Taxes and Spending: A Moral Gulf

As a die-hard supporter of the Pittsburgh Penguins professional ice hockey team, I was, like every other supporter, ecstatic when it became official that city, county and state authorities approved a massive bond issuance to finance a new arena for the team a few years ago. The deal prevented the team's threatened move to Kansas City, a city with hardly any hockey culture. It came as no surprise, of course, because these days professional sports franchise owners easily have their way with local governments when demanding new facilities.

More importantly, though, part of the arena's financing would come from newly legalized slot machine casinos that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania legalized to generate new revenues in a cash-strapped economy. On one shore of Pittsburgh's three rivers, just a stone's throw away from a world-class science museum popular among children, local residents could feed their gambling addictions in a new magnet for crime - and thereby help pay for the new arena. As a fan, I was happy to know my team would stay put - and win a championship one year later - but I also felt dirty knowing the means to that end.

The arena illustrated the paradox of the Reagan-era conservatism that has persisted in today's political culture: with a refusal to raise taxes as a means to finance growing government outlays including large public facilities like arenas and stadiums, you put pressures on governments to find revenue in other, less savory places. Conservatism as a means of preventing "big government" only forces governments to look elsewhere for the funds needed to pay for programs: so-called immoral activities, corporations, and in recent years, other countries with whom the United States shares few common interests.

Take, for example, an idea being pushed, ironically, by Democrats in Congress to legalize Internet gambling as a way of raising just $42 billion over 10 years. Such a sum is minuscule to the size of the federal budget deficit. But the new willingness of Congress to legalize Internet gambling - the addiction for which is probably more difficult to prevent because of the Internet's dispersion and anonymity - shows Congress has reached its last resort in an election year and has run out of ideas to combat real waste in government spending.

The Lame Congress

When looking at President Barack Obama's tanglings with the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill, one can start to see some virtue in Obama's predecessor's desire to consolidate executive branch power, even when he had a Congressional majority for much of his 8 years in office.

Congress just gets in the way.

The so-called "genius" of American democracy is the so-called well-functioning legislative branch. Unlike many traditional Parliamentary systems such as that of the Brits, however, the United States has a powerful lower house AND upper house. In time of political and economic struggle, this body of legislators has proven itself increasingly beholden to special interests.

Two of the most significant legislative breakthroughs in the current generation - health care reform and a commitment to greenhouse gas emissions reductions - are on the horizon. The Copenhagen meetings are moving ahead this week and health reform is in the United States Senate will a more-than-50-percent chance of passage.

On both accounts, however, President Obama is dramatically weakened by a gridlocked, polarized Congress. Right-wing Republicans, fearful of losing their party base in midterms next year, are holding ground on their "conservative" values of small government ($700 billion bank bailouts) and personal responsibility ($700 billion bank bailouts). Meanwhile, Democrats are doing more to hurt their own chances with a weak leadership at the helm (Pelosi and Reid).

The result is depressing. The Democrats have dropped the public option - the primary innovation in health reform - from the negotiations, and Obama will arrive in Copenhagen empty-handed and with only an argument that his Congress won't change the status quo no matter how much the United States is to blame for climate change.

President Obama has barely been in an office for about 11 months. While his potential for achievement is great, his Congress will likely have more to say about that.

Transatlantic handshake, Day 2

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown topped off his visit to the U.S. with a speech to a full Congress Wednesday to promote his "Partnership of Purpose" with the United States. In a gracious, laudatory and often deferential-to-the-U.S. speech, the PM was forthcoming and direct in his support of the American hegemony and its new chief, President Barack Obama.

In his speech, Mr. Brown also issued a sharp rebuke to the George W. Bush Administration, saying "this is the most pro-American Europe in living memory," suggesting that the U.S.' obvious inability to cooperate with European allies in recent years was not because of ideological differences but because of how the pre-Obama occupant of the Oval Office managed relations with Europe.

For one, Brown looked re-energized, despite the stagnation of his political agenda at home. He appears to be truly renewed by having a trans-Atlantic partner in President Obama with whom there can finally be a dialogue between the UK and US based on respect, debate and exchange of information. He was clearly basking in the limelight.

Mr. Brown's stated objectives on issues such as "expanding scientific research" and eliminating abject poverty around the world are admirable, but there is, with good reason, some skepticism about Mr. Brown's commitment to such policies -- for example, how can a government that wants to help lead the fight against climate change also build a third runway at Europe's busiest hub airport instead of upgrading London's 19th-century public transportation system or investing in newer, more efficient modes of inter-city mass transit?

Some other highlights:
-- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the "lion of the Senate," is now SIR Edward Kennedy, thanks to Queen Elizabeth II.
--"A worldwide reduction in interests rates" is needed because the UK and US can't do it alone. This is a sign that the economy's real bad and is going to get much worse. The Bank of England's benchmark rate is already down to a meager 0.5% ("who wants money for free?") and the Fed's federal funds rate is less than that.
-- The Republican side of the house was often slow to applaud to Mr. Brown's proposals. Mr. Brown's stated agenda mirrors that of his American counterpart, and the fissure in Congress is obvious. At one point, when the prime minister attacked offshore tax havens, it took the Republican side of the aisle a good 5 seconds to start applauding (simply out of respect to the Right Honourable guest and not out of agreement).

Enough Said...

I need not write anything more, other than to quote one of President Obama's responses to a reporter at his first primetime news conference as head honcho:

"When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility."

I'd like to thank the prez for finally pulling a little punch on the obstructionist senators who are dragging their feet. It's not quite a knockout uppercut, but a slight jab from the Illinois southpaw.