Wearing a suit and tie, I clearly looked out of place, and probably bared a striking resemblance to everything they hated about Washington, D.C. I started talking to a few of the protesters about why they were there and how they thought the protests were going. Much like me, they said they were frustrated by the growing inequalities in the country and thought they were on the verge of something really important in American history. When they asked what I did for a living, they looked less than enthused to discover I worked for a firm that ended with “& Associates” – a dead giveaway for a lobbying firm.

On my way out of the park, I noticed a handful of protesters taking advantage of the rush hour traffic at one corner of the square. I wish I was kidding, but the poor protesters were so unorganized they couldn’t even chant in unison. I walked out of the square thinking the Occupy Movement embodied 21st century America: burdened with debt, full of misdirected anger, and completely void of any ideas for improving matters.

I enjoy a good protest as much as the next guy, but the Occupy DC crowd has done little more than upset the city’s homeless who normally reside in McPherson Square. Confined to a square block, the camp resembles an exhibit at the zoo. Passersby marvel out the primitive creatures as if they were pandas.

Like Napoleon invading Russia on the verge of winter, the protesters may become victims of mother nature rather than metro police soon enough. Once the first snow fall blankets the northeast, sending temperatures plunging below freezing, the protesters’ resolve will be tested.

Tents in McPherson Square

The OWS crowd has every right to be angry. Hell, I’m angry. The wealthiest 1 percent more than doubled their share of income during the last three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office. During the past three decades, special interests have slowly whittled away at the tax structure, making it less progressive and skewing it in favor of people who make money through inheritance or capital gains rather than actual work. The middle class is vanishing, homeownership is becoming a luxury, and more than a $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt will create another drag on the economic recovery in the years to come. Almost 91 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, making you wonder – who are the 9 percent that think Congress is doing a good job.

Like the Greek, Roman and British empires before us, a sense that our best days are behind us is pervasive. Our politics have become bereft with graft, and the institutions we designed to protect us are now conduits for legalized corruption.

Elections alone won’t solve anything. 2006, 2008, and 2010 were all “change” elections. One party was swept out of power in each of those years, but business in Washington continued down the same path.

But why? And how can we change it?

Reform the campaign finance system – Money has had a corrosive effect on American politics. Instead of the current “money talks” system, we need a system that activates all Americans and encourages them to participate in the Democratic process.

To have a real discussion about campaign finance reform, we need to get a few things out of the way: corporations are not people and money is not speech. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC (2010) still holds some merit even when these two assumptions are taken out of the equation. The court’s assertions do not end the argument for publically financed elections; they just make it more complicated.

Once a hardened critic of the Citizens United case, I now struggle with the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision. From outside the Beltway, it looked like activist jurisprudence at its worst. At its heart though, Citizens United is a free speech case. Campaign finance laws do restrict free speech, but they do so to achieve a much greater good: a functioning republic.

Free speech is not an absolute. Time and again, the Supreme Court has placed restrictions on what people can and can’t say it. Fighting words, libel, obscenity – none of these are forms of protected speech, and neither should contributing money. For any reform effort to work, it needs to address the free speech issues outlined in Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which struck down limitations on campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds.

The problem with the current campaign finance system outlined in these rulings is that all of the power resides with the wealthy. If you can pay, you can play in American politics. Whether it is running for office or defeating a specific piece of legislation, you can do it as long as you have the money. After the Buckley ruling, philosopher John Rawls said, “We run the risk of endorsing the view that fair representation is representation according to the amount of influence effectively exerted.”

This is still true today. Only 4 percent of Americans donated money to political campaigns in 2008 and less than .1 percent maxed out their contribution limit. When Occupy Wall Street talks about the 99%, they should actually be talking about the 99.9%.

“By limiting the influence of big money in politics,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said, “elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets. We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy.”

Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig has received increased attention lately for promoting a new small-donor public funding model in his book “Republic, Lost.” This is how it works: every taxpayer of voting age will get a $50 voucher. That voucher could then be given to any candidate who vows to finance his/her campaign solely with “democracy vouchers” and contributions of less than $100. I would expand this system so people could donate portions of their vouchers to national parties and political action committees. Much in the same vein as “one person, one vote,” this system ensures that all people have an equal say in the political process.

Corporations would not be allowed to donate money to candidates, parties, or political action committees and would be banned from creating “electioneering communications.” They would still be able to create advocacy campaigns designed to sway legislation, but there would be much greater distance between them and members of Congress.

Such a system has the potential to take hold because it provides enough of an incentive to people running for office that they would forego special interest money. Almost $5.3 billion was spent on federal elections in 2008. If each person appropriated their $50, it would equate to more than $7 billion per election cycle. What makes this system even more attractive is that it would pay for itself. All of the fraud, abuse, and corporate subsidies that occur as a result of the current system would vanish. It would save more than $90 billion in ethanol subsidies alone, according to the Cato Institute.

These reforms would return America to what James Madison outlined in the Federalist Papers: a Congress dependent “upon the people alone” – not corporations, not the wealthy.

Members of Congress who currently spend more than a third of their time fundraising rather than legislating will no longer have to worry about coming through on campaign promises to large corporate donors. Now, the only people they are accountable to are the American voters.

Reform the redistricting process – After every census, congressional districts are redrawn to account for population changes. In most states, this process is handled by the state legislatures, which of course leads to gerrymandering because the majority party in each legislature redraws the boundaries to benefit its party. That is why some districts are abstract 47-sided messes comprised of farming communities, suburbs, and downtown business districts that have nothing in common. All of this has been done to minimize one voter demographic and to accentuate another.

The solution is independent, nonpartisan commissions like the one established in California –one of the few smart things anyone in California has proposed. These commissions will loosen the stranglehold party leaders have on elections and allow for better representation in Congress.

Overhaul the rules process in Congress (especially the filibuster) – From the moment members of Congress arrive on Capitol Hill, they are pitted against one another in a battle royale. The elected majority should still have power to chart the legislative agenda, but the House should adopt rules guaranteeing that any proposal with enough co-sponsors to be allowed a committee hearing and an up-or-down vote.

In the Senate, the filibuster process needs to return to its original intent. If a Senator is going to railroad a piece of legislation, he/she needs to stand on the floor Mr.-Smith-Goes-to-Washington style and read from the phonebook if they have to. Needing a supermajority of 60 votes to pass even the simplest of bills without reconciliation is causing a logjam on Capitol Hill.

No More Pledges – Grover Norquist’s anti-tax lobby Americans for Tax Reform played an instrumental role shaping the supercommittee’s negotiations. Aligning oneself with a power-hungry little gnome like Norquist is a short cut to the road to nowhere.

Drop the hyperbole (Stop watching Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow) – Labels don’t matter. Arguments do. And a real discourse is lacking on both sides of the debate. Americans often say this is the most divided Congress in the history of the nation. That is a pretty bold statement. People seem to forget that in 1856, Preston Brooks, a representative from South Carolina (the crazies are always from South Carolina) almost caned Charles Sumner to death on the Senate floor. There was a time when members of Congress settled debates with a duel. We’ve come a long ways – just ask Alexander Hamilton – but we have a lot further to go.

An effective government requires a strong Fourth Estate and a prudent populace – two things we currently lack. The advent of the internet and subsequent proliferation of information has not led to a better informed population. Americans may consume more news than ever before, but due to the fragmented nature of the media, their viewpoints are increasingly partisan and grounded in dogma rather than facts.

Debate is not a bad thing as long as it is informed. We should only start to worry when we stop debating.

Stop blaming lobbyists – Everyone is a member of a group that could wield influence on Capitol Hill if they pooled their resources. Students, consumers, bald men – It doesn’t matter. All of these groups could exert greater leverage in Washington if they came together and worked for a common cause just like the elderly (AARP), realtors (NAR), or businesses (Chamber of Commerce) already do. You might not realize it, but there is someone in Washington right now who is advocating for the issues you care about.

