

America's government shutdown: No way to run a country - coloneltcb
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587211-land-free-starting-look-ungovernable-enough-enough-no-way-run-country?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/nowaytoruncountry

======
jmadsen
The economic explanation is good; the conclusion that the country needs
legislation to take control of the Gerrymandering makes you want to smack
yourself in the face.

Yes, we KNOW that. Except, the only people who can pass that legislation are
the people benefiting from the current situation.

The fact that even a such an august publication as the Economist can't come up
with a better solution than that is terribly depressing.

~~~
pmorici
Wouldn't the obvious solution be a constitutional amendment proposed by the
states through a constitutional convention leaving congress out of it
altogether?

~~~
wwweston
If I understand correctly, the problem _is_ at the state level. The national
congress doesn't draw district boundaries, mostly state legislatures do
(though there are exceptions who have independent redistricting committees).

As the state-originating path to a US Constitutional amendment requires the
participation of state legislatures, it's unlikely it could be used to fix the
problem.

------
alphakappa
The mess we are in today can be avoided if we didn't have the legislative
contrivance of a 'debt-ceiling'. [1] If our representatives have voted on
appropriations, then that's money that we have already committed to spend. The
source of that money should be already debated and taken care of in that
measure, so there's no benefit to having a separate check in the form of a
debt-ceiling.

How does it make sense to vote for appropriations without a way to fund them?
All it does is provide for the kind of legislative blackmail that we are
seeing today where the funding is not provided unless some unconnected
amendments are included.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Legi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Legislative_history)

~~~
harshreality
If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running
budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that
they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass.

The debates over continuing resolutions to fund the government implicitly
cover where to get money for the deficits (issuing more debt, obviously). The
frequency of debt limit adjustments serves as a reminder to Congress about
just how fast they're inflating our currency. Do you really want to do away
with that?

~~~
alphakappa
>> If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running
budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that
they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass.

It doesn't really make sense to commit to spending without knowing where the
money will come from. If they had to argue about the source of funding when
they passed appropriations, then we wouldn't have to go through the same drama
later.

~~~
harshreality
They know where the money is coming from: issuing more debt. If they had to
acknowledge that more directly when debating the budget (aka continuing
resolutions), I don't think budgets would sail through as often as they do,
but it would also make it easier for the government to spend _more_. The
ritual of raising the debt ceiling is a more concrete step to make them feel
bad about blowing through the last debt increase so fast. What's wrong with
that as a psychological tool, and as a separate opportunity for the public to
influence their representatives and voice their opinions?

You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage
of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult.

~~~
alphakappa
I fail to understand why a dysfunctional system is better than one where
expense proposals are matched by revenue/borrowing plans.

This is the government of the United States we are talking about, not some
teenager's budget where we have to come up with ways to make them 'feel bad'
about spending.

>> You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a
percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult.

No, I want to make sure that those who pass spending bills are also
responsible for finding the revenue. It does not preclude the possibility of
keeping debt in control - if they feel that debt/gdp ratio should be in check,
then they should keep their spending proposals in check too. One cannot
approve large spending, and then complain when the payment is due.

------
h4xr
"They should also vote to raise the debt ceiling (or better yet, abolish it)."

Well there is. The whole problem with publications like this is that they like
to provide answers without explaining the consequences. The Economist is
especially bad since its title proclaims it as an expert but if we did we what
it proposes there would be no limit to the amount of debt the US could borrow
and thus no limit to the amount of poverty we would leave to future
generations.

Currently the US accrues 2.5t in tax revenue per annum and spends 3.8t or it
overspends 1.3t a year. So it should be clear to anyone with the most basic
understanding of math the US needs to cut spending. Raising the debt limit is
the exact opposite of that and would be equivalent of trying to lose weight by
letting out your belt.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The Economist is especially bad since its title proclaims it as an expert
> but if we did we what it proposes there would be no limit to the amount of
> debt the US could borrow and thus no limit to the amount of poverty we would
> leave to future generations.

There's no practical limit to the amount of money the US can borrow. All
eliminating the debt ceiling would do is reduce the number of _different_
votes that have to happen to operate the government when running deficits. All
spending has to be _authorized_ by a law -- this is often a one-time, long-
term act establishing a program -- and _appropriated_ by a law (typically, in
"normal" operations, by an annual budget, but sometimes we get periodic CRs
for shorter periods, and some things are subject to multiyear appropriations.)
The combination of what is authorized and appropriate vs. the revenue from
taxes (also set by laws passed by Congress) sets the level of borrowing that
is going to happen to fund it. The debt ceiling is essentially redundant with
other Congressional action, and either is completely irrelevant (under most
normal conditions) or, as has been the case recently, is an excuse for stunts
which do nothing but harm the country's credit.

> Currently the US accrues 2.5t in tax revenue per annum and spends 3.8t or it
> overspends 1.3t a year. So it should be clear to anyone with the most basic
> understanding of math the US needs to cut spending.

Ignoring that that's not really the right two numbers to compare (since even
if you look at the right comparison, the ratio between debt payments and GDP,
there is a clear need to do something about balance) the suggestion that that
has to be cutting spending ignores the revenue side; given that the overall
trend over the past 50ish years has been of tax cuts -- particularly on the
richest -- its not entirely unreasonable to suggest that to the extent that
the tax/spending balance needs to be addressed, no small part of that is on
the tax side.

> Raising the debt limit is the exact opposite of that

Raising the debt limit is essential even though long-term tax/revenue balance
needs to be addressed (the target shouldn't be naive budget balance, but
establishing a stable and reasonable long-term average debt:GDP ratio, and
good practices that let it run above that average when government spends
countercyclically during economic downturns, and below it when government
spending is less necessary during private sector expansions.)

------
MaysonL
An article from the past(1990) worth reading: "The Perils of
Presidentialism"[0] by Juan Linz, who died Tuesday. It notes that the United
States is exceptional in having a long-lasting presidential system, and also
in having political parties which are not disciplined and ideologically
cohesive. We're now experiencing the kind of conflict that many Latin American
countries have faced in the past.

[0]
[http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/linz_perils_presidenci...](http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/linz_perils_presidencialism.pdf)

