Budget Showdown

Let's repeat that: Wisconsin Republicans stripped the "fiscal" elements of a "budget repair" bill in order to pass it. If that sounds like a contradiction-in-terms to you, you're not wrong.

But such is the prerogative of power. When you have majorities in the legislature and control of the executive, you get to do what you want. It's impossible to avoid analogizing what just happened in Wisconsin with the healthcare reform drama that played out at the federal level. Despite mounting evidence that the effort to pass healthcare reform was inspiring a strong conservative backlash that portended major political consequences, the Obama administration and a Democratic Congress used every legislative maneuver available to them to pass the bill.

And they have been paying the price ever since. Judging by the early reaction to the power move in Wisconsin, it seems likely that Walker and his state legislative allies will also be in for some prolonged fierce weather. Protesters who had been showing some signs of burnout immediately stormed the state Capitol. And with polling in Wisconsin indicating a significant majority disapproved of Walker's agenda, it seems likely that efforts to recall state Senate Republicans will get a big boost.

Of course, on another level, the analogy is completely ridiculous. The White House and congressional Democrats pushed through a bill that expands healthcare for Americans and is the first significant attempt in decades by either party to reduce the relentless rise of healthcare costs in America. Comparing that with a brazen attempt to crush a political opponent while using a bogus budget-balancing rationale is dubious, at best.

But, of course, partisans will disagree on this point. Conservatives are no doubt cheering the resolve of Wisconsin Republicans right now, just as many liberals cheered the passage of healthcare reform, even as they warily eyed the polling numbers. If you've got a majority, you might as well use it. What else would be the point?

What comes next? FireDogLake's David Dayen does a great job gaming out the immediate future. Of particular interest is a state Supreme Court election in just three weeks that could change the balance of power on the court. Since there are certain to be legal challenges to both the substance of the new bill and the manner it which it was passed, that election will undoubtedly be hotly contested.

But the beauty of this whole struggle is that ultimately, lawyers and judges won't make the final call. The people will decide. The Democratic state senators who fled Wisconsin and created the space for popular opposition to Walker's bill to flourish took a big risk. They broke the normal rules of politics, and there was no certainty that the public would ratify their decision. They could have just been dismissed as sore losers. And they still might be. But we'll see -- the momentum for recall elections for both Democratic and Republican state senators seems unstoppable. Gov. Walker pulled a power move on Wednesday, but the people still get to choose who wins in the end.

 

"It isn't often that two failed votes in the Senate could be called a breakthrough," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a speech at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. "Once it is plain that both party's opening bids in this budget debate are non-starters, we can finally get serious about sitting down and narrowing the huge gap that exists between the two sides."

Schumer, along with other top Senate Democrats, visited with Obama on Wednesday afternoon to plot strategy. The senator declined to comment afterward, other than to say he recognizes his party will have to move in the GOP's direction.

One reason is that Democratic moderates are agitating for further cuts to spending.

"I still think there are way too many people in denial around here about the nature of the problem and how serious it is," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who contended that the Democratic plan didn't go far enough. But she said the GOP measure cut too indiscriminately in its funding for infrastructure programs, education and research.

The GOP plan mustered 44 aye votes; the Democratic measure received just 42 votes, with 10 party members and liberal independent Bernard Sanders in opposition. Moderates Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and McCaskill -- each face potentially difficult re-election bids next year -- were among those opposed to the Democratic version.

At issue was legislation to fund the day-to-day operating budgets of every federal agency through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year and provide a $158 billion infusion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republicans dominating the House, driven by a campaign promise to bring return domestic agency budgets to 2008, drove through last month a measure cutting more than $60 billion, imposing cuts of 13 percent, on average, to domestic agencies.

The 87-person freshman class forced Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to back away from an earlier plan cutting $35 billion over the second half of the budget year that took into account the fact that the budget year is nearly half over. As a result, over the coming six months, the House measure would actually impose day-to-day cuts far steeper than promised in the campaign. Targets grew to include Head Start, special education and Pell Grants for low-income college students.

Senate Democrats had been slow to respond. Their alternative, unveiled just last Friday by Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, cuts about $12 billion below levels enacted for 2010. It's also $30 billion below a Senate omnibus spending measure that Republicans sidetracked in December.

Inouye said his bill represented months of labor by panel members and their aides and "makes real cuts to real programs."

"But the cuts ... are based on hearings, testimony and a thorough analysis of the current needs of every agency and department," Inouye said. "By contrast, the Republicans in the House have thrown together a proposal ... based on the campaign promise to reduce spending by $100 billion."

Inouye was referring to a GOP campaign promise to cut nonsecurity spending by $100 billion below President Barack Obama's budget request. By that measuring stick, the Democratic alternative represents $50 billion in savings.

