.jpg)
Pull Quote: …“in Guyana,the holding of a new general election is the necessary and sufficient approach to exit the parliamentary mess that is gradually consuming the nation.”REPUBLICANS should now be popping champagne corks as the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is now the law of the land in the U.S. and the fiscal cliff suspense is now over. But their delight has nothing to do with lowered taxes to the majority of Americans. Before sharing the reason for their jubilation, understand what the law brings to the table. “Under this law, more than 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up,” Obama in a statement to the nation noted. “Millions of families will continue to receive tax credits to help raise their kids and send them to college. Companies will continue to receive tax credits for the research that they do, the investments they make, and the clean energy jobs that they create. And 2 million Americans who are out of work but out there looking, pounding the pavement every day, are going to continue to receive unemployment benefits as long as they’re actively looking for a job.” The end-result is US$737 billion in deficit reduction and US$107 billion in spending cuts.
Republicans’ jubilation has to do with what they have now achieved as a result of Obama’s compromise. This level of compromise also happened in 2010 with the dumping of the public option before Obamacare was approved.
What Republicans have now achieved has to do with the fact that a larger number of high-income earners will now not pay higher taxes because Obama raised their tax thresholds. For instance, a single person will now pay a higher tax rate from an income of $400,000 and for married couples at US$450,000; Obama’s early proposal placed the tax thresholds for high-income earners at US$250,000. These new tax thresholds will produce less tax revenues to reduce the national deficit than what Obama earlier envisaged,
In addition, Obama was unable to have Congressional agreement on raising the debt ceiling, which would be a major battle for Democrats and Republicans in February and March 2013 (Reich, 2013). Then there was the permanent setting of estate and gift tax exemptions at US$5 million. These are the reasons for the flying champagne corks.
These Obama compromises have happened largely because he has had a minority government since the midterm election of 2010. His new government after the 2011 election also will be a minority government, as his Democratic Party still does not have a majority in the House of Representatives.
Throughout the 112th Congress (2011-2012), the Republican-led House of Representatives worked in isolation from the Democratic-led Senate, where both Chambers voted to create competing positions instead of passing laws; and the Republican House voted to repeal almost every measure passed in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), but failed because the Senate discarded the House’s actions (Rudalevige, 2012).
But the Chambers did come together to end the fiscal cliff. First, the Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Bill on December 31, 2012; then about 24 hours later, the House of Representatives passed this Senate’s Bill in its entirety. If the House did not take that action, then every American of all income groups would have had to face immediate tax increases. This outcome would have spelt electoral defeats in subsequent elections for many in both Chambers.
Obama, not having control over the House of Representatives, and therefore, functioning as a minority government, made significant compromises as mentioned earlier in this paper, that he would not have have made with a majority government status. However, Obama’s compromises to end the fiscal cliff would do little to slow down the deficit, due to reduced tax revenues from high-income earners.
In addition, 20 months into Obama’s minority government and the 112th Congress (2011-2012), Rudalevige (2012) found that Congress only passed 151 bills into law, when the norm for legislative approval is 637, down to less than 30%. Of course, the Republicans with their persistent strategy of reducing the pace of Obama’s development programme perceive this as an accomplishment on their part.
What could Guyana learn from the current American political scene? The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) like the U.S. Democratic Party has a minority government. The opposition parties, A People’s Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) control the parliament with a one-seat majority.
A year from the 2011 election shows that the PPP/C’s development programme inclusive of its legislative agenda is persistently proceeding, albeit at a slow pace. This conclusion should not be surprising as the key strategy of the opposition-led parliament with a one-seat majority seems focused on stopping the PPP/C’s developmental projects.
What do you do in this situation of constant standstill in parliament? Perhaps, try the Clintonian triangulation where the President in conducting the nation’s business places himself apart from the opposition-led parliament and the PPP/C allies; compromise may be a huge factor here. But this approach may not survive with the opposition-led parliament’s behaviour, which seeks to ensure that this must be the PPP/C’s last term in office even without concerns for its development agenda, and which shows deep distrust of the President and the PPP/C, both behaviours signalling little cooperation from the opposition to work together with the PPP/C.
