The Budget Deal's Crass And Craven Politics

Here is the truth about the budget deal.
=====================

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/12/11/the-budget-deals-crass-and-craven-politics/

<snip>
The big political news of the day is that Republican Representative Paul Ryan and Democratic Senator Patty Murray have hammered out a new budget deal. Mostly, this news focuses on the details of the agreement, or the sheer jaw-dropping astonishment that a deal was reached before the next artificial deadline was hit. This last bit is actually laughable and not a little pathetic, when you consider how low the bar now is for Congress meeting the responsibilities outlined in their job descriptions. But even that is not the most cynical (or, if you're in a more forgiving mood, "most crassly political&quot aspect of the deal, which news reports are mostly missing today. Because, to me, the most appropriate headline from the new budget deal should really be: "Democrats And Republicans Agree To Remove Budget Negotiations From 2014 Campaign, Out Of Fear."

So far, as I said, this is getting short shrift by the press. Partisan squabbling over the details of the deal are visible on both sides of the aisle, and partisan squabbling is the catnip which makes the 24-hour news cycle go around (not to mix metaphors or anything). Democrats are incensed because the deal has a merry holiday gift for 1.3 million: the end of their unemployment benefits. "Ho, ho, ho -- you're screwed!" in other words. They are mounting a rear-guard action in an effort to push a benefit extension through before the end of the year, but it is doubtful whether this will be successful or not.

<snip>
But all of these are distractions from an important story that is getting lost in the fray (so far). While the news stories all focus on this aspect of the deal or that (or just go for the throat of intraparty feuding on both sides), what is mentioned way, way down the page (as a minor aside) is that the deal just struck would prevent squabbling over the budget framework through 2015. At first glance, this doesn't seem that important a detail. "Interesting," you might think, "they went with a two-year budget for once." But why, exactly, would they do so? Why would both parties agree upon kicking the can not just a few months down the road, but two years down the road? Indeed, why would they actually downplay this part of the deal?

<snip>
Instead, what we get is "we're not going to fight about it next October." For better or for worse, getting through election season is more important. If that isn't the crassest of politics, then I don't know what is. The only reason this aspect of the deal was agreed to -- by both sides, mind you -- is nothing short of shaking-in-their-boots fear of losing their jobs. Democrats and Republicans alike showed their craven nature by cutting a deal to avoid the subject of the budget until the end of 2015, so that they can have an easier (perceived) path to re-election. To me, that is the story the news should now be telling.