Republicans derided Inouye's efforts as simply endorsing the status quo.

"There is plenty of fat to be cut in the discretionary budget," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "And yet Democrats can't find it in themselves to cut an additional $50 billion from a bill that spends over $1 trillion."

Inouye's current plan might have won bipartisan support last year, but it was overtaken by events. GOP moderates queasy about cuts to education, health research and college aid nonetheless rallied behind the slashing House measure despite their reservations.

"I have a lot of concerns about some of the cuts," said moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. But, she added, "it may be necessary to send a strong message to the White House."

The near-universal GOP support for the House plan belied significant qualms about it among many Republicans.

"While I can support the spirit in which the House made its cuts, I do not endorse each and every reduction in the House measure," said Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., top Republican on the Appropriations panel. "In fact, I oppose some of the cuts to important programs and believe that alternative reductions must be considered."

There were GOP defections from the right, however, as tea party-favorites Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., voted against the House GOP measure.

"The cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem," Paul said. "I think both (Democratic and Republican) approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that's coming."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein and FireDogLake's David Dayen were quick to approve.

Klein:

We're not going to find any real answers to our budget woes by cutting discretionary spending. That's not where the problem is. Entitlements, tax expenditures and rates, and even defense spending make more sense for a deficit-reduction deal.

Dayen:

In a political sense, this works for Democrats. They now get to say that their counterparts on the right are not serious about the budget. Because they're not. They're trying to balance a 40 percent gap with 12 percent of the spending. If the bluff is called, a longer-term deal at least spreads out the spending cuts over a number of years, and will be a lesser short-term shock to the economy.

Meanwhile, Politico editorializes that the inevitable rejection of the House spending cut proposal by the Senate may force House Speaker John Boehner to be more open to compromise, and there are even some signs that a handful of Republican Senators are acknowledging that revenue increases are necessary for a long term deficit-reduction solution.

It's encouraging to hear discussion of a more comprehensive solution to the nation's fiscal situation, even if most of the rhetoric is mere posturing. But it's hard to see how any of this will alleviate the pressure to come up with another round of quick -- and potentially economically deleterious -- budget cuts to get the House GOP to agree to another short term continuing resolution that keeps the government open past March 18.

And in the meantime, there's still one voice that's conspicuously absent from this debat e-- the voice of the man best situated to propose a long-term strategy that protects the economy in the short term and reduces deficits in the long term.

Once again, where is Obama?

According to polls conducted by Public Policy Polling, 86 percent of Wisconsin's Republicans approve of Walker, compared to only 8 percent of Wisconsin's Democrats. The so-called partisan gap of 78 is "is bigger than for any governor in 37 states where PPP has polled dating back to September of 2010," writes Gilbert. Much bigger. California's Jerry Brown, for example, no stranger to partisan passion in his day, boasts a paltry partisan gap of only 50. In fact, in Wisconsin, "Walker inspires stronger feelings -- both pro and con -- than Obama."

What lessons can we learn from this remarkable display of polarization?

1. Politics has transcended the personal.

Few, if any, analysts saw this coming.

In a post-election survey ... one in five Wisconsin adults had a "very favorable" opinion of Walker and one in five had a "very unfavorable" opinion. But most were in the soft middle or didn't have an opinion at all. That's normal for a new governor.

When the same pollster asked about Walker last week, the percentage of Wisconsinites with strong feelings about him -- negative or positive -- had risen from 40 percent to 70 percent.

Scott Walker is not the kind of politician you would normally expect to generate such passion. In his public appearances, he doesn't sound much like a fire-breathing ideologue. He's bland. But as his first order of business he attempted to push through a stunningly ambitious political agenda, and transformed himself instantly into a national figure. We're used to politicians drawing attention because of their own personal characteristics or rhetoric. But in Wisconsin, the agenda trumps all, and now Walker seems little more than a bystander in his own movement. The degree to which partisans support or oppose him seems to have little to with his qualities as a politician and everything to do with the starkness of his politics.

2. Wisconsin-style polarity marks a new peak in a trend long in the making.

Historians and political scientists have been tracking the growing partisan polarization of the United States for decades. The roots of the great divide go at least as far back as the Johnson administration, when the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights legislation catalyzed the migration of conservative Southern Democrats into the Republican Party. George W. Bush set a modern standard for inspiring passionate division -- and Barack Obama, at least so far, has proved his equal. The emergence of the Tea Party reinvigorated the right after crushing losses in 2006 and 2008. Now the left looks for energy from the Wisconsin protests -- and may well get it. But through it all the ongoing political realignment of the United States into two fervently opposed camps with very little middle ground continues to proceed apace. When both sides have high morale and energetic grass roots, where do we end up?

3. Whoever wins in Wisconsin, national partisan temperatures seem bound to rise further.

Progressives, liberals and Democrats of all stripes have been justifiably encouraged by the Wisconsin protests, and are especially happy at the polling numbers that indicate independents have a serious case of buyer's remorse when it comes to Walker. But the huge support that Walker is seeing from registered Republicans suggests that a liberal victory in the Badger State will only further motivate conservatives elsewhere to redouble their efforts. Both sides are fundraising off of Wisconsin. Republicans aren't abandoning Walker -- they're far more supportive of him than they were before the drama began.

4. Compromise -- on anything -- seems to be getting harder.

The latest news from Wisconsin focuses on the release of e-mails from Walker's office (after an open records request from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) suggesting that earlier this week the governor had finally been pushed to the point of offering some meaningful concessions. But so far, it looks like Democrats have rejected his overtures, and are doubling down on their strategy to pressure Republican state senators, and eventually Walker, with recall votes. Note the pattern here: Gov. Walker shocks Wisconsin with a bill that seeks to disembowel public sector unions -- Democrat state senators respond by going on the lam to Illinois and putting in motion an election do-over. It makes for great drama but what if ...

5. Federal politics are about to get Wisconsin-ized.

The belief that Republicans were blamed for the last government shutdown has encouraged both parties to maneuver in the hopes that the other side will get blamed for the next shutdown. But the most important lesson of Wisconsin-style polarization is that, no matter how a shutdown gets started, both sides are much more likely to maintain their own conviction that their opponents are completely in the wrong and at fault than they were able to do the last time we went through this dance. Echo chambers on both the right and left are far more deafening than in 1995. Sure, there are some independents who will make a relatively unbiased decision on whom to fault, but for the majority of voters, ideological loyalty seems bound to trump the facts on the ground.

Call it the Wisconsin dialectic. Tea Party overreach instigates a progressive counteraction, which, in turn .... gives us what, exactly? With the underlying political forces at work here, is there any possible way that a moderate Republican could emergse from the primary process as next year's presidential campaign gets under way? Perhaps the biggest lesson from Wisconsin is that the roller-coaster ride from Bush to Obama to Tea Party midterms is hardly losing steam. It's accelerating.

We will likely have votes on two proposals today, and both options are partisan and unrealistic. And neither one will pass.

"The first is a Democratic proposal that doesn't go far enough. This proposal, which calls for $6.5 billion in new cuts, utterly ignores our fiscal reality -- our nation is badly in debt and spending at absolutely unsustainable and out-of-control levels. In February alone, the federal government outspent revenues by an unacceptable $223 billion. We must turn our financial ship around, but the Senate proposal continues to sail forward as if there's no storm on the horizon.

"Or, we could choose a second, even more flawed measure: a House GOP proposal that blindly hacks the budget with no sense of our priorities or of our values as a country."

Manchin ridiculed the charade -- neither proposal is expected to pass, and Manchin said he plans to vote against both -- and then put the spotlight on Obama:

"Why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations -- our President -- has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for?"

One might question whether a guy whose very first act after getting elected senator was to skip two key Senate votes -- on immigration and "don't ask, don't tell" -- should be accusing other politicians of failing to demonstrate leadership. A cynic might also wonder if Manchin, who must run for reelection in 2012, has simply decided that attacking Obama polls well in West Virginia. But Manchin still has every right to slam the kabuki show in the Senate, and there's no question that Obama has kept a low profile on the budget struggle in recent days.

After signing the continuing resolution that will keep the government open until March 18, Obama designated Vice President Biden, chief of staff Bill Daley and budget director Jack Lew as his negotiators with Congress. Since then we haven't heard much from that corner, although one would guess that there are attempts at horse-trading going on behind the scenes. Obama has made his basic principles clear: He doesn't want cuts that endanger the economic recovery, or that undermine government efforts in "education, innovation and infrastructure." And one presumes that he isn't eager to defund Planned Parenthood, gut financial sector regulatory oversight, hamstring the EPA or go along with plans to underfund healthcare reform.

There's a theory that the Obama administration has decided that laying low and working behind the scenes is the best way to get anything done, because as soon as the president identifies something as a priority, opposition to it becomes a rallying point for Republicans. This is no doubt at least partially true, but it's a pathetic shield to hide behind. There are 10 days left until the current continuing resolution runs out. Soon enough, bluffs must be called. If the president has priorities he wants to fight for, he has to be willing to embrace the possibility of a government shutdown, because that is the only ultimate leverage either side holds in this game.

For now, Obama seems to be waiting to see which way Senate moderates are going to go. But he's taking an awfully big risk that they are going to buckle under Republican pressure, if they aren't assured of covering fire from the White House first.