How to use this Page

Tweet

By Elvin Lim

The strategic gamesmanship leading up to the budget compromise that was reached late last week suggests a blueprint for the budget battles to come. But while many observers believe that Washington is bracing for even more epic battles to come, when Congress considers the budget for the rest of the fiscal year and legislation to raise the debt ceiling, my guess is that there will be more sabre-rattling than a serious effort to avoid raising the debt ceiling. Here are three reasons why.

First, even Democrats agree that cuts are necessary, and even Republicans know that deep cuts are difficult. There will be collusion to fight, but not necessarily to disagree. Certainly, Republicans and Tea Partiers still enjoying the honeymoon from last November’s elections have successfuly set the frame of “spending cuts” such that Democrats have been forced to fight the battle on Republican turf. But everyone already accepts that the federal government has to rein in its spending. Now, Republicans will have to take their pick between fiscal restraint and their social agenda. So far they have been consistent in prioritizing the former, for when push came to shove, even Senator Tom Coburn dropped his insistence on the Planned Parenthood rider. For Democrats, the question is not whether they can beat Republicans at their own game and propose a bigger budget slash than Republicans want, but whether they can reset the political agenda, postpone the issue, or talk about something else. Both sides however, will be sure to start off each new debate with maximal bluster and deliberately over-reach, so as to win the maximal concession from the other side and to achieve a final resting point closest to one’s original pre-bluster preference.

Second, last week revealed that neither side wants to risk the political fallout of a government shut-down. Conventional wisdom holds that Bill Clinton was the net political winner when Republicans forced a government shutdown in 1995 and 1996. Last week, even Tea Partiers revealed their interest in seeing government work, not shut down. The budget talks were the first real test of the Tea Party in government, the first test of Speaker Boehner’s ability to unite a diverse group of freshmen and veteran Republican congressmen, and the first test of President Obama’s ability to reconcile Democrats and Republicans after his announcement to seek a second presidential term. Because nobody wants to risk appearing obstructionist, the irony of divided party control in Washington – which was the case the last time a president managed to balance the budget – is that it may well prove to be more constructive than gridlocked in the short-term. The long run, of course, is a different matter. Nobody in Washington thinks about that.

Third, while Democrats are hailing the $38 billion cut in spending they acceded to as the biggest real spending cut in history, the fact is this amount represents 12 percent of the amount (about $300 billion) we would have to cut from the budget so that Congress would not have to raise the public debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which The Treasury Department expects we will hit in about a month. Not even Congressman Paul Ryan or Senator Marco Rubio have proposed plans aggressive enough to save us $300 billion in one month. When politicians make the most noise, then we know that they are interested more in the semblance of trying than confident in the possibility of a solution.

If the last ten years, in which we have raised the debt ceiling ten times, is any guide, it is very likely that we are going to have to raise the debt ceiling, if not the US government would not be able to raise money to fund its operati

Add a Comment

The relevant constitutional provision of our CNMI Constitution reads:

If a balanced budget is not approved (by the legislature) before the first day of the fiscal year, no money shall be drawn from the General Fund, provided that certain government services and employees shall remain available as provided by law, in order to deliver services essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the Commonwealth and to protect against damage to and destruction of property.

The exact contours of this provision are now being tested by our current situation. And the limitations and protections of this provision seem to have already been stretched beyond reason and good sense in service of political motives.

1. The Saipan Tribune reports that Attorney General Ed Buckingham has used and is using public funds to hire a private attorney to represent him in the OPA investigation into his use of public office to support federal election (House of Representatives) candidate Joe Camacho. The hire of attorney G. Anthony Long occurred on September 17, 2010 --so predates the constitutional restriction on expenditures of public funds. But now the question becomes whether the continued services of Mr. Long can possibly be considered "essential services" during this government "shut-down." The answer seems obvious--NO! Legal services to cover Mr. Buckingham's ass in the investigation are not vital to "health, safety, and welfare OF THE PEOPLE."

No time that Mr. Long puts in from October 1, 2010 to the enactment of a budget should be billed to the public or paid for with public funds.


2. The Marianas Variety reports that Deputy Police Commissioner Ambrosio Ogumoro told DPS supervisors during work hours in a meeting to have their subordinate police officers bring food to a political gathering for US House candidate Joe Camacho. Almost worse than this political pressure is the report that police officers, while on duty, "delivered picnic tables, cut fish and helped in the preparation" for the political gathering.

Not only is it a violation of law for state government workers to aid in a federal election campaign as part of their state government work, we are in a SHUT-DOWN and only essential services are to be provided and paid for.

Helping on a political campaign is not essential service for the "health, safety, and welfare of the people of the Commonwealth."


We need a full investigation of both of these. We may need a lawsuit challenging expenditure of taxpayer funds in derogation of the Constitution. And for this, we need leaders to take the lead. They must step up and insist on behalf of all of us that the tyranny end; that our rights be protected; and that our government remain and return to democratic principles.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Add a Comment