“McConnell fallback plan would leave debt-ceiling hikes to Obama.” That is, cede the constitutional authority of Congress to the Executive branch — presumably to force Obama into making the politically unpopular move and save themselves from having to stand tough to the end.
With the casualty being limited government itself.
And here we were praising McConnell. Silly fucking us, we should have known better.
Fail.
****
update: could it be I was too hard on ol’ Mitch? If so, my apologies. But he’s got me conditioned.
****
update 2: Mark Levin thinks that the plan is likely unconstitutional, and that in the end no cuts would come from this — or the cuts would take place in the military. Instead, Levin counsels that the GOP leadership do what’s right and explain their position to the American people.
Jen Rubin and David Brooks don’t like that idea — they’d just as soon we be sensible and “balanced” and go along with Obama and fix “loopholes” for “expenditures” in the tax code — but the rest of us, who happen to be real legal conservatives and classical liberals, understand that it’s time for the GOP to take a stand and trust that they’ll be able to explain to the American people that every household now owes half a million dollars, and that Obama and the Democrats want to keep right on increasing that burden.
It’s time to walk away from negotiations. Walk. Away.
The legislation also would require Obama to suggest spending cuts to accompany those increases in the debt limit, but would not require such cuts.
Republicans are fags.
I’d like to look at it as giving the Dems enough rope to hang themselves, but it’s hard to give the GOP that kind of credit.
I’m buying a three-cornered hat. But instead of a musket, I’m opting for other things.
ezra klein
link
But instead of a musket, I’m opting for other things.
A pitchfork, perhaps? I know of a company that could use a good spokesman…
sdferr posted the particulars of that here. With a link.
so if bumblefuck wants to raise the debt ceiling McConnellwhore’s plan will make him say “pretty please”
ok not really but we haven’t seen the final plan they still might could add that part
Dammit. After Squid’s link to McConnell’s stirring OUTLAW! speech on the other thread, we get THIS idiot idea?
Now, all I can hear is this running through my head.
WaPo’s propaganda slut Jen Rubin says that McConnellwhore’s plan
“would require submission of a plan to reduce spending by a greater amount”
but The Hill says
“The legislation also would require Obama to suggest spending cuts to accompany those increases in the debt limit, but would not require such cuts.”
I’m not seeing how any of this helps America stop being a failshit joke.
rethuglican mitches are such squishes
Hold on. This is not as fucked up as it would initially appear.
I don’t think that’s true. Let McConnell esplain.
I’m still absorbing here, but I’m feeling a “How you like me now, motherfucker?” vibe out of old Mitch. Obama is not going to like this plan. He will not like it on a train. He will not like it on a plane. It’s that direct responsibility thing. He’s not gonna eat it. If that forces him to veto it, that’s the best of all worlds.
Political poker-wise, I think I’m OK with this.
jen the rube beating up on the default strawman
link
And here we were praising McConnell.
See what happens when you encourage them? Do they understand anything but the whip?
It forces Democrats, especially the president, to wear this mess.
yes the media is gonna hammer bumblefuck and his socialists mercilessly … I’m cringing just thinking about it when did American politics become so darn ruthless
The Hill is just another MSM spin machine when they need to be and their sliding in “suggest” for “require” would be one of those little spins.
I want to see the actual language of a bill to judge it.
This is the main worry for me:
“(1) As far as I can tell, there are no enforcement mechanisms to hold the president to his end of the bargain on spending cuts at each step of this process.”
What if Obama decides that the opportunity to jack up spending and the debt level is just too good to pass up and counts on the MBM to run interference and spin it appropriately for him? Then we’re even more hosed than we are today.
This also smacks too much of the usual political “Make the other party look like the bad guy to voters for electoral gain” bullshit that we rightly accuse Democrats of perpetrating and which (along with many other things) got us in this fiscal situation in the first place.
Nope. I’m sticking with this.
They need to keep explaining over and over and OVER until they’re blue in the face that hitting the debt ceiling does not equal default and keep reiterating that tax hires WILL NOT HAPPEN on their watch.
the boner should pass a bill reducing the debt limit by 2 trillion just to f@@k with baracky
Or tax hikes. That will work too.
WaPo says
Heritage and Redstate are not liking the plan.