Critics of the current system like to complain about the “revolving door” of congressional staffers who go to work for lobbying firms and vice versa. Demonizing the most knowledgeable public policy makers is a bigger problem. The best and brightest in Washington are not able to fully allocate their skills because of federal regulations that prevent them from lobbying. Lobbyists are also banned from serving on a number of federal exploratory committees. Instead, celebrities like Shakira are appointed to the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics.

What we’re lacking most of all in our politics is integrity. Politicians need to be driven by an earnest arrow that always points in the direction of truth and honesty. If a politician is driven by any desire except to do good for the public, they shouldn’t be serving in Congress. Individuals like Rep. Spencer Bachus (R – AL) who made thousands of dollars shorting stocks on the eve of the financial collapse by using highly privileged information from meetings should be voted out of office. It is legal, but highly unethical acts like these that tarnish all members of Congress.

“However much we condemn what government has become, we forget it is heir to something we still believe divine,” Harvard professor Lawrene Lessig said. “We inherited an extraordinary estate. On our watch, we have let it fall to ruin.”

Now is the time to take back these institutions so they work for the people, not corporations.

(Also, here’s another recommendation: STOP voting Republican. Unless an individual makes at least $120, 000 a year, they have no reason to vote Republican. They are voting against their own interests.)

The Senate voted on legislation last week for another short-term extension to the National Flood Insurance Program through May 31, 2012. This could signal the end of congressional efforts for the year to work out House and Senate differences over a 5-year NFIP reform bill, marking the fourth time in as many months that Congress has kicked the can down the road. And making it more difficult for the housing market to get back on its feet.

The latest flood program extension expires Friday, Dec. 16, so the House and Senate have to come to terms on at least a short-term extension this week or it’ll lapse. A lapse would spell trouble for the already struggling housing market, because home owners and buyers in FEMA-designated areas are legally obligated to have flood insurance to qualify for a federally backed mortgage. A lapse would stunt home sales in those regions. According to NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® survey data, 47,000 home sales were delayed or canceled when the program lapsed in June 2010.

Back to the Senate bill: Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), with an assist from Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and the consensus of the full Senate, ushered the bill through the Senate even as Congress remains mired in negotiations on a laundry list of year-end measures, including the payroll tax holiday and an extension of unemployment benefits.

Essentially, the flood insurance program has been caught up in broader election year politics between Senate leaders.

Last summer, the House passed a long-term extension of the program as part of a broader reform measure, but has been waiting for the Senate to act. While the Senate Banking Committee passed its version of an NFIP reform bill, with such a crowded legislative schedule, the Senate didn’t have much time to bring up, debate, and vote on the bill before it adjourned.

While unlikely, there’s a remote possibility of some movement on the long-term reform bill before Congress adjourns for the year. The House leadership has proposed to include the House-passed NFIP reform bill as part of a broader package of year-end program and tax extensions. The House will vote on that today.

However, it’s not clear whether the Senate would go along with the House proposal in its current composition, and unfortunately, any objection to including the NFIP reform bill could spell the end of this last-ditch effort to move that bill before 2012. We’ll soon find out.

Nevertheless, the continual stop-and-go policy for NFIP adopted by Congress in recent months needs to come to an end. Home owners and buyers deserve to know if they’ll be able to get flood insurance. If Congress keeps them guessing about what it’ll do every three to six months when the program is set to expire, the housing market won’t recover as quickly as it needs to.

A long-term, five-year extension of the program is needed so that NFIP will no longer be a bargaining chip in the ongoing game of political brinksmanship.

Do you think Congress will enact a long-term extension of the flood insurance program?

