Debt debate tells us little about what Heller, Berkley will do

By Jon Ralston

Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2011 | 2 a.m.

Nothing illuminates the absurdity of the mercifully concluded debt nondebate more clearly than this: Both Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Shelley Berkley found a lot to dislike in the compromise, but one voted for it and the other against — and neither was clear about why.

Although we media types can’t help but frame such monumental votes in political terms — Berkley wants Heller’s seat — let’s take the electoral calculations out of it. For a moment, that is.

Even if I’m willing, they are not, as their post-vote statements showed. If you’ve heard fingernails on a blackboard, you’ve heard this:

Berkley said in part in a statement: “This bipartisan agreement is far from perfect, but it cuts our nation’s debt by trillions while safeguarding Social Security, Medicare and VA beneficiaries. It’s time for us to move forward and focus on getting our economy back on track and on creating jobs for the people of Nevada and our nation.”

Heller’s wasn’t much better: “Without a fundamental transformation in Congress’ approach to budgeting, we cannot stabilize our economy and foster substantial growth and investment. An effective plan would provide significant savings, institute tax reform, create jobs and outline a sustainable approach for reducing our nation’s debt.”

Just a different way of saying nothing. Hollow words to a different tune.

Of course, the main problem with Congress is hardly that the members never say anything; it’s that they rarely do anything they don’t have to spin.

You’ve seen the poll that shows the American people oscillated from “ridiculous” to “disgusting” to “stupid” to describe this debacle. Why they were so kind, I have no clue.

Both Berkley and Heller waited until right before their votes to tip their hands. Berkley’s “yes” was less surprising than Heller’s “no.” Indeed, it can be argued that because he had the benefit of watching Berkley vote first, Heller had the easier political calculation. But it could also be argued that after Berkley supported the deal, the safer course for Heller was to mirror her vote, thus taking one issue off the table for 2012.

Even though the Dow was not happy Tuesday, no one knows how this will play out before the eternity that looms between now and November 2012. The Democrats can put out as many news releases accusing Heller of wanting to cause fiscal Armageddon — and they will — and the Republicans can issue screeds about Berkley wanting to continue the spending spree — and they will. But both sides will contort themselves looking for marginal edges — especially with independents — in a race expected to be close until the end.

To his credit, Heller came on “Face to Face” shortly after the vote and defended — nay, boasted — about being one of only 26 senators to oppose the deal. But his first words indicated how those who voted against the package were trying to have it both ways while having it no way at all.

“First of all, the good news is we did raise the debt ceiling,” Heller told me. “Probably the bad news is we are going to be having the same conversation a year from now.”

It’s not that he’s wrong on the latter; it’s his chutzpah on the former. Rarely have I heard anyone defend voting against a measure by saying he was glad it passed. Later, Heller would say, “I salute the fact that we did have a debt-ceiling increase.” I thought he was giving a different kind of salute, but perhaps not.

What most puzzled me was that his legitimate argument that this was no grand bargain and that “long-term, structural changes” are needed is undermined by his support for Speaker John Boehner’s bill.

Heller claimed “there were better opportunities long-term in the Boehner bill.” But it cut less and forced a two-step process.

Heller is right, of course, that the deal is only, as even the president said, a first step. And although the senator danced around entitlement reform — he reiterated his support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare voucher system — he doesn’t want to touch that political third rail yet.

I find it hard to take the Democrats’ hyperbolic rants about Heller voting to kill Medicare, considering Berkley and almost every Democrat won’t propose any needed changes, either. (I’m sure she will be back on the program soon to talk about it. She is, if nothing else, not shy.)

I sincerely hope this Senate race is not about Berkley scaring seniors that Heller wants to take their Medicare and Social Security away and Heller invoking buzz phrases such as “tax and spend liberal” and “Obamacare.” If so, I can only think of three words to describe what is to come:

Ridiculous, disgusting and stupid.