Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. Photograph by Medill DC.
Discussions in Congress generally take on one of three forms. The most common is the individual monologue. Another tactic is the choreographed “conversation” between two or more members of the same political faction. This gives the illusion of a dialog, while promoting a single point of view.
The rarest form of discussion, though, is my favorite. In it, politicians of differing political stripes talk to one another and try to find their commonalities. I particularly enjoy it because it forces both sides to be more rational and honest.
There were two instances of this third kind of exchange in the last weekend of July, when the nation appeared to be on the edge of default, that stuck with me. On July 30, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) gave a detailed presentation, replete with charts, on the way that governmental structure contributes to the deficit. He said he'd found multiple savings through common sense, including increasing electronic services to reduce the amount of paper printed by the federal government. He was particularly incensed that the bills proposed by Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were both equally disingenuous, because they were calling a reduction of the overall increase in spending “cuts.”
“We have all these programs that are broke, and we have a discussion about the debt ceiling, but we are not talking about what is the real problem,” he said.
“What are the problems?” Coburn continued. We have 100 different programs with 100 sets of bureaucracies for surface transportation alone. Why do we do that? Why have we not fixed it? That is a question the American people ought to be asking.”
A moment later, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) asked if Coburn would “yield for a question.” He agreed with Conrad about the inefficiency of governmental structure, and then pointed out that Coburn himself had been a member of the “Gang of Six” senators who had developed a bipartisan fiscal strategy in the form of a “grand bargain.”
Kerry asked Coburn “if it is not fair and accurate to say that the so-called Gang of Six...came together with an understanding that we needed balance in the approach to satisfy both sides and build a critical mass. That balance requires cuts. We have to put the big items – big ticket items on the table, and that means Social Security, reforming it for the long term; Medicare and Medicaid, which are unsustainable on their current paths; defense, where we have to find a handle on some of the procurement and expenditures. The Senator [Coburn] has joined in this. We have to close some tax loopholes and have tax reform and find some level of revenue at an appropriate ratio that allows us to fix this. That is where the problem has been. There is a group of folks in the House who have insisted no revenue at all.”
“Quite frankly,” Coburn responded, “I am willing to work with my colleagues. I have been out there. I said we have to move and eliminate some of these loopholes; we have to reform the tax code. I am willing to take heat from my side on that.”
“What I am not willing to take anymore is a Senate that will not work on the details of the specific problems,” he said. “What I am trying to do is outline where the problems are.”
Coburn explained that he didn't consider Washington's fiscal troubles a partisan problem. “Our deal is that we don't have the courage to actually make the cuts listed in here. We don't have the courage to eliminate the waste, and we don't have the courage to eliminate the duplication. Why? Because every one of these programs has a political backing. We are politicians. Unfortunately, too often, we are that instead of statesmen. It is time for us - both sides - to lead this country, to lead the country in a vision of here is the real truth of our problem.”
“We need to be doing the right things at the right time for the right reasons, considering that we make sure we take care of those who need it and demand participation from everyone else,” he added.
Kerry redirected Coburn's attention to the debt ceiling. “I am trying to help us get out of this predicament where we have a couple days before the United States defaults,” he said. “Everything the Senator has said is worthy of inquiry.”
“Isn't the key to resolving this crisis and not defaulting our ability to be able to come together on a sufficient trigger or some sufficient mechanism that guarantees we are actually going to deal with this in a similar fashion to what the Senator is raising?” Kerry asked.
“I don't disagree that those negotiations are going on as we speak,” Coburn said. “I am not a party to them.... We are not going to decide that. That will come to us for a decision. Look, I worked for a long number of months with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. I put my name on a bill that doesn't fix it, but it was something to get us moving. It is better than where we are today. I agree with the Senator. But that is not good enough. We are not good enough yet to be where we need to be if we are actually going to solve the problem.”
A second inter-party exchange occurred on July 31 when John McCain (R-AZ) invited Dick Durbin (D-IL) to have a “colloquy” with him.
“Does the Senator from Illinois believe we are close to an agreement?” McCain asked.
