Many media outlets are writing about the fact that the Tea Party changed the debate in Washington. They pushed for federal spending to be increased and no tax increases. And they mostly got their way, with the debt-ceiling deal cutting around 1.5 trillion from the debt and there is more to come in the future with the Super Congress' recommendations in November. If they are not followed, there are automatic cuts to Medicare and Defense. Seems like the Tea Party "won" the policy debate, but the question is whether or not their methods were actually ethical.
The Tea Party threatened to default the entire federal government if they did not get a lot of what they wanted, i.e. drastic spending cuts and no tax increases. They said either that default would not happen or that it would be a positive thing because it would FORCE spending cuts, even though that would've probably meant social security recipients would not be paid. This is not an intellectually honest way to negotiate. It is like saying I will not give up until I get what I want, even if that means people get hurt in the process. They said damn the economy, we are getting what we want or all of us are going down.
What can we conclude about the policy and the methods of negotiation? The policy is disastrous, and will hurt the economy because it means thousands of federal workers will lose their jobs, and the method sets a precedent that if one party really wants something, all they have to do is threaten to take the country to default and the other party will give in because they actually care about the country. It would not surprise me if Republicans do not turn this into their normal strategy. This could be an impact the Tea Party has had that, in the long run, is ultimately and utterly childish.
No comments:
Post a Comment