social safety net reality

here we go again

If you have been reading this column since January, you might recall several discussions of the danger of a government shutdown last winter. This now all-too-familiar refrain is one of these peculiarly American, twenty-first century idiocies (regardless who initiates it). The concern last winter was whether our divided national legislature would increase the authorised borrowing amount for the federal government to pay our already incurred bills. The Executive Branch cannot unilaterally decide it needs more money in our system replete with checks and balances so the Congress had to address it. Republicans either were too simple to understand the reality of the ceiling allowing us to pay for what we already bought on credit or they were disingenuous in their statements; negotiations about federal spending were completely separate from that act.

Encouraging the Legislature to authorise the Executive to spend more was a totally different matter. Turns out both parties spend much time whining about spending but actually do little to rein in that spending unless it’s a program their partisan adversaries support—again, that is how both parties operate so let’s not kid ourselves.

We are back to the threat of a government shutdown, however, as the Constitution mandates some parameters to how we fund things. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 states ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.’

Congress enacted the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act to force the Executive to offer an overall budget for its spending, per the Clauses noted above, and agencies to oversee the budget’s administration. The Bureau of the Budget (rebranded as the Office of Management and Budget today) was the focus of administering this activity within the Executive once the president announced his proposed spending. The Office of the Comptroller General (now known as the Government Accountability Office) was the Congressional agency for auditing (financially or programatically) any expenditures as part of its oversight and accountability functions.

This is all fine and good in a system where those in the Legislature desire a budget to allow the Executive to function on behalf of the public. Tragically, the United States is not in that position today. The two major political parties are so far apart on their views of the legitimacy of each other’s leadership that this impairs our ability to function as a nation.

Additionally, the two parties perpetuate the long-standing philosophical disagreement over government’s purpose. Democrats seek, at a minimum, to preserve the Franklin Roosevelt/Lyndon Johnson social safety net while many within the party relish drastically expanding that net. Republican hardliners overtly desire not only to rid the country of those spending areas but to return to the smaller government of the late nineteenth century before Theodore Roosevelt dismantled some of the trusts or the country was a global player. That, my friends, is quite a gap in objectives with few, if any, points of coincidence much less convergence. The system appears irrevocably broken, although eventually a budget will pass because the most cherished position on each side of the aisle—incumbency in office—will force them to vote for something when the public becomes involved as it will.

The nonpartisan, non-governmental Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget listed seven categories of spending which legally have a 30 September 2023 deadline for reauthorisation. Several of these spending areas involve safety (the Federal Aviation Administration), Agriculture and Nutrition Programs (SNAP, conservation steps, and crop insurance for example), Child Care funds, National Flood Insurance, extending some Medicaid policies, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families all expire the final day in September. It is also the date, by law, when Congress must pass an overall federal budget. This is a Freedom Caucus hit list of Biden-sponsored areas. This sets up a battle royale for this month. It might be entertaining if it weren’t so serious.

The 30th of September is 26 days from today. The parties are not in the same universe on this issue, not merely because of the numbers of dollars each side would spend but because the current priorities for how they will spend their limited time are completely discombobulated. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, when asked about this predicament, prefers discussing a probable impeachment investigation of President Biden. Investigations are in vogue rather than governing because each Member can appear ‘strong’ in sound bites for the upcoming political campaign. McCarthy regularly seems as much worried about his own caucus as he does the Democrats since his majority is extremely thin and hardliners really opposed him in the Speakership from the beginning.

Democrats are in the minority, thin or anything else. They have no House leverage and little unity of their own. The ‘progressive’ caucus within the House does not hide its desire to increase spending on these very social programs in the face of tremendous opposition from the majority. And this is only half of the legislature after all.

The Senate is always a somewhat more decorous body but Democrats have only the tiniest of margins there. Senator Kristen Sinema’s defection to ‘independent’ status leaves much hanging on the vote of West Virginian Joe Manchin, an unpredictable Democrat seriously contemplating a third party run for president under the secretive ‘No Labels’ banner if not outright defection to the Republicans if he seeks reelection. Republican leader Mitch McConnell’s declining health must be sparking an intense behind-the-scenes set of negotiations on succession yet the forty-eight egos in that caucus are hardly likely to find this easy since so many involved have proven interested in likely presidential runs post-Trump.

