The
political system seems constantly in danger of tipping over the edge
and the next close encounter with disaster is fast approaching. After
Friday, the government will close down unless Congress can agree to a
deal on future funding -- or at least push off the climax by a week or
two.
It's
the first such showdown of the new Trump administration, but just the
latest in a long string of fiscal cliffs, speed bumps, sequesters,
government shutdown threats and eleventh hour brinkmanship that has come
to define the way the American government in the 21st Century struggles
to do business.
Whether it's due
to political polarization, dysfunction or administrative malpractice,
it's almost impossible to get anything done, without the prospect of
something so awful -- like the US government defaulting on its debts for
the first time in history -- to prod politicians into action.
Governing by crisis
Congress
has often fumbled and ground to a halt. But there are few precedents
for such a prolonged period of government by crisis.
"Yes,
Congress has become habitually dysfunctional. For it to be habitually
dysfunctional is new," said Daniel Feller, a University of Tennessee
professor who specializes in Jacksonian politics and the 19th Century.
"The
one case that you can look back to where Congress had been equally and
even more dysfunctional is the 1850s and of course that is not
encouraging because of what happened at the end of that," Feller said,
referring to the Civil War period.
Sometimes in modern Washington, even the threat of a terrible price to pay cannot shake the capital out of its inertia.
Four
years ago, a sinister-sounding process called sequestration came into
effect, triggering automatic spending cuts that scythed social and
defense spending beloved by Democrats and Republican lawmakers.
The
idea arose out of a previous showdown over lifting the federal debt
ceiling. Its purpose was to store up such an appalling set of
consequences that even feuding Washington politicians on a so-called
supercommittee would agree to over $1 trillion in cuts to reduce the
deficit.
Some hope.
The
prospect of political pain also failed to defuse a bitter political
standoff over a Republican attempt to defund Obamacare in 2013 when the
government closed for 16 days in the first such shutdown for nearly 20
years.
But then-President Barack
Obama rejected the attempt to dent his proudest domestic achievement by
linking it to government funding.
"You don't get to extract a ransom for doing your job," he told GOP lawmakers during a White House press conference at the time.
Budget
dysfunction did not start in this decade, but the most celebrated
example of congressional brinkmanship in recent years may have been the
original fiscal cliff.
The
looming disaster was first identified by then-Federal Reserve Chair Ben
Bernanke in February 2012 when he warned that "there's going to be a
massive fiscal cliff of large spending cuts and tax increases" at the
end of that year.
The problem was
the end of multiple tax cuts, pending spending cuts and an alternative
minimum tax patch that threatened to hammer consumers and throw the
markets and the economy into a tailspin.
Bernanke
expressed the somewhat naive hope that Congress could figure out ways
to defuse the fiscal time bomb before the end of the year.
Yet
it took until the dying hours of 2012 -- after Obama broke off his
vacation in Hawaii to come back to Washington and divisions tore deep
into the Republican ranks -- for a deal to be reached that brought the
economy back from the edge.
What happens now
Trump's
first budget showdown is not as severe. But no one knows yet whether it
will end with government workers being furloughed and museums shuttered
and national parks putting up "closed" signs.
It
would be clumsy at best for the Trump administration to face a
government shutdown -- with all the accusations of incompetence that it
could bring on the day before the President hits the symbolic milestone
of 100 days in office.
But over the
weekend, the administration appeared to throw a wrench in negotiations
on the Hill, calling on lawmakers to include money for the proposed wall
on the Mexican border that Trump made a centerpiece of his 2016
campaign.
That's a non-starter for
Democrats who find themselves in the unusual position of being able to
thwart a Republican president on a major agenda item because Trump needs
at least eight of them to vote with him in the Senate.
For
eight years, the boot was on the other foot, with Republican lawmakers
seeking to wring concessions from a Democratic president, usually
involving tax and spending cuts linked to government funding or deals to
lift the debt ceiling.
The
thinking behind the White House gambit, delivered by Homeland Security
Secretary John Kelly and others on the Sunday talk shows, seemed to
reflect an administration keen to rack up progress towards a central
campaign promise after a somewhat threadbare first 100 days in office.
If
that makes Democrats running for re-election in Trump country in 2018
vulnerable to accusations that they were soft on reinforcing the border,
then all the better.
Four days out, it seems that neither side in the current showdown is yet ready to go to the brink.
Democrats
have left open the possibility of more money for border security to
avoid a standoff over the wall. The White House has not yet said the
Trump would veto a bill that did not include border funding.
One
White House official signaled on Monday that the Trump won't insist on
funding for the wall in a spending bill to keep the government running
past Friday.
"Politics is the art of compromise," the official said.
0 comments:
Post a Comment