Read more: http://www.houselogic.com/blog/issues-affecting-home-owners/stop-and-go-flood-insurance-leaves-home-owners-buyers-limbo/#ixzz1hIioi3vl

Reaching consensus in Washington is more difficult today than ever before, but the housing crisis is too big of an economic burden for a new bipartisan commission to get bogged down in politics.

The Bipartisan Policy Center, a D.C. think tank, last week launched a housing commission tasked with finding long-term solutions to help the housing market and address issues affecting home owners. Chaired by former Sens. George Mitchell (D-Maine) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.), and previous HUD Secretaries Henry Cisneros and Mel Martinez, the commission will have to produce recommendations that not only cure the ailing housing market but also pass the Congressional gauntlet.

For several decades now, the housing industry has been the victim of well-intentioned but misguided policies. A commission that will set aside partisan differences and focus on issues like increasing Federal Housing Administration loan limits, making sure flood insurance is available, and maintaining the mortgage interest deduction is needed now more than ever. It’s going to take the best ideas — on both sides of the aisle — to get Americans back in their homes.

At a Wednesday press conference, each of the commission’s co-chairs said the housing market is inextricably linked to the economic recovery. “Housing isn’t only a basic human need,” Mitchell said. “It’s also a critical element of our economy, and now, more than ever, is the time for a fresh look at this issue.”

Bond said there’s no question that the American housing system is broken. “We aren’t going to come out with a Band-Aid within just a couple of months because, as what’s been described (as) one Band-Aid here, may cause a wound to open up over there,” Bond added.

Martinez went as far as to describe the housing crisis as a “human crisis.” His remarks aren’t hyperbole. The negative impact that a weak housing market has on employment contributes to societal as well as economic troubles. How are children supposed to focus on school when their parents are out of work and worried about losing their house because they can’t meet their mortgage payments?

Unfortunately, the commission isn’t slated to release its findings until the first quarter of 2013, making home owners wonder if its work will be too little too late. However, Bond said it’s unlikely for Congress to act before then.  “If the Senate is still anything like it was before I left, the chances of them getting anything done on housing in 2012 are somewhere between slim and none,” Bond said.

Despite this delay, it’s reassuring to finally see policymakers recognizing the importance of a full housing recovery. Along with the executive order issued by President Obama last week that introduces new rules for federally guaranteed mortgages, enabling home owners with little or no equity in their homes to refinance and avoid foreclosure, it looks as if we’re making some headway.

Do you think the new housing commission will be able to come to a consensus and find long-term policy solutions that Congress will adopt or is it too little too late?

When it came to offering fixes for the housing market, Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) wasn’t the only tongue-tied politician on stage at Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas. The presidential candidates let an opportunity slip away to explain how they would address the nation’s housing problems. For that matter, the Obama administration hasn’t put forth a sound policy either on housing, which would go a long way toward getting our economy back on terra firma.
Housing accounts for more than 15% of the national gross domestic product, a key driver of our national economy.

So politicians, please take note: Housing is one of the nation’s most crucial economic issues. Do your homework. Offer substantive solutions.

In response to the housing crisis, Rick Santorum said during the debate, “Yeah, I mean, it’s — it’s a situation right now where obviously the market is in — has been decimated. And so now you’re looking at, how do you repair it? The problem is — in the first place, is that several people up here, the, quote, ‘businesspeople,’ supported the TARP, supported the bailout … I mean, look at what’s going on here.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said foreclosures have been affecting mothers but avoided offering a solution to the problem. “I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue,” Bachmann said. “It’s got to be solved.”

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the stalwart Libertarian, promoted a non-interventionist approach to the problem.

Herman Cain relied on the “less regulation” talking point.

Even front-runner Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, floundered on Tuesday. He derided federal tax credits like the mortgage interest deduction as useless intervention. “The idea of the federal government running around and saying, hey, we’re going to give you some money for trading in your old car, or we’re going to give you a few thousand bucks for buying a new house, or we’re going to keep banks from foreclosing if you can’t make your payments. These kind of actions on the part of government haven’t worked,” Romney said.

