Better than nothing?

Assuming the 11th hour negotiated deal passes both houses of Congress, is it better than nothing? Better than default?

There are some glaring omissions that even Ronald Reagen would have deplored, the first being that it is grossly unbalanced, with spending cuts and no tax revenue; the second being that it does not extend unemployment benefits.

It's a little, but not much, comfort that those will be taken up in the more comprehensive budget plan the the special committee of 24 will have to come up with in less than 3 months. And that none of this will take effect until 2013 anyway. The White House says it will continue to push for new tax revenues in that plan (hopefully more effectively than it has been doing).

OK, it's bad. Is there anything good about it?

1. Despite those who are now saying default would not really have been so bad, that it wouldn't necessarily have led to downgrading our credit rating, which might still happen anyway -- I say that's bunk. Damage has already been done to the confidence the world has in the maturity and balance of our lawmakers, but it would have been much much worse if they could not have come to some kind of agreement in the face of this deadline.

2. If the more comprehensive plan is not drawn up by Nov 23, 2011 and passed by Congress by Dec 23, 2011, then the trigger mechanisms come into play. This will mandate spending cuts that are split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries and "low-income programs" would be exempted from those cuts. This is a win for the Dems, because the Boehner plan would have made all the cuts in non-defense spending. It was the final sticking point for the Repubs, who caved in on the cuts. The Dems won that one by broadening what was included in "security" budgets -- not just the Pentagon but Homeland Security and some State Dept. funds. On balance, I count that a Dem win and a Repub concession.

3. Another Repub concession: giving up the demand for a balanced budget amendment.

4. In addition to those enumerated trigger conditions that would go into effect on Jan 1, 2013, that is that date that the Bush tax cuts expire if they are not renewed. Obama will be able to veto any legislation that would extend the cuts -- so that is a bargaining chip that he can use. If he will.

5. It will require bipartisan support to pass this bill, and it's not yet certain to happen. It will have opposition from both the Tea Party and the Progressive Democrats. Neither party has the votes to pass it without the other. The Repubs can still filibuster it in the Senate, even without a majority, and they have the majority in the House. But at least the Repubs won't be able to blame it all on Obama. And it gives him authority to raise the debt ceiling outright -- not in the backhanded way that McConnell had proposed.

6. But this may be the most important thing: It took the debt ceiling issue off the table until well after the 2012 election. That may be the most important single concession from the Repubs. Again, the Boehner bill, passed by the House and defeated in the Senate, would have raised it a small amount; and the fight would have to be fought again before the election.

The big loser though? The American economy and the American people. As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) says: This is the death of Keynesian economics -- essentially the idea that the free market cannot be depended on to right itself in some situations, especially like we're in now with a weak economy, high unemployment, and insufficient consumer buying power to stimulate growth; in such times government spending to create jobs is vital. As Paul Krugman keeps telling us: the 2008 stimulus was far too small, and we're seeing the result of that now.

That is the big Republican win here. Count it a win for small government idealogues and free market conservatives.

Ralph