Well, at the eleventh hour, a deal averting government shutdown was finally reached. I am very happy not to see the shutdown, especially since it seemed absolutely inevitable yesterday. I wouldn't, however, say that I am particularly happy with our government.
I am mad with Congress for not being able to pass a budget before our fiscal year started in October. I know that it was an election year, but it is our elected officials' job to pass a budget. Nancy Pelosi deserves a fair amount of the blame. On one hand, she was in absolute la la land, completely denying until the bitter end that Democrats would lose so many seats come November. On the other hand, she did not take advantage of the Democratic majority in both houses to get a budget done, even in the lame duck session. I know that the Democrats did not have the supermajority apparently needed to get anything done in the Senate, but no one seemed to be trying too hard, at least from where I was sitting. I am also mad with President Obama for being too conciliatory to Republicans who were never going to agree with him anyway. I was extremely pissed off when the tax cuts for the wealthy were extended. Very few people in government seem to honestly be concerned with the "little guy." Many people in government seem to be concerned with the interests of multimillionaires and billionaires.
In January, the Republicans reclaimed the House, in large part thanks to the Tea Party. I'm still struggling to understand the Tea Party movement, but it's ideology seems to be the steadfast opposition to all government except that which directly benefit its members. Cut my taxes, and get your government hands off of my Medicare.
I'm not denying that there is waste in government, nor am I trying to say that there aren't places our budget can be cut. But the budget impasse seemed extremely illogical.
The cuts in question, whether you peg the figure at $33 billion, $38 billion, or $61 billion, represent a tiny fraction of the budget. I thought that a deal had been reached last week setting cuts at $33 billion, which seemed reasonable given the Republicans' desire for $61 billion in cuts.
But the deal was off, and a shutdown was less than a week away. It was hard to tell whether the holdup was that the Republicans were demanding higher cuts, or whether it was their threats to defund Planned Parenthood and the Environmental Protection Agency. Either way, the federal government would run out of funds at midnight on Friday, and the government would shut down if that did not happen.
Paul Ryan's budget proposal seemed like an absurd aside. Sure, his proposal was interesting, but it seemed like a waste of time, space, and oxygen with days left before a looming government shutdown.
While there are federal employees all across the country (and the world), and a number of government services would have been affected, the shutdown would have been most acutely felt in the District of Columbia. While DC has its own tax base, the District is run as a federal agency. All of our spending, even the spending of our own money raised through taxes on our own people, must be appropriated by the federal government. In a practical sense, that meant that only "essential" District employees such as certain police officers would be able to do their jobs. There would have been no trash collection for at least a week. The University of the District of Columbia would have shut down. The DMV would be closed. Meter maids would not have been working, allowing people to park with impunity, even in Georgetown!
The District of Columbia is a bit of a unique animal. Because it is the seat of the federal government, a large amount of property (more than half) in DC is under federal control and is exempt from DC taxes. Many of the people who work in DC live in Maryland and Virginia and pay income taxes to those states. In large part because of that fact, the District is more dependent on federal funding than other cities and states. However, I would imagine that most Americans would be surprised to hear how little autonomy DC actually has. The District has only had an elected mayor and city council since 1973. Even still, the federal government has the ultimate authority over the District and can overrule our elected officials. Just like the Department of Energy cannot spend money that has not been appropriated by the Congress, the District of Columbia cannot spend money that has not been appropriated by the Congress. However, unlike the DOE, DC has a population that pays DC and federal taxes. It is not a federal agency.
In recent years, DC has become an increasingly attractive place to live. This trend has been visible in all four quadrants of the District. The 2010 census showed a population increase, and there are now more than 600,000 residents. Wyoming, which has two senators, a representative in Congress, and autonomy over its local funds, has a population of around 560,000. While I am a proponent of DC statehood and think it is extremely appropriate that DC license plates read "Taxation without Representation," I am going to take a different tack and argue that in the immediate future, DC must be given budgetary autonomy.
While I am glad that the final reported deal does not defund Planned Parenthood or the EPA (apparently there is a price on this, and that price is $5 billion), there were two items in the deal that enrage me. There were two provisions in the reported deal affecting DC: DC cannot use its OWN public funds to pay for abortions, and a private school voucher program would be resurrected in DC. I'm not too concerned with the voucher program, although I don't think it gets at the root problem, which is the state of public schools in DC. However, the prohibition of DC using its own money to fund abortions irks me. This has been in effect in the past, so it's not completely out of left field, but I think it goes to show why DC needs to have more control.
Republicans, especially Tea Partiers, have been complaining a lot as of late about the perceived Obama nanny state. They bring it up when Michelle Obama promotes programs targeted at ending childhood obesity (First Ladies traditionally have fluffy advocacy issues. We have a childhood obesity epidemic. I'm not too outraged that she is trying to convince kids to eat more fruits and vegetables and be more active. Would these people prefer that we triple their Medicare taxes to prepare for the serious and costly health issues these children will likely face in their twilight years?), and they bring it up when they talk about "Obamacare" ("Obamacare" contains a few good things, but it is ultimately a handout to the insurance industry. Single-payer health care would have fit more with the idea of a nanny state, but Obama was too much of a wimp to even propose such an idea. In my opinion, such a "socialist" idea would be a more humane for a world power like the United States to care for its people and would likely save costs in the long run.) However, the Republicans are instituting a nanny state in the District of Columbia.
Given the ways a shutdown would have negatively impacted the entire country in general and DC in particular, I don't wish that the Democrats had forced a shutdown by demanding that the provisions affecting the District had been removed. However, this backroom dealing has shown me that it is high time for DC residents to have more control over themselves and their tax dollars. I am glad that the needle exchange program was not included, as the Republicans had insisted in earlier proposals for a one-week continuing resolution. DC is still ravaged by HIV/AIDS.
Good things are happening in DC right now. As I said before, the District has become an more attractive place to live. DC residents are also demanding more from their government. The administration of Mayor Vincent Gray has been plagued by scandal in its first months. Whereas these issues would likely have been unknown or accepted in the past, DC residents have demanded accountability in this 24-hour news cycle Twitter culture. While I often complain about this culture, I am happy to see it used effectively to root out corruption. Therefore, I think that DC is ready to handle the added responsibility of budgetary autonomy. We don't need a nanny state, thank you very much. Isn't it enough that we can't spend federal money on abortion? Why do we need to be told how we can and cannot spend our own money? Shouldn't it be up to residents of the District to decide if they want to fund abortions for low-income women with DC tax dollars?
On a lighter note, does anyone still watch Grey's Anatomy? I watched the musical episode last night. I really hope that it was an existential self-parody of how ridiculously over the top the show has become. On that self-aware level, it would work. However, if it was serious, I don't know what to do. I kept laughing in what were probably inappropriate moments.