And during an earlier interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Romney argued that foreclosures should be allowed to “hit the bottom” so the market can correct itself naturally — rather than relying on government action.

The candidates’ weak responses on housing represent a much greater problem than failed debate fodder. They showcase a lack of attention being paid to housing policy and a fundamental disconnect between Washington and middle-class Americans who worry they’re becoming nothing more than a statistic.

The candidates’ trepidation to offer tangible policies is a sad reflection of the nation’s political process. Despite the obvious and growing need for government intervention, small-government candidates can’t support the notion this close to the Iowa caucus.

And with counter-effective proposals circulating on Capitol Hill to reduce or eliminate the long-standing mortgage interest deduction, mandate 20% down payments for home buyers, and toss Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would make it difficult to get an affordable 30-year home loan, Washington is going in the wrong direction.
Seventy-five million American home owners represent a powerful and influential constituency. Should politicians choose to forgo party line voting and weigh in based on the issues, 2012 may be the most surprising election year yet.

For more Houselogic Posts by this author go to: http://www.houselogic.com/authors/gavinmathis/

Originally posted September 2, 2011

Combining a slate of moderate policy proposals and a confrontational tone, President Barack Obama called on Congress Thursday night to pass $447 billion in infrastructure spending, tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and state and local government aid to help revive a stalling economy and his freefalling poll numbers.  A far cry from the cowering and whimpering president of the past 18 months, Obama adopted a commanding tone, taking Congress to task for not addressing the plight of the 14 million Americans who remain unemployed.

Obama’s remarks were bound to be a lightning rod, splitting Democrats and Republicans even further apart, because he was using a very rare joint session of Congress to make a campaign speech. Originally scheduled for Wednesday evening at the same time as the Republican presidential debate, the speech was clearly political. Although his remarks would have been more appropriate for a regular stump speech coinciding with Labor Day, the larger setting was necessary to drive a point home to Congress: Get this done!

Despite having to vie for attention with the start of the NFL season, Thursday evening was a far better time to make an address to the nation. It provided the president a final say after a string of speeches about job creation this week, and it allowed him to take back the news cycle from Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.  Compared to Romney’s 59-point plan to stimulate job growth, Obama’s plan is an easy sell to the American public.

Just like the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the measures outlined by Obama are targeted at job creation, heavy on tax breaks and a little light on infrastructure spending:

Tax Cuts:

• Extension of the employee payroll tax cut (Pricetag: $175 billion)
• Extension of the employer payroll tax cut ($65 billion)

Unemployment benefits:

• Extension of unemployment benefits ($49 billion)
• Tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed ($8 billion)

Infrastructure and local aid:

• $50 billion for local infrastructure projects
• $35 billion to retain and rehire teachers and first responders
• $30 billion to modernize public schools
• $10 billion for an infrastructure bank

Will this be enough to jumpstart the economy? Probably not. Is it enough to paint the Republicans as obstructionists if nothing gets done? If Obama handles the politics correctly – which he probably will not – it should. The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point, according to analysis conducted by Moody’s. This is extremely optimistic. In reality, the allotted amounts will not be enough to offset the decreases in private spending to have a sizeable impact on the economy.

To make sure the additional spending does not add to the deficit, Obama encouraged the congressional “supercommittee’ to find additional cuts/revenue increases to offset the spending, complicating the committee’s already difficult task of reducing the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion during the next decade.

There is nothing in the bill that either side should oppose. Every policy has received bipartisan support at some point. Nonetheless, the overall bill is mostly dead on arrival. Congress will pass bits and pieces of it (probably the payroll tax extension and a few other Republican ideas) but not enough to get the country working again. This doesn’t mean Obama’s jobs push is in vein. Each proposal is politically popular and should knock Republicans on the defensive. Except by introducing a second round of stimulus spending, Obama is admitting ARRA was not as successful as it could have been, and he is opening himself up to a new line of attacks; there is always an equal and opposite reaction in politics.

Pundits have made a lot out of the politics of the speech, but – as Obama mentioned – Americans don’t care about politics. They care about jobs. They care about their job. They care about whether they can afford to send their children to college. “The people who sent us here — the people who hired us to work for them — they don’t have the luxury of waiting 14 months,” Obama said. “Some of them are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck, even day to day. They need help, and they need it now.”

For the first time in a long, long time, Obama appeared to be a confident and competent president Thursday night. Let’s hope that image lasts.

]]> http://gavinmathis.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/let%e2%80%99s-get-to-work-obama-challenges-congress-to-pass-447-billion-jobs-bill/feed/ 0 Jobs speech gavinmathis Jobs speech http://gavinmathis.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/in-the-news-what-you-should-be-reading-this-week-9411/ http://gavinmathis.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/in-the-news-what-you-should-be-reading-this-week-9411/#comments Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:00:32 +0000 gavinmathis http://gavinmathis.wordpress.com/?p=369 Read more]]> For a contrarian viewpoint, Second Opinion scours dozens of newspapers and magazines each week to bring you the most important news driving the week on K Street and Wall Street. See this week’s picks below.

1. Is Rick Perry Dumb? by Jonathan Martin (Politico)

2. AT&T Dealt Deal Defeat After $12M in Lobbying by  Todd Shields and Jonathan Salant (Bloomberg)

3.The Freelance Surge Is the Industrial Revolution of Our Time  by Sara Horowitz (The Atlantic)

4. Boehner, Obama step up political gamesmanship as 2012 pressure grows by Michael O’Brien (The Hill)

5. The impact of Gen. David Petraeus, in four takes by Jason Ukman (The Washington Post)

6. Team Obama Finds Hope for 2012 in a History Lesson by Michael Scherer (Time)

7. U.S. Sues Big Banks Over Home Mortgages by Nick Timiraos, Robin Sidel, and Ruth Simon (Wall Street Journal)

8. Wall St. Tumbles After Bleak Jobs Report by Christine Hauser (New York Times)

9. Supercommittee Pits Lobbying Firms’ Clients Against One Another by Kristin Jensen (Bloomberg)

10. In a cloud over ozone by Eugene Robinson (The Washington Post)

]]> http://gavinmathis.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/in-the-news-what-you-should-be-reading-this-week-9411/feed/ 0 gavinmathis Newspapers http://gavinmathis.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/a-lose-lose-lose-situation-washington-pursues-wrong-set-of-policies-in-debt-ceiling-debacle/ http://gavinmathis.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/a-lose-lose-lose-situation-washington-pursues-wrong-set-of-policies-in-debt-ceiling-debacle/#comments Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:55:20 +0000 gavinmathis http://gavinmathis.wordpress.com/?p=327 Read more]]>

President Barack Obama meets with congressional leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House on July 13 to discuss ongoing efforts to find a balanced approach to the debt limit and deficit reduction.

Facing the first default in the nation’s history, President Barack Obama punted on large-scale fiscal reform earlier this month by adopting an anemic package of discretionary spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, which placed the nation’s credit rating in jeopardy. The only positive aspect of the deal is that it averts a default – and that is it. No action was taken to raise revenues, nothing was done to cut entitlement spending on Medicare or Social Security, and nothing was done to prove to the American people that Congress is capable – or even willing – to address the really big problems that burden the nation.

The plan outlines at least $2.1 trillion in cuts over the course of the next decade, with $900 billion taking effect by January 2013 and at least another $1.2 trillion to follow unless the newly formed supercommittee can come to an agreement – which is unlikely – before the end of the year. So not only did this deal not address our long-term fiscal woes, it actually slows the recovery at a time that job growth is imperative.