It’s hardly surprising — no matter how the cards fall eventually, so to say objectively speaking years from now looking back at it — that the Hill would jump right in today trumpeting the enormous victory for Obama of anything McConnell does or does not do. Or so I would salt-grain whatever I see and hear from the likes of the Hill rag, or Mara Liasson types who chortle over what they believe to be the genius of Obama against the poverty stricken stupidity of a McConnell or Boehner. Chortle, mind we, at the impending collapse of the American economy predicted and to be brought to fruition only by Obama and his Treasury Sec.
dan riehl
link
The House on the McConnell plan.
Seems DOA.
Mitchy McConnellwhore: hahahahha Obama using my clever McConnellwhore powers I’m a force YOU to RAISE TEH DEBT CEILING!@!
bumblefuck: ohnoes you rascal you know how much I hate debt
Mitchy McConnellwhore: squirm, motherfucker, squirm!
It isn’t clear to me what the victory is supposed to be from the jaws of which defeat is to be snatched? It would help one and all immensely to spell out what the contours of a victory will be like when 1)the party in opposition holds a single house of Congress and 2) can only block proposals of the majority (Pres. + Senate) but not 3) attain any positive proposal of its own? Obama alone, nevermind the Senate, can stop any bill written in the House. And Obama has never shown any inclination to address the problems at hand, preferring to see the entire government grind to a halt, enabling him to set upon the weak and needy to inflict such pain as he may choose, while concurrently passing the blame on to his opposition with the cheerful complicity of a mendacious press.
To put it another way, what sort of victory is attainable under such conditions? Blocking alone seems all there is. But blocking while capable of as McConnell puts it “doing no harm” doesn’t simultaneously do positive good in the sense of cutting overspending, does it? Or if it can, how?
I’ve made it clear what victory looks like. Walk away. Let Obama decide what spending to cut. His spending — and the spending of the Dems — pushed us up against the debt ceiling. Did they think this day would never come?
The House needs to pass its own spending budget and send it to the Senate. That’s it. That’s victory. Doing nothing but standing firm is victory.
So, is this McConnell move his Herod’s handwashing moment? Instead of grabbing and holding on for dear life for to protect the Constitution, he wraps it around a tumbleweed and sends it out blowing across the prairie, hoping it gets caught in a drift fence before disappearing on the horizon.
Too much of a risk. Just tell BHO to do whatever he thinks he can get away with, without giving him any encouragement. We can’t impeach him if we give him tacit permissions, can we?
“to spell out what the contours of a victory will be like”
1st thing to do is blow out the meme that if nothing is done by 8/2 we default. that’s create a crisis bullshat. the baracky alone would be responsible for a default by not paying our creditors.
The House needs to pass its own spending budget and send it to the Senate. That’s it. That’s victory.
Team Boehnerfag simply isn’t that brave.
We can’t impeach him when the Senate is all leftist true believers who don’t much care about the Constitution. It’s a flawed document that is really pissing them off inasmuch as it throws up roadblocks to the worker’s paradise.
By the way, Boehner didn’t bring the light bulb repeal through the rules committee, and so it required a 2/3rd vote. And so it failed. With a majority.
I hate all these fuckers. I’m ready to fucking fight. We aren’t free. And that’s not the way it’s supposed to be.
I agree with Levin, stand on principle, but explain (clearly) what you are doing. And point out clearly when Obama starts acting mendoucheously (like threatening to cut off social security checks to seniors next week).
We can’t have Edison lightbulbs. In the US.
The Congress tells us so.
Fuck them. I want to build a house out of the fucking things.
What is entailed thereafter? I don’t mind spending some time thinking over the possible, of course unknowable, consequences in political terms. But that means working through a detailed model of what’s a profoundly interlocking scheme of life on the terms of government handouts. What happens in the markets? Nothing? Something? Something good or something bad? I may be profoundly ignorant on top of just plain stupid, but it still seems to me we’d be best off strategically speaking were we to have at least some sense of the more likely consequences of the proposed backturn-walkaway.
What do you mean “what is entailed thereafter”? Obama loses in re-election and then we start rebuilding this bitch.
Or he wins, and we find a state willing to secede. One that allows incandescent lightbulbs.
Ok, nevermind.
Mr. sdferr I think the endgame has to be a more engaged polity. And that’s not the goal of the McConnellwhore Stratagem.
Well, what do you propose? Obama and the Democrats will demagogue the “default,” and the media will help them. But we won’t default. And Obama will have to cut. Unless he claims he has the authority to raise the debt ceiling by bi-passing Congress, in which case it’s time to stage some sort of actual Tea Party. I don’t know what that might look like, but it will happen. And it needs to.
