More Folly in the Debt Limit Talks
Congressional Republicans have opened a new front in the deficit wars. In addition to demanding trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s debt limit, they are now vowing not to act without first holding votes in each chamber on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
The ploy is more posturing on an issue that has already seen too much grandstanding. But it is posturing with a dangerous purpose: to further distort the terms of the budget fight, and in the process, to entrench the Republicans’ no-new-taxes-ever stance.
It won’t be enough for Democrats to merely defeat the amendment when it comes up for a vote. If there is to be any sensible deal to raise the debt limit, they also need to rebut the amendment’s false and dangerous premises — not an easy task given the idea’s populist appeal.
What could be more prudent than balancing the books every year? In fact, forcibly balancing the federal budget each year would be like telling families they cannot take out a mortgage or a car loan, or do any other borrowing, no matter how sensible the purchase or how creditworthy they may be.
Worse, the balanced budget amendment that Republicans put on the table is far more extreme than just requiring the government to spend no more than it takes in each year in taxes.
The government would be forbidden from borrowing to finance any spending, unless a supermajority agreed to the borrowing. In addition to mandating a yearly balance, both the House and Senate versions would cap the level of federal spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product.
That would amount to a permanent limit on the size of government — at a level last seen in the 1960s, before Medicare and Medicaid, before major environmental legislation like the Clean Water Act, and long before the baby-boom generation was facing retirement. The spending cuts implied by such a cap are so draconian that even the budget recently passed by House Republicans — and condemned by the public for its gutting of Medicare — would not be tough enough.
Under the proposed amendments, the spending cap would apply even if the government collected enough in taxes to spend above the limit, unless two-thirds of lawmakers voted to raise the cap. More likely, antitax lawmakers would vote to disburse the money via tax cuts. Once enacted, tax cuts would be virtually irreversible, since a two-thirds vote in both houses would be required to raise any new tax revenue. It isn’t easy to change the Constitution. First, two-thirds of both the Senate and House must approve an amendment, and then at least 38 states must ratify the change.
But expect to hear a lot about the idea in the days ahead and in the 2012 political campaign, with Republicans eagerly attacking Democrats who sensibly voted no.
Democrats, undeniably, have a tougher argument to make. A fair and sustainable budget deal will require politically unpopular choices on programs to cut and taxes to raise. Americans deserve to hear the truth: There is no shortcut, no matter what the Republicans claim. Nor is their urgency to impose deep spending cuts now, while the economy is weak, as Republicans are insisting.
What is needed is enactment of a thoughtful deficit-reduction package, to be implemented as the economy recovers. If politicians respect the voters enough to tell them the truth, the voters may reward them at the polls.
Power-Hungry Devices
The Energy Department chimed in at just the right time when it announced that it might issue energy conservation requirements for cable boxes, digital recorders and the like. A voluntary conservation program run by the Environmental Protection Agency may not be enough to generate a commitment to energy efficiency among the companies that provide these power-hungry boxes.
A study by the National Resources Defense Council found that in 2010, the 160 million set-top boxes around the country consumed about 27 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, roughly the annual output of nine coal-fired power plants, costing consumers $3 billion. Some boxes can consume more power than a good-size refrigerator.
The E.P.A. runs a voluntary program that gives an “Energy Star” certificate to products that meet targets that will be ratcheted up over time. But the program has yet to sign up the big cable companies. Until they commit to energy efficiency, manufacturers are unlikely to throw themselves headlong into the quest for better technology.
The boxes eat up so much power because they typically run almost around the clock; as much as two-thirds of their consumption comes during times when they are idle. When asked why, one manufacturing company said nobody ever asked them to use less power.
In Europe, where power costs more, manufacturers include a deep-sleep function that allows the box to save power when idle. American companies are hesitant to embrace the sleep-function technology because these machines could take several minutes to reboot.
But power management in set-top boxes certainly poses no greater challenge than in cellphones. Like cable boxes, phones are always connected to a network, yet they sleep when idle, wake up instantaneously when called upon and serve as portals for all kinds of data.
The service providers who buy and distribute set-top boxes have largely ignored the power problem because the costs are borne by customers. To focus the industry on efficiency, the federal government might have to regulate the boxes the same way it does household appliances like refrigerators, which use only a fraction of the power they consumed before regulation. Then this conservation problem surely would be solved.
Investigating Google
The Federal Trade Commission’s decision to open an investigation into potential anticompetitive or deceptive practices at Google is a welcome move. While the Internet company has been a leader in innovation, giving consumers exciting new choices online, the public’s interest lies in ensuring fair competition in this fast-changing arena.
There is no conclusive evidence that Google abuses its dominance in search by putting its own services, like YouTube, at the top of search results while shoving down competitors. Nonetheless, its aggressive expansion into new businesses, coupled with its ability to determine the all-important order of search results, warrants an increased level of scrutiny by regulators. Each new venture gives Google a new reason to use its tools to shut out rivals.
Take the company’s push into the smartphone market with its Android operating system. Skyhook Wireless, which provides location services to pinpoint the position of cellphone users, filed a suit late last year accusing Google of getting manufacturers like Motorola to break contracts with Skyhook and use Google location services on Android phones instead. It alleged Google made bogus claims that Skyhook’s system did not comply with Android specifications and that Google had threatened Motorola with denying it timely access to new versions of Android and other Google applications. Google declined to discuss the case but has called it “a baseless complaint” in court filings.
The F.T.C.’s investigation should look into Google’s behavior across all its businesses. Google’s argument that it must maintain the integrity of Android is plausible. So is its claim that it tweaks its search algorithm to improve the quality of its results — bumping down low-quality Web sites like link farms with no original content. Even favoring its own services, say delivering a Google map as a response to an address query, could serve consumers. The investigation will not necessarily lead to charges of misconduct. Google, however, is too important to most people’s Internet experience for regulators not to examine its behavior.
New York’s Especially Undemocratic Elections
Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Friday called for special elections on Sept. 13 to fill Anthony Weiner’s Congressional office and six vacant State Assembly seats. Party leaders will now get to choose the candidates to run. That is not the way a democracy is supposed to work. Unfortunately, it’s the way things are done in New York.
Federal law requires the governor to hold a special election quickly for a vacant House seat. New York State law says that “party nominations for an office to be filled at a special election shall be made in the manner prescribed by the rules of the party.”
That means Representative Joseph Crowley, the Democratic Party chief in Queens, will probably crown the next congressman in Mr. Weiner’s heavily Democratic district. The Republican bosses do it the same way. If an outsider wants to get on the ballot, he or she will have to collect 3,500 signatures by July 13. Fat chance.
This scam is even worse in state races in New York. Citizens Union reported recently that a third of the Legislature was first anointed as candidates in these back-room, special-election deals. Mr. Cuomo didn’t have to hand those six open seats to the bosses. State law says that the governor can call a special election to fill open seats in the Legislature or wait until the next election.
There is a regularly scheduled primary on Sept. 13, which is now the same date as the special elections. The general election is Nov. 8. The rules for these elections aren’t that great either, but the voters have more of a voice than they do in the special elections.
Mr. Cuomo should have allowed the state races to go through the normal process. He can now start making amends to New Yorkers by pushing to change the state’s special election laws, so the voters, not party bigwigs, get to choose who represents them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment