Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

[Amskeptic]

It was raised without fanfare over 7 times under George Bush as the surplus was eaten up and the unfunded wars, plus the unfunded tax cuts, plus the Medicare Part D, plus the Homeland Security department all contributed mightily to the national debt.

Now it is becoming a crisis of choice as the Republicans hold the nation hostage.

In Bloomburg News this morning, no liberal rag, we have a response to John Boehner's response to President Obama's address last night:

Boehner’s Response Is Work of Political Fiction:
By Jonathan Alter Jul 26, 2011 8:12 AM PT


Speeches by politicians are usually full of spin, biased use of facts and appeals to emotion. President Barack Obama’s address to the nation last night on the debt ceiling was no exception.
House Speaker John Boehner’s response was in a different league. It was chock full of statements that simply aren’t true.
Let’s go to the videotape.
Boehner: “Here’s what we got for that spending binge: a massive health-care bill that most Americans never asked for. A ’stimulus’ bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs. And a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.”
Facts are stubborn things. Whatever one thinks of it, the Obama health care law wasn’t part of the “spending binge.” The law has yet to significantly contribute to the budget deficit because most of it hasn’t been phased in yet.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created millions of new jobs, which as a factual matter is at least as “effective” as a David Letterman monologue. And anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of the 2008-09 economic meltdown knows that it was “sparked” by a crisis in private debt, not “the national debt.” The latter wasn’t a big problem when, say, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. went bust.
Boehner: “The president would not take yes for an answer.”
This line was brazenly lifted from Obama’s July 22 press conference. No harm in that; stealing catchphrases is common in politics. The problem with the line is that it isn’t true. Not a single time during the process did the Republicans ever publicly answer “yes” to something that the president offered. In fact, they walked out of talks twice.
Boehner: “The president has often said we need a balanced approach -- which in Washington means: We spend more, you pay more.”
In truth, Obama’s “balanced approach” has a specific meaning that is factually at odds with what Boehner claimed. It means the government spends less -- almost $3 trillion less over 10 years -- not “more.”
And it only means “you pay more” if by “you” Boehner meant Americans who make more than $250,000 a year, a tiny proportion of his TV audience.
Boehner: “The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs.”

To the consternation of his liberal base, Obama has endorsed raising the age of Medicare eligibility, means-testing benefits and reducing the growth of future Social Security payments -- a total of $650 billion in entitlement cuts. To suggest, as Boehner did, that Obama was subscribing to the old Democratic line that entitlements can’t be changed is untrue.
Boehner: “You see, there is no stalemate in Congress.”
We do see, and our eyes tell us the plain truth: There is in fact a stalemate in Congress.
Boehner: “If the president signs it,” meaning the House bill, “the crisis atmosphere he created will simply disappear.”
Boehner is right that if Obama fully capitulated and signed the House bill, the crisis would end. But it’s simply untrue to suggest that the president “created” the “crisis atmosphere.” Saying so is Orwellian.
Conservatives can legitimately argue that they were right to turn the debt ceiling into a crisis to achieve their ends. But it’s unfair to blame someone else for creating something you created yourself -- and, make no mistake, the Republican Party has turned what should be a standard procedural increase to the debt ceiling into a potential calamity.
Boehner: “I’ve always believed, the bigger the government, the smaller the people.”
This one is an opinion, so it’s not falsifiable. But it’s certainly at odds with American history. Big government can be harmful. But is that “always” so? Did World War II, the space program and the big spending of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, to take only a few examples, make us all “smaller”?
Speak for yourself, Mr. Speaker.

[Velokid1]

Well-done analysis there^.

If the American public were able to clearly see what is happening right now (and I have zero faith they ever could) they would be absolutely fed up with the political system by this Fall. This has been the ultimate display of partisan politics with no higher purpose whatsoever.

[Amskeptic]

This has been the ultimate display of partisan politics with no higher purpose whatsoever.

That is a tragedy in this pivotal moment in American history.
Much as I admire the person of the President, he appears not up to the challenge.
Colin

[TrollFromDownBelow]

Much as I admire the person of the President, he appears not up to the challenge.
Colin

How would you handle it differently?

[pj]

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

So why can't someone have the same stand today and it be just as principled?

[Velokid1]

If you crash a car, you fix it. Even though it being crashed was an indication of failed leadership.

[ruckman101]

It's a false crisis. But agendas are being pushed. Extreme right leaning insanity gives leverage and excuse for Obama to continue socialistic policies for the corporate elite rich that their profits may grow at the expense of the poor, like anyone under $250k a year in earnings.

What class war.



neal

[BellePlaine]

I was watching Charlie Rose last night thinking that we must be living in the most partisan time in our government's history. Of course, I don't know that for sure but it feels that way. And I don't think that the freshmen congressmen are acting in a vacuum, I think that they are proportionally representing a slice of the American people.

