Sequester Stupidity

As the nation lunges ever-closer to the edge of another artificial crisis with the March 1 realization of the previously unthinkable "sequester", a particularly childish argument is ensuing about who is responsible for it rather than invocation of adult solutions or compromises.  Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to confess that in this pointless blame game, President Obama is probably most complicit, indirectly, because it's just another example of him having underestimated the extent to which Congressional Republicans have become 200+ Lex Luthors, plotting to destroy their own country.

In the final throes of the debt ceiling debate in the summer of 2011, with the country only days (and possibly even hours) away from a default that would have triggered a global depression, the Obama administration came up with the "sequester" as a way of convincing House Republicans to kick the can on a spending fight and pass a debt ceiling increase.  By making reckless military spending cuts a key component of the sequester, the Obama team figured Republicans would have no choice but to bargain in good faith when the time arrived, as they would never be willing  to allow such damaging cuts to their sacred cow of defense spending bloat.  I think everybody is a little bit surprised as we approach March 1 to see that Republicans ARE willing to savage their own military base if it means taking away some of Obama's political capital.

Unfortunately, it appears there are two types of Republicans in Washington right now, and both types are equally harmful to the country.  The first type of harmful Republicans are the true believers, those who think government spending of any kind is an unqualified drag on the economy and the budget, and that only good can come from any pound of flesh they can slice off the "Leviathan".  This would be the Tea Party types, driven by ignorance and ideology more than simple partisan gamesmanship, and thus supportive of riding off the sequester cliff.  The second group is the GOP leadership--the Mitch McConnell types--who have a better understanding of the connection between government spending and the state of an economic recovery when private sector growth is lagging, but are still willing to let the country deal with the fallout of a haphazard, frontloaded cut in federal spending simply because they think doing so will weaken the President and help their fraternity's chances of reclaiming the victory trophy in the next election. 

And politically, the calculation by the Republicans could play out shrewdly on this one.  Unlike the previous artificial deadlines, it seems both Obama and the public are too exhausted to care that much about this one, even though the consequences of letting it pass will be not insignificant.  The debt ceiling and New Year's tax hike deadlines would have had abrupt consequences on the public felt by nearly everyone, but the sequester will have a slower drip-drip effect in which the pain will not be broadly felt in the near term.  This allows Republicans to take credit for the cuts in spending but then blame Obama for the lack of economic recovery that plays out over the next two years largely as a consequence of the spending cuts.  And the case to counter this will be pretty complicated for Obama and the Democrats to sell to the public.

And for all the unnecessary extraction of resources our economy so desperately needs that will occur as a result of this sequester, it's effect on our deficit will be infinitesimal.   It might even grow the deficit since the reduced economic activity that will come as a consequence from the sequester's fallout may reduce tax revenues.  As is frequently cited, the real growth in our deficit long-term will be the result of entitlements, which will not be touched as part of the sequester.  More specifically, the growth will be the result of America's uniquely dysfunctional and prohibitively expensive health care delivery system.  Obama reportedly went so far as to counter Speaker Boehner's claim of the nation's "spending problem" by saying "we don't have a spending problem....we have a health care problem."  This is a relatively astute observation, but the administration's stated solutions to our health care spending problem don't fill me with confidence about its seriousness to bring those costs down.....

First, ObamaCare kept the basic structure of the existing health care delivery system intact.  Doing so was necessary to keep enough special interests onboard to pass the thing, but I actually agree with Paul Ryan's comment regarding ObamaCare's stated intention of reducing health care spending.....that if ObamaCare reduces the deficit, "I will eat my tie".  Second, Obama is on record in being willing to raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 67 as part of a "grand bargain" in dealing with Republicans.  This suggests to me that Obama doesn't have a very serious grasp on what's driving health care costs in the country.  It isn't 65-year-olds bankrupting Medicare....it's 85-year-olds.  And third, the administration's front-and-center push to control health care spending involves the usual suspects.....pretending that smoking and obesity are responsible for higher costs rather than lower costs, again confirming that they don't understand how health care spending works.