In short, it’s a bloody mess right now on how we will address the spending requirements. This is most definitely unavoidable evidence of U.S. decline as a superpower: we have fewer tools but greater fights within.

Two further observations. The House has more than 400 ‘safe’ seats for the incumbent party for each of those seats as we look to the 2024 election according to the voting percentages from 2022. That is an astonishing number and one indication of why the two parties move to the extremes. It’s easier and sexier to be ‘out there’ which is how Trump began building his constituency; others do the same. The consequence is there is little incentive to compromise or to govern.

Second, all of this occurs within Washington. Conservatives, in particular, love to rail about what goes on inside the Beltway as if they were not seeking election to be inside that same Beltway.

Other issues operate not only outside of Washington, D.C. but outside of politics and the United States altogether.

One of the underreported stories during the fading Repubican primary is the private sector’s increasing reluctance, if not outright rejection, of offering insurance in locations increasingly under seige by nature. A substantial number of states fitting that bill are Republican-centric states seeking to dismantle federal programs on precisely the types of safety nets to replace the markets offering insurance, for example, in those areas. Note: one of the bills needing reauthorisation hits this need. Neither party controls the ever harsher natural disasters we face.

Florida, in particular, is vulnerable to massive hurricanes from two directions. Texas has a long coastline with a history of massive devastation; ask Galveston about its experience 123 years ago this Friday. The Great Galveston Storm remains the single deadliest natural disaster in the nation’s history with 8,000 deaths. Imagine the financial costs today along the coast. People assume someone will help them with such threatening consequences, whether it’s private insurance or public aid.

Insurers are balking at offering policies along the coastlines much as they are reluctant to ever take on a known losing financial bet; writing such policies is an unsustainable position unless the federal government requires it. In today’s litigious society, such a federal mandate would unavoidably result in years of litigation. Yet the natural disasters would continue. Recall that Louisiana had not one but two hurricane strikes in 2005 as Hurricane Rita hit the western part of that vulnerable state less than three weeks after Katrina. Nature isn’t bound by rules.

Hurricanes are only one of the natural pheonomena afflicting many who then receive some sort of federal assistance. The assistance for Texas during their massive power outage a couple of years back was a reminder of the wrath of nature regardless who is in power or what their politics.

If we cannot reach the deadline of 30 September for many programs, we can pass a continuing resolution. Republicans say they won’t do so but, as I noted, their constituents expect these programs (even when they don’t seem to understand they are federal expenditures) as do Democrats. In many cases, the people involved rely on these programs so the funding will continue after the torture of this showboating. Then again, if you don’t know any history or figure history started with your election, you might not understand this.

In short, it’s nice to charge the other party with being irresponsible on spending but it is bipartisan. How we think we should pay for it is the point of division but we seem, regardless of the rhetoric and posturing, to borrow as if there were no consequences.

The rest of the world marvels at us but increasingly for the wrong reasons. This dysfunction simply isn’t how the self-proclaimed superpower retains that status. Turns out we are doing so by default as everyone else has their own problems (crumbling schools in Britain—really? China’s General Secretary skipping meetings abroad because of what at home? The list goes one and on.)

It’s the beginning of autumn. The leaves will turn, politicans will become even sillier, and we hope kids learn in school. The sun is moving daily southerly with the disappointing reality that sunrise is now after 0600 here in the Chesapeake. Mon Dieu! It’s comforting to have a sunrise but the days are shortening too quickly for my preference

.

Thank you for reading Actions Create Consequences as today seems a pretty clear cut example. I appreciate your interest and am so grateful for support. Keep those cards, letters, and email messages with comments coming my way.

Be safe and be well. FIN

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, ‘Upcoming Fiscal Policy Deadlines’, 10 August 2023, retrieved at https://www.crfb.org/blogs/upcoming-congressional-fiscal-policy-deadlines

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/upcoming-congressional-fiscal-policy-deadlines