SHAKE WELL BEFORE USING

The extended struggle to raise the debt ceiling makes clear that partisan divsion has all but paralyzed policy-making in Washington.  Moreover, a default on US debt would be dangerous, and thus it is easy to bemoan our moment of partisan dissensus--and, concomitantly, easy to romanticize bipartisan consensus. Before doing so, however, we should recall that moments of bipartisan consensus in U.S. history have themselves often been dangerous, particularly for ordinary people: the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, for instance, passed by a 416-0 vote in the House and with only two dissenting votes in the Senate. That we should not romanticize bipartisan consensus is further suggested by considering what "forces" or "factors" may possibly -- at the very last minute -- be creating a minimal "consensus" for raising the debt ceiling.  Sunday's NY Times tells us that Congressional leaders of both partie...

David Leonard, in today's NY Times , has a deceptively straight-forward piece about the debate over the debt ceiling, in which he states that the US cannot (i) maintain its social welfare programs, (ii) continue to have the world's biggest military, and (iii) also have distinctly low rates of taxation.  Something among those three, he tells us, has to give. What's important about Leonard's essay is that he recognizes that there is a trade-off among these  three elements--military spending, social welfare spending, and taxation--and not just the latter two. By contrast, the negotiations between the White House and congressional leaders in recent weeks, and the public debate as well, have proceeded as if the trade-off is only between social welfare spending and taxation--with there being almost no mention of military spending. Thus, even as Democrats in Congress have protested against any cuts in s...