Another possible approach is to use Truman’s “give ‘em hell”, where Truman’s tactics involved the use of a huge legislative agenda conveying a new weekly message. This legislative agenda tactic may have implications for public opinion on the standstill parliament in Guyana. However, in Guyana, the holding of a new election is the necessary and sufficient approach to exit the parliamentary mess that is gradually consuming the nation to no good.
Republicans’ jubilation has to do with what they have now achieved as a result of Obama’s compromise. This level of compromise also happened in 2010 with the dumping of the public option before Obamacare was approved.
What Republicans have now achieved has to do with the fact that a larger number of high-income earners will now not pay higher taxes because Obama raised their tax thresholds. For instance, a single person will now pay a higher tax rate from an income of $400,000 and for married couples at US$450,000; Obama’s early proposal placed the tax thresholds for high-income earners at US$250,000. These new tax thresholds will produce less tax revenues to reduce the national deficit than what Obama earlier envisaged,
In addition, Obama was unable to have Congressional agreement on raising the debt ceiling, which would be a major battle for Democrats and Republicans in February and March 2013 (Reich, 2013). Then there was the permanent setting of estate and gift tax exemptions at US$5 million. These are the reasons for the flying champagne corks.
These Obama compromises have happened largely because he has had a minority government since the midterm election of 2010. His new government after the 2011 election also will be a minority government, as his Democratic Party still does not have a majority in the House of Representatives.
Throughout the 112th Congress (2011-2012), the Republican-led House of Representatives worked in isolation from the Democratic-led Senate, where both Chambers voted to create competing positions instead of passing laws; and the Republican House voted to repeal almost every measure passed in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), but failed because the Senate discarded the House’s actions (Rudalevige, 2012).
But the Chambers did come together to end the fiscal cliff. First, the Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Bill on December 31, 2012; then about 24 hours later, the House of Representatives passed this Senate’s Bill in its entirety. If the House did not take that action, then every American of all income groups would have had to face immediate tax increases. This outcome would have spelt electoral defeats in subsequent elections for many in both Chambers.
Obama, not having control over the House of Representatives, and therefore, functioning as a minority government, made significant compromises as mentioned earlier in this paper, that he would not have have made with a majority government status. However, Obama’s compromises to end the fiscal cliff would do little to slow down the deficit, due to reduced tax revenues from high-income earners.
In addition, 20 months into Obama’s minority government and the 112th Congress (2011-2012), Rudalevige (2012) found that Congress only passed 151 bills into law, when the norm for legislative approval is 637, down to less than 30%. Of course, the Republicans with their persistent strategy of reducing the pace of Obama’s development programme perceive this as an accomplishment on their part.
What could Guyana learn from the current American political scene? The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) like the U.S. Democratic Party has a minority government. The opposition parties, A People’s Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) control the parliament with a one-seat majority.
A year from the 2011 election shows that the PPP/C’s development programme inclusive of its legislative agenda is persistently proceeding, albeit at a slow pace. This conclusion should not be surprising as the key strategy of the opposition-led parliament with a one-seat majority seems focused on stopping the PPP/C’s developmental projects.
What do you do in this situation of constant standstill in parliament? Perhaps, try the Clintonian triangulation where the President in conducting the nation’s business places himself apart from the opposition-led parliament and the PPP/C allies; compromise may be a huge factor here. But this approach may not survive with the opposition-led parliament’s behaviour, which seeks to ensure that this must be the PPP/C’s last term in office even without concerns for its development agenda, and which shows deep distrust of the President and the PPP/C, both behaviours signalling little cooperation from the opposition to work together with the PPP/C.
Another possible approach is to use Truman’s “give ‘em hell”, where Truman’s tactics involved the use of a huge legislative agenda conveying a new weekly message. This legislative agenda tactic may have implications for public opinion on the standstill parliament in Guyana. However, in Guyana, the holding of a new election is the necessary and sufficient approach to exit the parliamentary mess that is gradually consuming the nation to no good.