“I hope so,” Durbin said.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. Photograph by Adam Fagen.
“Does the Senator from Illinois agree that, most likely, that agreement will not have an increase in taxes associated with it, at least in the short term?”
“I hope not.”
“You hope so?”
Durbin clarified: “I hope there is revenue included in any agreement.”
“Well, everything I have heard is that the agreement does not have tax increases in it. Has the Senator heard differently, being in the leadership?” McCain wondered.
“I honestly am not party to this,” Durbin replied. “But I can tell the Senator, as the Gang of Six and fiscal commission [Durbin sat on both commissions], we believe everything should be under consideration to reduce our national debt.”
“So I assume that would also mean the Senator from Illinois would advocate another stimulus package?” McCain countered.
“I wish to make sure we have some stimulus to the economy to create jobs and help those out of work find work with training and education,” Durbin said.
“So one would have to assume that the Senator from Illinois believes the last stimulus package was successful, which was, counting interest, over $1 trillion,” McCain said. “The Senator from Illinois and others who advocated the stimulus package and the administration said, 'If we pass this, unemployment will be a maximum of 8 percent. This will stimulate our economy and create jobs.'”
“Do you know what the Senator from Illinois and others are saying now?” he continued. “'It was not enough, that it was not enough, that we didn't make the deficit larger.' Because certainly nothing in the stimulus package was paid for. So I hope the Senator from Illinois understands – the American people understand – that just spending more money has failed and failed miserably.”
Durbin met McCain's challenge with one of his own. “I think one of the real bedrock beliefs among Republicans is that if we cut taxes, particularly on the wealthiest people in America, the economy will prosper. We hear that over and over,” he said.
“Didn't we try that experiment under President George W. Bush? Didn't the debt of the United States double under the President - and he left a shambles behind him, 2.3 million jobs lost in the first three months of President Obama's administration because of this failed economic policy which the Senator continues to espouse; that if we cut taxes on the rich, America is going to get wealthier. Haven't we tried it? Where are the jobs?”
McCain agreed. “The spending that went on in the previous administration was not acceptable and led to the deficit. But I would also say, speaking for myself, I voted against the Medicare Part D because it was not paid for. I voted against the earmark and porkbarrel spendings which were abundant as every appropriations bill came to the floor and dramatically increased spending in the worst way, wasteful and corrupt way, I will say. I am proud that at least some of us said: 'If we don't stop this spending and get it under control, then we are going to face a serious problem.'”
However, he added, “it has gotten a lot worse – a lot worse – since the last election. You can't keep up B-I-O-B. You can't keep up Blame It On Bush.”
As Kerry had done the day before, Durbin steered the conversation toward the matter immediately at hand. “Does the Senator believe that defaulting on our national debt for the first time in our history, which has been the threat looming over us from the House Republicans and others for a long period, is good for America's economy?”
Durbin pointed out that one of McCain's colleagues “on the floor from the State of Pennnsylvania has come in and said, 'Listen, defaulting on the debt is not that big a deal.' It can be, in his words, 'easily managed.' Does the Senator from Arizona agree with that thinking?”
“As the Senator may know,” McCain answered, “I came to the floor a couple days ago and made the comment that the Senator from Illinois and I are in agreement.”
“We can prioritize for a while where we want what remaining money that is left,” he said. “But the message we send to the world – not just our markets but to the world – that the United States is going to default on its debts is a totally unacceptable scenario and beneath a great nation.”
As for the tactic by House Republicans to force passage of a balanced budget amendment, McCain said “it was not only a wrong assessment; I think it is not fair to the American people to say we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution through the Senate at this time.”
“I would just say it pains me to say I agree with the Senator from Arizona, but I do,” Durbin said.
“We both feel threatening the debt ceiling is not in the best interests of the United States and both of us feel that holding out the threat that if we don't pass a constitutional amendment, we can't let the economy continue is not a good-faith bargain.”
Before they finished, McCain and Durbin agreed on one further point: they both wished that Senators would engage in cross-party exchanges on the floor more frequently.
That would be a bipartisan deal I could get behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment