The wrong direction

As of this writing (and it changes by the hour and according to whom you listen), it seems that there may be some deal coming out of this mess. A deal that possibly can pass -- but a totally wrong-headed one, in my opinion.

Essentially, it will make $1 trillion in spending cuts now and create a Super Congress committee of 12 from each side that will negotiate further cuts of $1.8 trillion by Thanksgiving. The only way it's going to pass is to put some real teeth into the consequences if they don't come to an agreement by T'giving on the further cuts.

The incentive is probably going to be a trigger: what will happen if they don't. They seem now to be wrangling over whether that will be cuts in entitlements and maybe in defense, and possibly in tax increases. It looks like it's going to be heavy, if not exclusively, on entitlement cuts. I think the Dems should at least hold out for tax hikes as part of the trigger -- although they should be in the basic bill itself.

Desperation always makes bad laws. And this is a desperate hour. So we're going to get a terrible deal out of this. Not as bad as Boehner's bill. But bad. Listen to Paul Krugman on the ABC news show this morning:

"From the perspective of a rational person -- in other words a progressive -- we shouldn't be talking about spending cuts at all now. We have 9 percent unemployment. These spending cuts are going to worsen unemployment. . . .

"I have nobody I know who thinks the unemployment rate will be below 8 percent at the end of next year. With the spending cuts it might be above 9 percent at the end of next year. There is no light at the end of this tunnel. We're having a debate in Washington, all about, 'Gee, we'll make the economy worse, but will we make it worse on 90 percent of the Republicans' terms or 100 percent of Republicans' terms?' The answer is 100 percent."

The Republicans have perfected the art of minority control of government.

Ralph