In truth, we can narrow Obama's comment to Boehner of having a "health care problem" as it relates to our deficit even further.  We have an "old people living longer" problem.  Sensible countries address this issue by rationing health care outlays.  In America, we're not even talking about it, instead pretending that our deficit issues will go away if fewer people eat cheeseburgers or if a few federal workers lose their jobs.  It's too soon to tell how severe the pain will be that the country endures as a consequence of the sequester, but it's safe to say that whatever level of pain we endure, it will be for absolutely zero benefit as it pertains to spending reduction and deficit control.

Gun Control: It's a Loser, Mr. President

When a lawmaker confronts a given issue, it's in their own interest and the interest of their constituency to do a cost-benefit analysis.  Is it worth the fight?  Will there be sufficient policy upside to spending political capital in pursuit of reform on a given issue.  Back in 2009, I didn't think cap and trade was worth the risk.  The public only cares about climate change in the abstract, so if lawmakers were to ask for financial or lifestyle sacrifice from the masses in pursuit of keeping the planet livable for the human race a little longer, it would be far more sacrifice than the public was willing to endure.  And even for those who believe it's worth the political risk to save the planet, how much can be gained when the rest of the globe refuses to play along, including the world's primary polluters in South and East Asia?

Just as big of a loser in the cost-benefit analysis of public policy pursuits in the issue Obama is currently putting front and center on his political agenda, and that's gun control.  In the abstract, I'm torn on this issue personally as the libertarian in me believes law-abiding citizens should not be penalized for gun ownership.  On the other hand, the gun rights crowd presents such delusional, immature, and unpersuasive arguments on their own behalf, they make themselves impossible to defend.  No sane person's interpretation of the Second Amendment justifies limitless weaponization with no regulations whatsoever.  Still, the gun fetish has consumed the good sense of many millions of Americans, and there will undeniably be political retribution for crossing them.

Knowing that, what is there to be gained by making permanent enemies out of millions of gun fetishists by passing the legislation currently on the table?  As far as I can tell, only hypothetical scenarios where a few maniacal killers could be denied access to the weapons they used in their massacres....or possibly fewer dead bodies in specific incidents where mass shootings occurred.  Would it be worth it for Obama and the Democrats to throw away their entire second-term agenda for that?  In my mind, it's an unequivocal no, even though I don't disagree with specific legislative goals of toughening background checks, or banning assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition clips.

Gun control advocates will undoubtedly point to public opinion polls showing majority support for all of the initiatives Obama is currently pursuing, but there's no other issue in which the tyranny of the minority will ultimately win the day to the extent that it does on guns.  The majority that supports gun control is a mile wide and an inch deep, and the issue is extremely low intensity for just about everybody on the gun control side of the persuasion.  But when it comes to the gun rights crowd, there is no higher priority in life for them than firearms lawlessness.  And the lopsided intensity on the side of the gun rights crowd means huge financial contributions to gun-rights candidates and special interests, along with a full-throttle turnout at the polls in future election cycles by people convinced ATF agents will soon be going door to door to take away their hunting rifles.  That makes them putty in the hands of monsters like the Koch Brothers and Paul Ryan, the scorpions who will ride on the backs of gun rights supporters across the river to political power, only to sting them just as they get to the other side.

Even after a decade of surrendering the gun issue to the NRA, the Democrats were still getting hosed on the issue among voters who obsess about firearms lawlessness.  But there was a narrow window in 2006 and 2008 where Democrats were making a dent in winning back some of this demographic that had migrated to the GOP during the Bush years.  While they never liked Obama, Congressional Democrats and candidate Hillary Clinton were viewed by many as acceptable.  That's why it's so distressing to see Democrats go down this road again, with a hint of arrogance following their impressive 2012 election win, as there is so much at stake politically to sacrifice it all for gun control.

And it's too late to put this genie back in the bottle as Obama and the Democrats are tagged with the stigma of gun confiscators at this point, and that will be the case even if all the gun control legislation currently proposed goes down in flames.  Millions of voters who would be receptive to the Democrats' message on saving Social Security and Medicare, or on pressuring the business community to reverse decades of wage and benefit declines amidst an increasingly stratified income disparity in this country, will tune all of that out and hitch their wagon to those shouting the loudest about guns.  However strongly you may feel about imposing some needed regulations on gun ownership and possession, will it be worth it to surrender the country to monsters like the Koch Brothers and Paul Ryan to get it done?  Because that seems like the inevitable outcome of awakening this sleeping lion.