You know who’s good at ginning that engagement up? That Palin lady.
Excuse me if I sound pissed. This light bulb thing is just so remarkably emblematic of the need to revolt that I can’t even see straight right now.
Exactly. Ogabe needs a Repub cave-in to get reelected by the apparent power such a cave-in will grant him in the public square. Do. Nothing. Make the sons of bitches own it.
Also exactly. I shall live my lawful life.
engagement is what happens when for reals oxens get for reals gored I think
The new normal america so far is just a cowardly quivering anesthetized lump of inert.
All of us I think vastly underestimated America’s tolerance level for failshittery and decline.
It’s immense.
“The House needs to pass its own spending budget and send it to the Senate.”
Zzzactly,
Pass a short term extension bill (2 trillion in cuts already agreed to by the Biden group would be an acceptable start) and dare the Senate to block it or Odummy to veto it. Guess who gets credit for the default?
From the Office of the President:
Dear grandma, I am sorry to inform you that you can’t have your social security check because it would be irresponsible to allow anything my idiot VP thought was a good idea to be enacted.
the boner could be every week passing legislation reducing the fed. gov’t and sending it to harry reid’s massage parlor. yea symbolic but look who’s doing nothing? make barry and harry the do nothing twins for 2012. i know d. brookes wouldn’t approve but that’s a plus.
The whole game Ogabe’s playing depends on the craven media lackies in his backfield like those fuckers at CBS. They run perceptions from sea to shining sea.
However, they cannot hold this stance forever. Impending doom tends to focus a man’s mind. At this rate they can’t even hold it for another year.
It’s not infinite. And there’s doubt in his voice.
i’m wondering if upton didn’t tell boner to go this route on the light bulb bill just to say “hey screwed up the 1st time and tried to make amends and it didn’t work out”. that idiot needs primaried.
Boehner didn’t bring the light bulb repeal through the rules committee, and so it required a 2/3rd vote. And so it failed
Just a thought: a 2/3rds vote would have made it veto proof and the repeal could still be brought up via the standard route or as a rider to another bill.
Heritage makes a solid argument, for which I have sympathy and affection. Erickson seems ill informed and awfully screechy.
As for the Heritage argument, and my firm belief that this thing will never become law, I don’t see where bringing this up for a Senate vote and forcing the Senate Dems (or eventually Obama) to kill is in opposition to their desire.
This is walking away, really. Think of it as a lovely parting gift.
Drudge has the more accurate headline even though it is not a quote.
Puts the responsibility and tone right where it belongs.
Motherfuckers.
I think I’ve just invented a new hate crime: slinging CFL’s into Congressional offices.
From geoffb’s article:
“Such an amendment “is not good for the economy; it doesn’t answer the problem, and we need to act because we are capable to doing the work that the American people sent us here to do,” Carney said.”
Who cares what Carney thinks about this? Perhaps someone should inform him that Odummy get’s no vote (and no veto option) on a constitutional amendment. I say let Harry Ried choke on it, I’m sure grandma will understand and stand up for him.
from the comments here
Yeah….no. You’re not. Hence, our little problem.
There you have it. Ogabe is splitting the 2012 opposition already.
Did I miss the change of command appointing Jen Rubin the Conservative Commander?
WSJ piece Drudge linked. Keep a bucket handy.
First sentence:
Third para:
But right there’s the rub. What McConnell takes notice of today is that there simply is no leverage. Never was, in fact. And hence, no victory possible, at least to the extent victory might be defined as a good to the country without suffering a breakdown in regular order, whether of payments or of powers.
“Ogabe is splitting the 2012 opposition already.”
nah baracky is showing the squishes he’s a dick
Default?
“Here’s a great chart from Goldman Sachs that shows how government revenues and obligations will likely match up in August:“
that makes sense Mr. sdferr but remember the republicans didn’t do shit for fiscal sustainability back the last time McConnellwhore was in charge – and there’s no reason to think a future Team R majority would be more resolved than what we have today
if they want us to think they’re serious than they need to act like they’re serious, and I’m not feeling it
then
Of course what Obama will do is fund the “other spending” part as that is what he sees as essential.
Have to concede to you happyfeet, they can’t be serious by definition, for if they were (all of them of course, it should go without saying) the nation never would have reached this pass in the first place.
