Why Compromise is Impossible in Washington

Thanks to the political gridlock in Congress, the United States credit rating was downgraded by one of the credit ratings agencies for the first time in history. The most appalling part of this debacle is that it seems like a deal should have been made many months before the one finally passed on August 2nd. As I mentioned in a previous post, it would seem that the most obvious solution would have been to raise some revenues and also cut spending significantly. This solution doesn't give either party everything they want, but it is the only way to try and reduce the deficit without cutting spending, which does improve economic growth and protect vulnerable populations, to the point of crippling the federal government completely.

Instead of having this type of logical discussion and making a long-term solution, Congress chose to make ultimatums for weeks on end and eventually pass a half-assed plan that, if nothing else, did at least cut spending a little and raise the debt ceiling. It will also require both parties to have this same discussion in a couple years when the second round of deficit reduction occurs.


Delay is also known as success in politics.

This brings up the question, why does it seem like no one is willing to compromise at all in the federal government?

Requirements for a Compromise
Whenever people or groups disagree on what they want, a negotiation has to occur in order for a deal to occur. In order for a successful negotiation to take place, there has to be some overlap in goals, otherwise a compromise will not occur.

Let's use the example of Bob wanting to purchase a car from Adam.


Adam seems like a reasonable fellow to deal with.

Bob can afford to spend $5,000 for a car at this point. Adam's car is priced at $7,000, but he is willing to go as low as $4,500. As you can see, there is overlap in the price ranges here so a sale can theoretically take place.


A successful negotiation is possible, the car may be sold to Bob.

Now, if you change that same scenario but instead make Bob only willing to spend $4,000, look at how the picture changes.


No overlap here, a deal cannot be reached.

The problem is that the current Washington environment is the latter scenario. Both parties agree that spending cuts need to occur, to defense, social spending, and many other areas. Where the parties are split is on the issue of revenue increases. The Republican party, particularly the Tea Party faction, is completely unwilling to consider tax increases of any sort, even those caused simply by removing loopholes in the tax system. The problem is that so many Republicans have signed pledges with Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform group stating that they will never ever vote to raise taxes in any way that they are left with no room to negotiate on the budget. If they choose to negotiate, they are harshly criticized by Norquist's group, which seems to have a great deal of power with the conservative base of the Republican party.

So, here's the image of the possible negotiation options for revenue increases right now:



It's enough to make you need a cigarette.

The Consequences of a Smaller Government

In the ongoing US budget discussions, one issue that does not seem to be addressed often is what the actual consequences of a smaller government presence will be for citizens. The main arguments are about taxes, social security, medicare, and other large budget issues for the federal government. However, federal budget reductions will also result in a smaller state and local government, as a lot of discretionary spending that seems likely to be axed is given to these groups. With the current anti-tax rhetoric spewed by people like Grover Norquist, it seems unlikely that extra local taxes will be approved to maintain services in most areas. So, what happens when government is "small enough to strangle in a bathtub?"


Die government!

Well, one example is that over the last couple of months in my city the public safety budget has been targeted for reductions. A few police officer positions were removed and the fire department has been reduced in size as well. A few people complained about this, but for the most part people were willing to let it go instead of having to pay higher taxes.


Maybe the government would have more success with tax hikes if they hired a nicer guy to implement them.

Unfortunately, last weekend five sexual assaults took place, including two rapes. The immediate reaction, of course, was that the reduction to the public safety budget was a terrible idea and the money should have been taken from somewhere else. The problem is that there is nowhere else to take this money from-there just isn't very much discretionary spending left in most budgets. Almost every state and local government has been facing budget issues for years now, there isn't any fat left to trim.


The four or five old guys have retired, everyone else is kind of important.

For another example, almost every government agency that I've been to has a ridiculously long line. Getting the title transferred on my car takes about one to two minutes of actual work, but it took about two hours due to the government office that I had to go to only having four employees to handle dozens of people. As it seems likely that more employees are going to be laid off or not replaced when they retire, the problem is only going to get worse. Maybe I need to order a pizza next time I need to get my driver's license renewed.


Looks like Mr. Norquist would like one too.

Conclusion
It's easy to say that government should be smaller. After all, it saves you money in taxes. The problem is that a smaller government means that when YOU need help you're not going to be able to get it. After all, one man's lifesaving government service is another man's discretionary spending.


What? You want a fire department? What kind of wimp are you!