Out of time and out of touch

IN A little over two months, the Occupy Wall Street protest movement has transformed U.S. politics and captured the attention of the whole country by casting a spotlight on economic inequality and the corruption of political power in the U.S.

In the same slightly-more-than-two-month period, the congressional budget deficit committee, known as the "supercommittee," was hard at work. What did it accomplish? Absolutely nothing.

In all fairness, the committee of six Democrats and six Republicans from both houses of Congress, charged with coming up with a plan to reduce the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion, did exactly what was expected of it, even in failure: defend the interests of the super-rich 1 percent. That means cuts, cuts and more cuts in programs that poor and working-class people depend on, while any hope of a sane policy based on raising taxes on the rich died at the negotiating table.

The committee, officially called the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, was set up after the disastrous debt ceiling debate this summer. Congress wasn't satisfied with the $900 billion in cuts imposed directly in the bipartisan agreement that allowed the U.S. government to continue financing its debt.

The supercommittee was formed to come up with another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures over the next 10 years, with an up-or-down vote in Congress to take place by December 23. If Congress fails to approve a plan by January 15, automatic spending cuts will be triggered--to the tune of $984 billion.

On November 21, committee co-chairs Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) announced that they'd failed. That clears the way for the automatic cuts, set to take effect from 2013 to 2021.

The idea was that these cuts would come in programs both Democrats and Republicans want to protect--so lawmakers would have an incentive to come to an agreement before the deadline. So there are $492 billion in cuts in defense spending and $123 billion coming out of Medicare.

But Republicans are likely to come up with a proposal to halt the military cuts. If so, the Democrats would lose any leverage they had in the conflict.

The committee's failure to produce a deal marks the latest act in Washington's cynical political theater over balancing the budget. There have been lots of opportunities for grandstanding, but when you set the rhetoric aside, it all comes down to the same thing: more austerity for workers.

THROUGHOUT THE saga of the supercommittee, the mainstream media kept up the same story line--Democrats and Republicans were implacably opposed to one another and unwilling to compromise for the good of the country. But the failure of the supercommittee to reach a deal reveals less about the two parties' disagreements than what they share in common.

The Democrats--the self-proclaimed defenders of working-class America--have used cuts to important government services, including Social Security and Medicare, as little more than bargaining chips in negotiations. While decrying the Republicans' savage proposals, the Democrats continually compromised on spending reductions on an unprecedented scale. As a New York Times editorial approvingly described it:

When you hear Republicans claim that Democrats refused to touch their sacred cows of spending, remember that the Democratic offer would have cut $475 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years, nearly half of which would have come directly from beneficiaries. That's more than the Bowles-Simpson deficit plan proposed, and eight times the level of Medicare cuts offered by President Obama in September.

The fact is that neither Democrats nor Republicans care that the supercommittee stalemate kicked the can down the road--since this sets up both parties for more political posturing in the run-up to the 2012 elections.

During the endless budget debates, the two parties pontificate over the values they supposedly stand for--while it becomes clearer and clearer that they're both standing up for the status quo.

That's little wonder. As individuals, the supercommittee members' pedigrees are similar to the rest of Congress--rich.

The halls of Congress has always been the domain of the wealthy and powerful, but it's more true today than ever. According to a recent report by Roll Call, members of Congress had a collective net worth of more than $2 billion in 2010, nearly 25 percent more than the total in 2008.

According to Roll Call:

[B]y almost any measure, the average member of Congress is far wealthier than the average U.S. household.

For example, dividing the total wealth of Congress by the number of members creates a mean (average) net worth for each member of about $3.8 million (excluding non-income-producing property such as personal residences). By comparison, for the rest of the country, based on statistics released by the Federal Reserve, average household net worth is around $500,000 this year (including personal residences), according to David Rosnick, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Did someone say 1 percent?

But of course, it's not just individual Republicans and Democrats, but the people they represent--Wall Street and Corporate America.

Corporate lobbyists went into overdrive during supercommittee negotiations to make their voices heard. Big Oil, for example, fearing that an end to lavish tax breaks for the oil industry might be in the works, devoted increased time and money to lobbying committee members.

So is it any wonder that Democrats aren't fighting very hard for increasing taxes on the wealthy--something that might actually bring in enough money to stop the cuts in Medicare and Social Security, and even restore funds for social priorities that didn't figure in the budget talks, like aid to our suffering public schools, or public hospitals and libraries.

WHAT ALL this shows is how out of touch politicians in Washington are with the people they claim to represent.

While six in 10 Americans say they support "major cuts" to spending programs, according to a November 18-20 CNN/ORC International Poll, they're less convinced when major social programs are listed. The same poll showed 57 percent of Americans oppose major changes to Medicare and Social Security.

Meanwhile, "[t]he one idea that wins solid majority support from the electorate is higher taxes on wealthier Americans and businesses," reported CNN. "Roughly two in three Americans back the idea, according to the survey."

A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies, America Is Not Broke, offers solutions to the supposed deficit disaster confounding Washington that have nothing to do with cuts to social programs. They include new taxes on Wall Street, ending the war on Afghanistan and eliminating subsidies to corporations that produce polluting fossil fuel.

Many people will view the deficit supercommittee failure as just another example of how the political system doesn't work. Eighty-four percent of Americans said they disapproved of the way Congress was doing its job in the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll last month.

This is the highest percentage since the Times first began asking the question in 1977. It's higher than during the political stalemate that led to the 1995 federal government shutdown, noted the Times.

As for who approves of Congress, the poll found a hardly pulse-worthy 9 percent.

What a contrast that is to Occupy Wall Street, which captured the hearts and imaginations of millions, inspiring people to speak out about the injustices of economic inequality and a political system that doesn't represent the vast majority.

Washington "solutions" like the supercommittee, even if they were to succeed on their own terms, will only create more of the same--while the Occupy movement has encouraged people to begin to talk about not what's "reasonable," but what's possible.