But who wants to play for second place, ever?
“and there’s no reason to think a future Team R majority would be more resolved than what we have today”
more demints, toomeys, rand pauls, johnson in the senate will eliminate the hazards of people named mitch in leadership.
We need more of these. Here is more information.
This reminds me of those City of Ember books my daughter reads. We are heading for a dark period.
Someone needs to tell Rust01 that Rubin is only notionally on the right.
Kinda like Boehner, McConnell, Brooks….
why aren’t boner, ryan and cantor putting out the default strawman fire?
From the chart it seems that revenue for August is ~220 billion and expenses are ~375 billion. Since the 900 billion per year (75 billion per month)”Stimulus” is still in the budget each year slice that off and now their only ~80 billion an month short. Or to put it in the terms they all are using.
The Federal Government has revenue of $26.4 trillion over the next 10 years, expenses of $45 trillion leaving a deficit to add to the debt of $18.6 trillion raising the debt to $32.9 trillion. Eliminating the “Stimulus” spending saves $9 trillion cutting the 10 year deficit almost in half. Staticly speaking of course.
Juicebox love.
Obama is willing to do anything in order to get a second term.
Obama is obviously more interested in fracturing the GOP and creating a voting plurality situation going into the general. Obama’s figures he will get enough votes to win in such a scenario.
This whole debt ceiling thing is political theater designed to create villains for Obama to demonize during Obama’s election campaign.
Yeah, the plurality vote thing worked for Clinton, but it didn’t work out so well for Carter.
A rising tide kicks all boats in the ass too, dontchaknow.
Report: DeMint, Jim Jordan nix McConnell’s debt-ceiling plan; Update: Dems are considering it, says Durbin
That is exactly what I want to see. Senate Dems will not pass this, but they can’t demagogue it either.
If you’re ever looking for inept and ineffective, call Harry Reid. He’s in charge of it.
Here’s the problem as I see it. McConnell’s plan flatters all of their egos.
His Sovereign Majesty gets to ask for a vote of funds for the privy purse
The Lords get to tisk and tut about His Sovereign Majesty’s need to live off his own resources.
The Commons can go and diddle themselves for all The Lords and the Court care.
And regardless of the vote, His Majesty can go and hit up the
JewsChi-coms!“Obama is willing to do anything in order to get a second term.”
outside of the moonbats who showed up in madison wi who the eff wants this clown?
With “What happens on August 3?”
Leviathan indeed.
You’re sounding a bit 1628 there Ernst.
Felix Salmon thinks balanced books are morally reprehensible.
@78
“The August 2 deadline is real, and no responsible legislator would risk letting it pass. Beyond that date is uncharted territory: Here Be Dragons stuff. Real uncertainty, as opposed to risk: anything could happen, including some extremely catastrophic outcomes related to payment default on maturing Treasury securities.”
ruling class spin
I was trying to sound more 1295 geoff.
1628, 1295, it’s all fun and games until some monarch loses his head.
oh my the computers can’t be reprogrammed quickly for ss. good lay off the cabinet and its agencies.
look baracky we ain’t doing nothing. so pay the old ladies and the creditors or don’t. you own it.
Aw.
Was ever so, since 1913, that is.
newrouter, I’m not saying the strategy will work: See Carter versus Reagan versus Anderson.
I’m saying Obama does not give a shit about the electorate, this country or working at being President.
Obama only cares about Obama and that Obama has incredible amount of self-entitlement to go with his singular lack of accomplishment. Obama likes the title of “President” and the perks that go with the title.
But actually doing the job of President? Obama doesn’t know a thing about the job of president and doesn’t care to learn.
mr. blake is there enough enraged wine bottle people out there for baracky? also what about the bradley effect in baracky’s “likeability”?
Here’s what victory looks like to me — as I think I’ve said before in another thread:
Obama: Any budget plan has to include tax increases as well as spending cuts!!!
Boehner: Fine. Us Republicans will enact the spending cuts now, as a show of good faith, and then we’ll take up any tax hikes you care to propose.
Obama: Well good. I’m glad you extremist godbangers finally came to your senses.
Boehner (one year later): Mr. President, we tried. I worked harder than I ever have in all my life to come up with the votes to pass your tax hikes, but it just couldn’t be done.
Obama: What do you mean you tried? You never even allowed a tax hike proposal out of committee, and any tax hikes the Senate sent you just sank out of sight.
