America's government shutdown: No way to run a country | Hacker News Reader

America's government shutdown: No way to run a country

economist.com

21 pointscoloneltcb15 comments

The economic explanation is good; the conclusion that the country needs legislation to take control of the Gerrymandering makes you want to smack yourself in the face.

Yes, we KNOW that. Except, the only people who can pass that legislation are the people benefiting from the current situation.

The fact that even a such an august publication as the Economist can't come up with a better solution than that is terribly depressing.

Gerrymandering helps in the main elections, but it does not give some people a systematic advantage in the primary elections. It is theoretically possible that politicians would work against Gerrymandering to win points in the primary elections.

"but it does not give some people a systematic advantage in the primary elections."

Gerrymandering can be used for many reasons. Generally you're correct it's used to maximize general election seats. It can and has been used to make districts even ________-er though and it has been used for other reasons such as to force two incumbents from the ________ party to run against each other.

Wouldn't the obvious solution be a constitutional amendment proposed by the states through a constitutional convention leaving congress out of it altogether?

Heh...

The people benefiting from gerrymandering in the State Houses would then need to propose the convention though wouldn't they?

Article V still depends on elected officials... it's just that it depends on officials elected in the State houses.

If I understand correctly, the problem is at the state level. The national congress doesn't draw district boundaries, mostly state legislatures do (though there are exceptions who have independent redistricting committees).

As the state-originating path to a US Constitutional amendment requires the participation of state legislatures, it's unlikely it could be used to fix the problem.

Gerrymandering is an overblown issue; there's no way of assigning districts for FPTP elections that would substantially change the problem, as is evident from the fact that the places in the US that have moved redistricting into the hands of "nonpartisan" commissions may not have partisan gerrymandering, but still have the same essential problems.

What we really need is a better election system than FPTP in single-member districts for legislative bodies at the State and Federal levels.

The mess we are in today can be avoided if we didn't have the legislative contrivance of a 'debt-ceiling'. [1] If our representatives have voted on appropriations, then that's money that we have already committed to spend. The source of that money should be already debated and taken care of in that measure, so there's no benefit to having a separate check in the form of a debt-ceiling.

How does it make sense to vote for appropriations without a way to fund them? All it does is provide for the kind of legislative blackmail that we are seeing today where the funding is not provided unless some unconnected amendments are included.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Legi...

If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass.

The debates over continuing resolutions to fund the government implicitly cover where to get money for the deficits (issuing more debt, obviously). The frequency of debt limit adjustments serves as a reminder to Congress about just how fast they're inflating our currency. Do you really want to do away with that?

>> If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass.

It doesn't really make sense to commit to spending without knowing where the money will come from. If they had to argue about the source of funding when they passed appropriations, then we wouldn't have to go through the same drama later.

They know where the money is coming from: issuing more debt. If they had to acknowledge that more directly when debating the budget (aka continuing resolutions), I don't think budgets would sail through as often as they do, but it would also make it easier for the government to spend more. The ritual of raising the debt ceiling is a more concrete step to make them feel bad about blowing through the last debt increase so fast. What's wrong with that as a psychological tool, and as a separate opportunity for the public to influence their representatives and voice their opinions?

You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult.

I fail to understand why a dysfunctional system is better than one where expense proposals are matched by revenue/borrowing plans.

This is the government of the United States we are talking about, not some teenager's budget where we have to come up with ways to make them 'feel bad' about spending.

>> You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult.

No, I want to make sure that those who pass spending bills are also responsible for finding the revenue. It does not preclude the possibility of keeping debt in control - if they feel that debt/gdp ratio should be in check, then they should keep their spending proposals in check too. One cannot approve large spending, and then complain when the payment is due.

"They should also vote to raise the debt ceiling (or better yet, abolish it)."

Well there is. The whole problem with publications like this is that they like to provide answers without explaining the consequences. The Economist is especially bad since its title proclaims it as an expert but if we did we what it proposes there would be no limit to the amount of debt the US could borrow and thus no limit to the amount of poverty we would leave to future generations.

Currently the US accrues 2.5t in tax revenue per annum and spends 3.8t or it overspends 1.3t a year. So it should be clear to anyone with the most basic understanding of math the US needs to cut spending. Raising the debt limit is the exact opposite of that and would be equivalent of trying to lose weight by letting out your belt.

> The Economist is especially bad since its title proclaims it as an expert but if we did we what it proposes there would be no limit to the amount of debt the US could borrow and thus no limit to the amount of poverty we would leave to future generations.

There's no practical limit to the amount of money the US can borrow. All eliminating the debt ceiling would do is reduce the number of different votes that have to happen to operate the government when running deficits. All spending has to be authorized by a law -- this is often a one-time, long-term act establishing a program -- and appropriated by a law (typically, in "normal" operations, by an annual budget, but sometimes we get periodic CRs for shorter periods, and some things are subject to multiyear appropriations.) The combination of what is authorized and appropriate vs. the revenue from taxes (also set by laws passed by Congress) sets the level of borrowing that is going to happen to fund it. The debt ceiling is essentially redundant with other Congressional action, and either is completely irrelevant (under most normal conditions) or, as has been the case recently, is an excuse for stunts which do nothing but harm the country's credit.

> Currently the US accrues 2.5t in tax revenue per annum and spends 3.8t or it overspends 1.3t a year. So it should be clear to anyone with the most basic understanding of math the US needs to cut spending.

Ignoring that that's not really the right two numbers to compare (since even if you look at the right comparison, the ratio between debt payments and GDP, there is a clear need to do something about balance) the suggestion that that has to be cutting spending ignores the revenue side; given that the overall trend over the past 50ish years has been of tax cuts -- particularly on the richest -- its not entirely unreasonable to suggest that to the extent that the tax/spending balance needs to be addressed, no small part of that is on the tax side.

> Raising the debt limit is the exact opposite of that

Raising the debt limit is essential even though long-term tax/revenue balance needs to be addressed (the target shouldn't be naive budget balance, but establishing a stable and reasonable long-term average debt:GDP ratio, and good practices that let it run above that average when government spends countercyclically during economic downturns, and below it when government spending is less necessary during private sector expansions.)

An article from the past(1990) worth reading: "The Perils of Presidentialism"[0] by Juan Linz, who died Tuesday. It notes that the United States is exceptional in having a long-lasting presidential system, and also in having political parties which are not disciplined and ideologically cohesive. We're now experiencing the kind of conflict that many Latin American countries have faced in the past.

[0] http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/linz_perils_presidenci...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com