FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Pelosi Would Sabotage the Progressive Agenda With a Pay-Go Rule

As Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan are using lame-duck sessions to overturn the outcome of last month’s elections, throwing aside long-standing procedures and basic democratic principles, House Democrats seem determined to throw up roadblocks to limit what they can do with their new majority

Specifically, likely Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is proposing the House adopt pay-as-you-go (paygo) rules that require all new spending be offset with either budget cuts or tax increases.

These rules would also prohibit any new taxes on the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution. Overturning the rules would require a 60 percent supermajority, which means that a substantial number of Republicans would have to be pulled along to get passage.

To see why this is such a poor idea, it’s only necessary to think of many of the proposals that Democrats floated in the recent election.

There is considerable support among Democrats for “Medicare for All,” extending the Medicare program to the whole population. While many do not interpret this as meaning an immediate extension of Medicare to everyone, even lowering the qualifying age to 55 or 60 will mean additional spending.

Under Pelosi’s pay-go rule, this extension would be prohibited unless it was coupled with offsetting budget cuts and/or taxes on the top 20 percent.

There are many Democrats who would support cuts to the military, but realistically these will only go so far. The same applies to additional taxes on the wealthy.

Furthermore, in the case of health care, the most obvious tax is to replace the money that employers now pay in premiums to their insurers with a tax that would be paid to cover the cost of an expanded Medicare program.

It is difficult to believe that many middle-income people would be outraged if the money that their employer deducted from their paychecks for insurance premiums instead went for government-provided health care insurance.

There is a similar story with proposals like free college, free or heavily subsidized child care or green jobs. Does it really make sense, as their first move in the new session of Congress, for Democrats to throw a huge roadblock in front of all these programs?

It is also important to look at the full political context here. The Republicans still control the Senate. Given the fact that Republicans have voted in lockstep for at least the last decade, the prospect of any of these measures getting through the Senate is almost zero.

This means that we are not talking about what actual laws will look like. The legislation passed by House Democrats is giving them a chance to showcase their priorities for a post-2020 world when they may again control the White House and the Senate. The pay-go rules severely hamper their ability to lay out a progressive agenda for the public in advance of the election.

The contrast to the Republicans could not be greater. Trump and Republicans in Congress ran on the promise of a big tax cut. They never said a word about how they would pay for it, they just uttered nonsense about how the tax cut would pay for itself.

They then pushed it through on a straight party line vote and used fabricated budget projections to show that it would be self-financing.

It is already clear that the tax cut will not come close to paying for itself. Instead, the deficit will be considerably larger as a result of the tax cut. Of course, we have seen this story before, it happened with the President George W. Bush tax cut in 2001 and the President Ronald Reagan tax cut in 1981.

The Republicans have paid no political price for repeatedly expanding the deficit to give tax cuts to the wealthy. If Pelosi thinks Democrats will somehow be rewarded for handcuffing themselves so that they can’t even consider bills that will expand the deficit, she is a much less astute politician than most of us give her credit for.

Deficits certainly can be too large, and we don’t want to burden the middle-class with excessive taxes. But all the Democrats in the House understand these facts. They will not pass legislation that is stupid policy and bad politics.

The issue here is whether they need special rules that needlessly narrow the scope of what can be considered. This is what pay-go does, and it is really bad politics in a world where the other party has no respect for any rules whatsoever.

This article originally appeared in The Hill.

More articles by:

Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. 

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

June 20, 2019
Robert Hunziker
The Dangerous Methane Mystery
David Schultz
The Intellectual Origins of the Trump Presidency and the Construction of Contemporary American Politics
Sabri Öncü
Thus Spoke the Bond Market
Gary Leupp
Japanese and German Doubts on U.S. Drumbeat Towards Iran War
Binoy Kampmark
The Fragility of Democracy: Hong Kong, China and the Extradition Bill
Doug Johnson
On the Morning Consult Poll, Margins of Error, and the Undecideds in the Democratic Primary
Laura Flanders
In Barcelona, Being a Fearless City Mayor Means Letting the People Decide
Martha Rosenberg
Humor: Stop These Language Abuses
Jim Goodman
Current Farm Crisis Offers Opportunity For Change
Kim C. Domenico
Lessons from D.H. : A Soul-based Anarchist Vision for Peace-making
Jesse Jackson
Mobilizing the Poor People’s Campaign
Wim Laven
We Need Evidence-Based Decision Making
Cesar Chelala
Health Consequences of Overwork
June 19, 2019
Matthew Stevenson
Requiem for a Lightweight: the Mayor Pete Factor
Kenneth Surin
In China Again
Stephen Cooper
Abolishing the Death Penalty Requires Morality
George Ochenski
The DNC Can’t Be Allowed to Ignore the Climate Crisis
John W. Whitehead
The Omnipresent Surveillance State
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
Guaidó’s Star Fades as His Envoys to Colombia Allegedly Commit Fraud With Humanitarian Funds for Venezuela
Dave Lindorff
What About Venezuela’s Hacked Power Grid?
Howard Lisnoff
Try Not to Look Away
Binoy Kampmark
Matters of Water: Dubious Approvals and the Adani Carmichael Mine
Karl Grossman
The Battle to Stop the Shoreham Nuclear Plant, Revisited
Kani Xulam
Farting in a Turkish Mosque
Dean Baker
New Manufacturing Jobs are Not Union Jobs
Elizabeth Keyes
“I Can’t Believe Alcohol Is Stronger Than Love”
June 18, 2019
John McMurtry
Koch-Oil Big Lies and Ecocide Writ Large in Canada
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Evidence About Iran is “Dodgy” at Best
Yoav Litvin
Catch 2020 – Trump’s Authoritarian Endgame
Thomas Knapp
Opposition Research: It’s Not Trump’s Fault That Politics is a “Dirty” Game
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
U.S. Sanctions: Economic Sabotage that is Deadly, Illegal and Ineffective
Gary Leupp
Marx and Walking Zen
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Color Revolution In Hong Kong: USA Vs. China
Howard Lisnoff
The False Prophets Cometh
Michael T. Klare
Bolton Wants to Fight Iran, But the Pentagon Has Its Sights on China
Steve Early
The Global Movement Against Gentrification
Dean Baker
The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Like Rent Control
Tom Engelhardt
If Trump’s the Symptom, Then What’s the Disease?
June 17, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
The Dark Side of Brexit: Britain’s Ethnic Minorities Are Facing More and More Violence
Linn Washington Jr.
Remember the Vincennes? The US’s Long History of Provoking Iran
Geoff Dutton
Where the Wild Things Were: Abbey’s Road Revisited
Nick Licata
Did a Coverup of Who Caused Flint Michigan’s Contaminated Water Continue During Its Investigation? 
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange and the Scales of Justice: Exceptions, Extraditions and Politics
John Feffer
Democracy Faces a Global Crisis
Louisa Willcox
Revamping Grizzly Bear Recovery
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail