Three reasons Congress's budget deal is bad for US

The budget deal patched together this week is a bad deal for at least three reasons, Reich writes. America would do better with another temporary spending resolution than with Congress's budget deal.

By , Guest blogger

  • close
    House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, left, and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, announce Tuesday a tentative agreement between Republican and Democratic negotiators on a government spending plan, at the Capitol in Washington. The budget deal is topsy-turvy and makes no fiscal sense, Reich writes.
    View Caption

About the only good thing that can be said about the budget deal just patched together by House Republican budget chair Paul Ryan and Senate Democratic budget chair Patty Murray is that the right-wing Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothersAmericans for Prosperity oppose it.

But that doesn’t mean it’s a good deal for the country. In fact, it’s a bad deal, for at least three reasons:

First, it fails extend unemployment benefits for 1.3 million jobless who will lose them in a few weeks. These people and their families are still caught in the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

Recommended: 18 Republicans who might run in 2016

Almost three Americans are jobless for every job that’s available – a ratio worse than it was at the bottom of the last downturn. 

Moreover, the nation still harbors an unprecedented number of long-term unemployed. In past recessions emergency benefits continued until the rate of long-term employment hovered around 1 percent or less. But the current level of long-term unemployed is 2.6 percent.

The second reason this deal is bad is it contributes to the nation’s savage inequality. The deal doesn’t close a single tax loophole for wealthy, and it doesn’t restore food stamps to the poor.

Third, the deal makes no fiscal sense. It’s topsy-turvy: The deal contains no short-term stimulus, and does nothing about the long-term deficit.

Although the deal overrides the dread “sequester” that mindlessly cuts domestic spending (except for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), it doesn’t put an end to the sequester. It merely postpones the sequester for two years.

The deal does remove the treat of another government shutdown January 15, when the stopgap spending resolution that reopened the government in October runs out. But it doesn’t prevent another standoff over the debt ceiling next March when the borrowing authority of the government is exhausted.

I can understand why Republican leaders like this deal. They don’t want to risk another government shutdown, given how badly they got burned by the last one earlier in the fall. As the midterm elections loom, they’d rather keep attention focused on whatever they can find that’s wrong with the Affordable Care Act – or, more accurately, whatever trumped-up charge they and their megaphones at Fox News and yell radio can bring against the Act.

But America would do better with another temporary spending resolution than with this raw deal.

On hearing of the deal Tuesday, President Obama said, “that’s the way the American people expect Washington to work.” Sadly, he was not being ironic.

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. This post originally ran on www.robertreich.org.

Share this story:
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...