Boehner: I worked behind the scenes, Mr. President. (starts crying) My caucus just wouldn’t listen to me.
Obama: There, there, John. I’m sure you did your best.
Spending cuts. Taken by the language slavers, and turned from meaning “spending less than you are spending now” into “spending more than you are spending now, but not quite as much more as Nancy Pelosi’s wet spending dream”.
That right there is the resonant message of 2012, because he doesn’t. He likes the job and his shady friends like him having it. McConnell’s proposal animates that, which is helpful you the low sloping foreheads in flyover country. And maybe an urban stoner or two. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not joining the Mitch McConnell Fan Club. But…
If he pulls that ball across the goal line, I’m gonna stand up and cheer.
In the tax code!
These people are retarded.
I think the politics of McConnell’s plan are perfect. It’s not permanent, i.e., it only applies to the next three debt-limit increases, and it forces Obama to take all the heat on decisions that are hugely unpopular with the electorate, thereby seriously damaging an already shaky reelection. Here is the WSJ editorial board making the case.
Yup. This:
As it stands, only the House can stop him. Powerless Senate Republicans punting right into his lap is not a bad thing. That really is the best they’ve got.
The best they’ve got is to do nothing — or better, vote in solidarity on a budget pushed through the House. Let Obama and the Democrats own a budget that would have cut spending.
There’s a shocker. Voting to give away Congressional power is ludicrous. The American people are not worried about the “politics”. The House needs to pass a budget that cuts spending and send it to the Senate, where Reid and co can either block it or vote against it.
Done.
Then the President and the Dems own it all. He can’t make them share blame for the 9.2% unemployment. It’s there now and raising the debt ceiling has to do with government overspending, not jobs — save that raising taxes will further hurt job growth.
Easy. Don’t accept the premise, let people know that the money is available to fund social security, the military, medicare, etc., and ask why the President is choosing to cut those programs to make the American people suffer rather than, say, cutting funding to EPA.
No reason to play political chess here. In fact, the GOP — if they really want to play political chess — will come out and say directly they refuse to play political chess, and that they simply aren’t going to raise taxes in an economy with real unemployment of over 11%, particularly when the tax raise is targeted at those who help drive what’s left of the private sector economy.
For that reason, they’re going to stop negotiating and pass their budget. The rest is up to the Dems. This is about the future of the US, not about Obama’s machinations to try to trick the country into re-electing him.
The House has passed a budget and is now in process of creating spending appropriations under that budget through regular order in the various committees of jurisdiction. That process will continue through passage of those appropriations bills on the House floor, whereupon they will be sent to the Senate, presumably to be defeated or altered beyond recognition by the Senate Democrats (that is, unless a goodly number of Senate Democrats come to their senses between now and next Oct., altogether a doubtful prospect).
Leaving that aside then, the House can and should pass a stop-gap bill quickly, calling Obama’s bluff, operating under Boehner’s criterion, i.e. one dollar in cuts for every dollar in debt-ceiling raise to tide the Treasury over a short term, say August and Sept or through Oct. so that the negotiations on serious debt reduction by means of spending cuts coupled with a tax reform aiming at the flatter + broader formula of the Debt commission can be given time to be negotiated out.
Make Obama or the Democrat Senate disapprove a measure to deal directly with the pending lack of funds. Let the people see it. Or, kill the chicken, let the monkey watch.
I would add that the negotiations should be carried on, say, CSPAN, live and complete, and that the table should be with two sides facing each other. The Speaker facing across from Obama and McConnell across from Biden. Obama should not get to pretend he is the unbiased referee but instead is the head of his team facing the head of the other.
why did McConnellwhore bibble babble about his Big Idea before getting the other loser Team Rs on board? Is he a tard?
Seriously. The only one drooling in awe of his McConnellwhore brilliance is WaPo propaganda slut Jen Rubin. What does this tell you?
I predict that the coming revolution will be known as “the Lightbulb Revolt”.
J Pod also ‘feets but more in a resigned to it as the only resolution possible, no drooling.
I’m still taking this in, as today was busy for me and I’m just now hearing about it…
While it’s politically intriguing, in that it makes Obama and the Dems O!wn any increases in the debt ceiling as well as the spending cuts/tax increases that accompany each “tranche”, I have my reservations about establishing a precedent where the executive alone sets spending in this way.
It seems “savvy”, but feels unconstitutional; and gives Obama the kind of authority a tyrant like him has wanted all along.
