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.

|
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
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.

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.

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.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Three reasons Congress's budget deal is bad for US
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2013/1213/Three-reasons-Congress-s-budget-deal-is-bad-for-US
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe