Concluding Thoughts on the Government Shutdown
I know, I know. I should have gotten over it by now - the shutdown ended a while ago. But, I've been intending to write this up since then and just hadn't made the time.
So, here we go:
Point #1: I've becoming convinced that the Democrats were the ones who were truly to blame for the shutdown.
I know, this goes against the conventional view. But, it's the result of asking a very simple question: "Who benefits?" If you see an undesirable situation, it happened for a reason. If it happened because people did something you're going to find the people responsible by asking the question about who benefits. Who benefits from the shutdown? The Democrats do - and did. It covered up the disastrous roll-out of the Health Insurance Exchange, and it made the Republicans look bad. So, either the Republicans are to blame and are just idiots, or the Democrats are to blame and played the situation very well. I'm more inclined to believe the latter (though you're free to believe the first).
There will be a simple test to get at whether I'm right. The Democrats had been claiming that they're willing to negotiate some of the provisions of Obamacare, but not in a hostage situation (the shut down was apparently a hostage situation...). If I'm right, they're going to give almost no ground on Obamacare. Though they might, given the technical problems, provide some delay in the individual mandate - but I expect that delay to be minimal.
Point #2: Debt-ceiling crises are easy to prevent.
Simply pass this law: "Whereas the debt ceiling serves no practical purpose because it can be raised by the people incurring the debt at their own whims, it is abolished." Easy.
Point #3: Budget debates are also easy to prevent.
Why does the government have a budget anyway? No, I'm serious. It makes sense to have a budget if (1) you have an income that is mostly fixed by some outside source, and (2) you actually stick to it. Neither of these is true for the government. It can raise more money if it wants to simply by introducing new or higher taxes. (The Laffer curve being a limitation here, of course.) And its budget is more or less meaningless when it comes to restraining spending. So, why not adopt a more piece-meal funding solution? Simply pass a general rule that resembles the old PAYGO system - every bill is required to be self-funding either through raising additional tax revenue or through making spending cuts elsewhere. In fact, we have such a bill in place right now (though it has a distressing number of exemptions from the rule). That being the case, what purpose does the budget serve? It's not at all obvious.
I very much look forward to watching how #1 plays out...
So, here we go:
Point #1: I've becoming convinced that the Democrats were the ones who were truly to blame for the shutdown.
I know, this goes against the conventional view. But, it's the result of asking a very simple question: "Who benefits?" If you see an undesirable situation, it happened for a reason. If it happened because people did something you're going to find the people responsible by asking the question about who benefits. Who benefits from the shutdown? The Democrats do - and did. It covered up the disastrous roll-out of the Health Insurance Exchange, and it made the Republicans look bad. So, either the Republicans are to blame and are just idiots, or the Democrats are to blame and played the situation very well. I'm more inclined to believe the latter (though you're free to believe the first).
There will be a simple test to get at whether I'm right. The Democrats had been claiming that they're willing to negotiate some of the provisions of Obamacare, but not in a hostage situation (the shut down was apparently a hostage situation...). If I'm right, they're going to give almost no ground on Obamacare. Though they might, given the technical problems, provide some delay in the individual mandate - but I expect that delay to be minimal.
Point #2: Debt-ceiling crises are easy to prevent.
Simply pass this law: "Whereas the debt ceiling serves no practical purpose because it can be raised by the people incurring the debt at their own whims, it is abolished." Easy.
Point #3: Budget debates are also easy to prevent.
Why does the government have a budget anyway? No, I'm serious. It makes sense to have a budget if (1) you have an income that is mostly fixed by some outside source, and (2) you actually stick to it. Neither of these is true for the government. It can raise more money if it wants to simply by introducing new or higher taxes. (The Laffer curve being a limitation here, of course.) And its budget is more or less meaningless when it comes to restraining spending. So, why not adopt a more piece-meal funding solution? Simply pass a general rule that resembles the old PAYGO system - every bill is required to be self-funding either through raising additional tax revenue or through making spending cuts elsewhere. In fact, we have such a bill in place right now (though it has a distressing number of exemptions from the rule). That being the case, what purpose does the budget serve? It's not at all obvious.
I very much look forward to watching how #1 plays out...