Before we can settle the debt ceiling issue we must answer for ourselves what should the size of government be and what is its role. The friction that we are seeing is due to the emergence of a third party which has a taken a different position from the other two parties in the debate. Although this new party is not my party, in a way it's good because how often have we complained that Democrats and Republicans play between the 40-yard lines?

[RussellK]

parties in the debate. Although this new party is not my party, in a way it's good because how often have we complained that Democrats and Republicans play between the 40-yard lines?

I'm troubled by the degree the Koch brothers have a presence in this new party. A new third party would be grand. This one? Not so much.

[Lanval]

From a NY Times Q&A on the Debt Ceiling crisis (my emphasis):

How many times has the debt ceiling been raised, and by whom?

A. It has been a bipartisan exercise. By the Treasury Department’s count, Congress has acted 78 times since 1960 to raise, extend or alter the definition of the debt limit — 49 times under Republican presidents, and 29 times under Democratic presidents. The Obama administration has taken pains to note that President Ronald Reagan, a hero to many Republicans in Congress, raised the debt limit. In a letter on the debt ceiling last month to Republicans in the Senate, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner quoted a letter Mr. Reagan wrote a generation ago, urging Congress to increase the debt limit. “The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate,” he quoted Mr. Reagan as writing. “Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result.”

Original Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/us/po ... fault.html

The Republicans made a deal with the devil to get elected ~ the Tea Party idiots are a one-trick pony and they don't care what happens as long as they get what they want. This flies in the face of the notion of compromise which was the underpinning of the politics of the Founding Fathers, who, the TPI claim, are their models.

This refusal to raise the debt ceiling is about a bunch of people who are willing to throw the American people under the bus in order to finish their "We don't like Obama" tantrum. Few if any other president's have endured the kind of garbage that's been thrown at Obama. Enough.



Mike

[BellePlaine]

The Republicans made a deal with the devil to get elected ~ the Tea Party idiots are a one-trick pony and they don't care what happens as long as they get what they want. This flies in the face of the notion of compromise which was the underpinning of the politics of the Founding Fathers, who, the TPI claim, are their models.
Mike

Mike, it's my understanding that the FF were against a government which was organized by political parties. I think that when they thought of compromise they weren't making sausage.

I wonder if we're entering a new kind of bloodless civil war. It's just a thought but isn't war what you have when you can't reach a compromise?

It was brought up on CR last night; the real question that we must answer is what should the role and size of government be?

[Velokid1]

Before we can settle the debt ceiling issue we must answer for ourselves what should the size of government be and what is its role.

Can you elaborate on that? Why should the debt ceiling issue be put on hold?

[BellePlaine]

Before we can settle the debt ceiling issue we must answer for ourselves what should the size of government be and what is its role.

Can you elaborate on that? Why should the debt ceiling issue be put on hold?

No, I don't mean that we should put the issue on hold. I mean that issues like the debt ceiling will no longer be rubber-stamped until we can come to an understanding/consensus on what the size and role of government should be.

Let me explore some generalizations for a moment. Democrats want big government through safety nets. Republicans want big government through "home security" and a strong military. The two parties have been "compromising" for the longest time which has been fine because they both want their programs. I don't know where the TP stands on our foreign wars but I think that they might be for ending them. That would change the debate from the usual "we are going to spend the money, but where?" to "are we going to spend the money at all". I think until we get that question answered the debt ceiling will always be a contentious issue.

[Velokid1]

Good points ^. I don't disagree with any of that really.

I'm not a Democrat so it's a moot point, but for the record I am not for big government. I just think the "no big government" bit is rabid and irrational at the moment. I don't really care what size government is... what I care about is that it is being run by intelligent, kind, rational individuals.

For now, I'd settle for it being run by individuals... period. It's run by businesses right now. Instead of a moral compass, they navigate with a calculator and stock market reports.

I am a fan of the way the Tea Party has shaken things up. Back when I thought Ron Paul was a good choice for President, that was my main draw... I wanted to see shit shaken up.

[Amskeptic]

I'm not a Democrat so it's a moot point, but for the record I am not for big government. I just think the "no big government" bit is rabid and irrational at the moment. I don't really care what size government is... what I care about is that it is being run by intelligent, kind, rational individuals.

I am impatient with the transparency of the illogical arguments going on.

"No big government" trotted out AFTER Republican-initiated debt increases, strikes me as underhanded.

Government, as a percentage of GDP, has been consistently around 22% since 1962.

This debt ceiling crisis is fabricated nonsense. Ask any nonpartisan professional economist if the total national debt is "in the red" and they will tell you that we have longterm adjustments that must be undertaken, but in the current recession-induced economic malaise, now is NOT the time to dramatically cut spending.
Colin