With the nation still reeling from the 2008 housing bubble collapse, stimulus spending is needed now more than cuts. The cuts may only amount to around 1 percent of GDP but that is still enough to keep economic growth at a measly 2 to 2.3 percent through election day 2012, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

What makes this situation even worse is that it could have been avoided entirely last December when the Bush tax cuts were extended. A deal could have been easily negotiated between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for an extension of the tax cuts that occurred anyway. Instead, brought to the brink of economic collapse by Republican intransigence, Obama capitulated once again to Republican demands. This dire situation should have galvanized both sides of the aisle rather than lead to the hyperpartisan standoff that ensued.

Unfortunately, like a child throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket aisle, the Tea Party got nearly everything they demanded. In politics, you’re never supposed to take a hostage that you’re not willing to shoot. In this case, the hostage was the American public, and the Tea Party appeared more than willing to pull the trigger.

There is not a dearth of good ideas in Washington; there is just a lack of political will. Since the Bowles-Simpson Commission published their findings, the bipartisan “Gang of Six” in the Senate had been working to turn the commission’s suggestions into comprehensive, balanced legislation. Everyone knows what the deal should have looked like:

• An extension of the payroll tax cut.
• Creation of an infrastructure bank to pool public and private capital for projects that will put Americans back to work.
• An increase in the Social Security and Medicare age requirements to at least 69 and change the progressivity of benefit formula so the wealthy do not reap the same benefits as the more disadvantaged.
• Also, an increase on the Social Security contribution ceiling so taxes can be collected on wages over $106, 800.
• Cut corporate taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent while reforming the tax code to eliminate loopholes.  Just by eliminating the loopholes you will see a net revenue gain even while cutting corporate taxes. Lowering corporate taxes will entice American businesses to bring back billions of dollars in repatriated earnings from overseas, which would increase the pool of taxable income. It’s a win-win situation.
• Follow Warren Buffet’s suggestion and increase the personal income tax on individuals making more than $200,000 per year, including taxes on capital gains. By allowing the Bush-era tax cuts on just the wealthiest 2 percent to expire, the U.S. government would collect $700 billion. Regardless of what Republicans say, that is a lot of money.
• Offer down payment assistance to at least 1 million qualified prospective homeowners because more than 3 million vacant homes remain on the market. A housing bubble created the recession, and it will not end until excess supply in the housing market is reduced.
• Reduce farm subsidies by at least $3 billion per year.
• Reduce military bases in Europe and Asia by at least 33 percent.
• Reduce defense procurements by at least 15 percent starting in 2013.
• …and hundreds of other cuts.

However, none of these suggestions were adopted by Congress. The mix of austerity measures that were passed will only slow the economy and lead to further partisan bickering.

Since the end of the Clinton presidency, Washington has pursued the exact opposite remedy of policies. From 2000 to 2008, when America should have been tightening its belt – increasing interest rates, taxes, and requirements for purchasing homes – they didn’t. Now today, when they should be stimulating the economy, decreasing taxes, and lowering interest rates, they can’t.

In most instances, when Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner vote on the same piece of legislation, it means a bipartisan deal was reached that is beneficial for the American public … well not in this case.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” And yet, the history of the United States is fraught with legal battles to define what exactly free speech is. Wearing a shirt adorned with obscenities, burning an American flag, donating huge sums of money to political campaigns – all of these actions have been determined to be protected speech.

Nonetheless, free speech is not an absolute. Fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity rightfully do not share the same level of protection as political speech. Jones and Westboro Baptist leader Fred Phelps are able to spew their toxic dialogue because most courts consider it political discourse. As long as Jones is not inciting violence or violating time, place and manner restrictions, he is free to criticize Sharia law no matter how wrong he is.

Perhaps one of the most contested areas of free speech jurisprudence concerns hate speech. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court adopted one of its most expansive interpretations of the First Amendment in Snyder v. Phelps, allowing the Westboro Baptist congregation the right to protest at military funerals.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “As a nation we have chosen … to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Right here on this campus, students have become accustomed to dealing with unpopular speech. The protests staged by Youth for Western Civilization (YWC) earlier this semester provoked a level of dissonance on campus not seen since the riots of 1998 when WSU attempted to become a dry campus. But just like Jones and the Westboro congregation, YWC should be allowed to stage their measly protests and have their words be drowned out in the marketplace of ideas. Had Jones or YWC just been allowed to stage their rallies without the backlash they received, their words would have been forgotten the next day.

