A Disgraceful Senate

1,364. That is the number of days it has been since the United States Senate last passed a budget. One may think that with a national debt approaching $17 trillion (and set to rise without reform) and yearly deficits north of $1 trillion, the upper body of the U.S. legislator would show a little interest in making headway on these issues.

Unfortunately, it is run by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and a Democratic majority that is more interested in winning tactical political victories than saving our nation from fiscal ruin. Dozens of deficit reducing proposals have been passed in the House only to wither and die silently in the Senate. And that is the real scandal, not that the sometimes-bipartisan bills don’t get passed, but that they are usually not even allowed to be legitimately debated on the floor, amended or even voted on. Reid’s goals are simple: prevent any Democratic Senators from having to make difficult votes that may damage their chances of reelection or diverge from the Democratic Party line on taxes and entitlements, guard against the potentially disastrous optics of a tax or entitlement reform bill passing the Senate only to be vetoed by President Obama and, perhaps most importantly, allow Republicans to take all the political risk, thus making them look like a party of extreme radicals.

Rather than understanding the magnitude of what is facing the United States absent a course correction, and acting with the honor and responsibility befitting their office, the Democratic Senate majority is using our nations looming sovereign debt crisis as a political wedge to divide and marginalize the Republican Party.

Politically, the strategy has worked brilliantly (thanks in large part to a sympathetic media and an uninterested American public), but the nation is significantly worse off. The conduct of the Democratic Senators and their leader is a sad, yet revealing, commentary on how the United States of America came to be $17 trillion in the hole. Rather than making the politically difficult, but ultimately correct, decision to seriously examine and reform the drivers of our debt (entitlement programs), Democratic Senators are doing what is politically easy: to deny that there is a problem, demagogue all those who have the courage broach the subject, and pass the problem on for the next generation to solve.

Both parties are to blame for the current state of affairs but the Republican Party seems to have, for the most part, seen the light and is now actually proposing intellectually serious reform proposals. Democratic Senators have not been so reasonable. They continue to live in denial about the nation’s financial state of affairs and remain more interested in using the issue as a political weapon than actually addressing it. That is why they refuse to have any real debates, votes or amendments and why, in dereliction of one of their most basic duties, they refuse to even propose a budget. Their willful inaction is nothing short of cowardice; they are essentially selling the United States down the river for petty, self-interested political victories and that is a disgrace which should outrage all Americans.

Grover Who?

If you had to list the top 10 most powerful people in politics in America, whom would you put on your list? President Obama? Certainly. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Absolutely, at least until she retires. House Speaker John Boehner? Maybe, maybe not. What about Grover Norquist? If you just found yourself asking, “who is that?” you shouldn’t feel bad.

Grover Norquist isn’t exactly a household name for most Americans. He’s not a congressman, senator, governor, or member of any elected office. He’s not a judge, and he’s not a member of the Obama cabinet. He doesn’t own a bank or an oil company. But if I had to point a finger of blame at one person for why this country cannot find any common ground when it comes to fiscal policy, it would be Grover Norquist.

Grover Norquist is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. The organization has worked tirelessly to get 219 representatives and 39 senators to sign a short and simple pledge. It states that said representative or senator will, under no circumstance, vote to increase the marginal income tax and oppose any eliminations of deductions without equal reductions made to taxes. You may ask yourself why any representative of government would agree to a pledge that completely constrains their ability to cooperate or compromise with their counterparts when it comes to any fiscal issue. The answer is, as it so often is, money.

It is near-impossible for a Republican member of congress to win a primary without taking the pledge today, and, if they break it, Grover Norquist’s organization will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to ‘remind’ the voters that they broke the pledge and that representative can expect to say goodbye to their seat come next election. Grover Norquist has been fighting against taxes since the days of Reagan. He claims to want to shrink government back down to the size it was at during the era of Teddy Roosevelt or, to quote him, to “reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” So when Congress gets together again to try and compromise about the fiscal future of our country and you find yourself wondering why on earth ideas like raising taxes on the very wealthy are so painful, as they were during the recent “fiscal cliff” negotiations and even though 60 percent of Americans believe they should be raised, look to Grover Norquist.

Communist Chinese Paper To Raise $250 Million From Capitalist Pig Investors

Rankled by federal funding to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service? Check out the People’s Daily, owned by China’s Communist Party, which hopes to raise $245 million in a public offering of shares in its online news business.
Continue reading

SURVEY: How Much Student Debt Will You Graduate With?

The Kenyon Observer is interested in running a series of posts on student debt. Please take our survey and tell us more about your situation in the comments or via email at tko@kenyon.edu if you are comfortable doing so. All names and other personal information will be kept confidential.

What Conservatives And Liberals Miss In The Healthcare Debate

This week, the news has been abuzz over the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Regarding the individual insurance mandate at the core of the bill, there are a two major misconceptions to clear up, one for our conservative friends and one for our liberal friends. Continue reading

Social Justice: Self-Promoting Do-Gooders Force Pay Cuts For Chinese Peasants

Abusive labor practices were uncovered at Foxconn, the massive electronics supplier that produces many Apple Computer products, after a recent Fair Labor Association investigation. So why were employees used to working 70 to 80 hours a week angry after Foxconn announced it would limit the work week to 49 hours?
Continue reading

Great, Britain: Nanny State Wants Price Controls For Booze

Social engineering and economic tomfoolery are on display more prominently than usual in the United Kingdom amid calls for minimum prices on alcohol. “‘When beer is cheaper than water,” sermonized nanny David explained Prime Minister David Cameron, “it’s just too easy for people to get drunk on cheap alcohol at home before they even set foot in a pub.”
Continue reading

The Truth About Clinton’s Tax Hikes And Budget Surpluses

Today at the New Republic, Jonathan Cohn analyzes the latest iteration of Rep. Paul Ryan’s federal budget overhaul (which our very own Jon Green parsed yesterday). Under the humble title of “The Stunning Immorality of Paul Ryan’s Budget,” Cohn argues that Ryan’s plan would “take health insurance away from tens of millions of people, while effectively eliminating the federal government except for entitlements and defense spending.”

Cohn focuses mostly on federal healthcare spending, but not before staking some big claims about tax policy Continue reading

If Goldman Sachs Is So Abusive, Why Does It Still Have Clients?

Now-former executive Greg Smith’s departure from Goldman Sachs via the New York Times editorial page sparked a flurry of commentary, much of it restating the tired criticism that, in Mr. Smith’s words, the “toxic and destructive” firm is dominated by “morally bankrupt people” who “callously [...] talk about ripping their clients off.”

The curiosity of such a public and sanctimonious resignation aside, Mr. Smith’s argument that Goldman cares more about making money for itself than effectively serving its clients begs the question: why do clients put up with this kind of abuse? Continue reading