his vote.
He then stepped out in to the Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor and spoke to a few reporters.
"I'm sure she's not happy," he said in an understatement. Freshman defections, as he spoke, were threatening to defeat the bill.
"I wrote the Speaker several weeks ago, along with [thirteen] other freshman, saying that at least half of the TARP money should be reserved for deficit reduction, and then we can address jobs."
Pelosi argued back that all of the bailout money that is repaid by banks goes to reduce the deficit, a point Connollly conceded but wasn't swayed by.
"Tonight, obviously a decision was made that what we're going to do is address jobs. Maybe some day we'll address the deficit. And I don't think that's the right sequence," he said, saying that both are important (a point of agreement on all sides).
The fact is, none of this is going to be fixed overnight, especially with the "Party of No" in kneejerk opposition to everything, and also with nervous Democrats like Connolly and Nye breaking ranks. I'm not saying, by the way, that Democrats should act like Republicans and just vote mindlessly in lockstep with their "leadership." What I am saying is that Democrats should stick together on votes for core Democratic principles, like helping people who are out of work and need a helping hand right now. And one thing's for sure: Democrats should certainly not be breaking ranks on a jobs bill in order to tinker around the edges of the structural deficit, without even addressing the core aspects of it (pensions and rising health care costs), in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s.