In 1977, when neo-Nazis threatened to march through the predominantly Jewish community of Skokie, Ill., the town filed an injunction against them, banning the group from rallying. After an extensive legal battle, the Nazis were granted the right to march, but never followed up on their threat. If you do not defend the rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, then you are not really an advocate of those rights. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said, “The liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected.”

First Amendment defenders like the American Civil Liberties Union too often rely on the slippery slope argument: if one free speech case is lost, then America will slide into an Orwellian dystopia. However, unpopular speech should be defended because the rights we enjoy today are the result of decades of struggles. Free speech is the life blood of this country. Without it, other liberties would slowly erode.

Listening to unpopular speech is just one of the many inconveniences of living in a tolerant society.

After congressional leaders reached an 11th hour compromise to prevent a government shutdown, President Barack Obama jaunted up the steps of the Lincoln Memorial the next afternoon to greet tourists and remind them of the integral role government plays in their lives, including keeping national parks open. Simple gestures like this are going to help the White House drive the deficit reduction debate and get credit whether they deserve it or not. I imagine House Speaker John Boehner was sitting in his office, watching Obama on TV and saying, “Damn, why didn’t I think of that?”

But just as one budget battle ended, another started. Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled his party’s deficit reduction plan, which calls for $4.4 trillion in cuts during the next decade, turns Medicare into a voucher program and actually lowers the income tax for the nation’s wealthiest citizens. This plan is dead on arrival and could cost the Republicans states like Florida in the 2012 election because the Medicare reductions are going to be unpopular among the elderly.

“There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires,” the president said.

Just like Ryan’s budget, Obama is also promising to cut about $4.4 trillion from the federal budget, but his vision stands in stark contrast to Ryan’s proposal. Advocating for a more balanced mix of cuts and tax increases, Obama last Wednesday outlined the four prerogatives of his plan: reducing domestic spending, controlling spiraling health care costs, slashing the Pentagon’s budget and reforming the tax code.

No matter what happens in negotiations, Obama cannot extend the Bush tax cuts again. As brilliant a politician as Obama is, he must be one of the worst chess players in the world. The game has not even started and he is already sacrificing his pawns. The president has made too many concessions up front. For instance, he said he will accept a compromise to increase the debt ceiling this summer. Programs like the National Endowment for the Arts might not mean anything to the president, but Democrats should pretend they do so they can be used as bargaining chips in negotiations.

The worst thing Obama can do is give in to Republican demands by not raising taxes again like he did in December when he extended the Bush tax cuts for even the wealthiest Americans. As much as the Republicans resist, tax increases have to be part of the remedy.

In an op-ed for the Washington Post, former presidential candidate Walter Mondale wrote, “We will not be able to control our budget deficits without raising taxes. That simple reality has brought us to a moment of truth in American politics. President Obama’s speech Wednesday lived up to that moment, and now Democrats and Republicans in Congress must take a similar stand.”

Mondale understands the hazards of asking for tax increases during an election year. He lost to Ronald Reagan in 1984 after firmly standing behind his promise to increase taxes if elected. Obama has to do the same thing. Many political pundits claim Obama’s address was the start of the 2012 race. In reality, Obama has been courting voters since day one. The next few months will be his moment of truth: Can he persuade the public to accept tax increases or will he be another semi-successful one-term president?

It may sound callous to refer to the budget debate as a game with winners and losers because people’s well-being is at stake. However, budgeting is a zero-sum game. The budget compromise reached two weeks ago came too close to the wire for either side to claim victory. That will not happen again this summer. There will be clear winners and losers. The Obama administration cannot expect to “win the future” if they do not win the current budget battle.