I’ll have to read more details and think about it further.
But at first glance I don’t think it a “cop out” of sorts as much as some kind of hare-brained sooper-jeeenyus scheme that McConnell thinks is brilliant and foolproof.
And I’m not sure the House would go along with it anyway.
From the WSJ piece that John and Pablo referenced:
They make a pretty good argument for McConnell’s plan. And from other posts I’ve read, it seems like Obama’s lame excuses are getting some traction with the independents that previously were more concerned with NOT raising the debt ceiling. And who can really be sure what kind of public freak-out would occur if the social security checks stopped and the stock market tanked-even for a few days. Can anyone be sure if panicing folks would listen to reason? Would they even pay attention to discussion of it all being contrived by Obama and Timmuh? Or would they succumb to the MBM drumbeat, and the rethugs sacrifice what control they do have in congress back to the Dems in 2012?
All tough questions, to be sure. Should everything be put on the line, to satisfy our wish for confrontation with the lying progressives, or should they be given the rope to hang themselves?
It’s hard to completely hate it, especially since Brooks and Rubin do; but then, Ezra Klein loves it, so there’s that.
I’m inclined to think it’s the only resolution possible too Mr. geoff, a lot cause of Mr. sdferr prodded my thinkings earlier and sure you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar but I’m not really in the fly catching business so I just don’t have anything nice to say.
One thing that gets hard to do is to look at things like this “deal” with your own eyes and not allow others to nudge you. It’s especially hard when the item to be judged is so unusual, accompanied with an emotionally loaded situation and so hard to figure the consequences yea or nay.
I’m trying to simply read and follow what others are arguing on this. I’ll listen harder to those whose judgment has proven good in the past. One thing I have to keep repeating is that it is just as much a logical fallacy to be against something on the basis that someone else is for it as it is to argue for a position because some other person is for it.
“Reservations”? It destroys the idea of separation of powers.
Okay, I’m done. I’ve got nothing left to offer. Hot Air and PJM and Ace, et al., will take good care of you all.
you keep thinking America is land of the free home of the brave
it’s actually a squalid cowardly cum-guzzling whorestate with less dignity than your average tranny thai hooker
And that’s precisely why I have my reservations with the whole scheme. And I’m not thinking that it will pass the House anyway, since no one there will be real excited to give up their constitutional authority to the executive.
The best course that’s not some parlaimentary scheme would be for the House to pass what they want, and let the Senate or Obama kill it.
But make no mistake, it’ll be tough when the shit hits the fan, and the MBM are making sure that the fact that Obama is choosing what to fund will never see the light of day in mass circulation.
When people aren’t getting their social security or VA checks and the troops aren’t being paid, folks might fall for a whole lot of hogwash. It’s a shame, but it’s also true.
I too can’t see it either passing the House or Constitutional muster.
I would think better of it if it was to not have the Obama decided spending cuts be “suggested cuts” but to have them be as actual as the debt ceiling increase. That calling for one is calling for both and they have to stand or fall together on the same voting and vetoing basis.
Time to go sleep on this mess.
Then we best make sure we play by their rules and play their game, adapting to their strategies. It’s the only way to win!
Fuck. I feel like the last 9 years have been a total waste of time.
he will ask you to sacrifice
“Just walk away, and there will be an end to the horror. Just walk away, and we will spare your lives.”
Who the fuck would have guessed Obama was the Lord Humongous, and the Republicans were the fairies in the refinery in white?
yup that’s Ralph Lauren’s kid with the… sweater
You might catch flies with honey but you catch more arugula eating marxist elitists with a nice balsamic vinigaret.
What if we let them raise the debt limit and that’s it. No tax increases. And when people say “where are the cuts”, the response is “give us both houses and the presidency, we’re still on Obama time.”
Just because the debt limit is raised, doesn’t mean we need to increase spending.
I know it will be disappointing, but if it’ lose/lose. Just throwing it out there.
[…] if, I wondered elsewhere, Obama gets his debt-ceiling raised without ANY deal. No tax increases and no spending cuts? Even […]
JeffG,
No, the past 9 years have not been a waste, says I.
In this political dillema I think we can all get a taste of what our nation’s founders experienced when they wrestled with the question of slavery at the Constitutional convention. There were many folks who were offended, and outraged, at the thought of such a moral outrage being codified into our governing compact, even if implicitly. There was also more than a few, on both sides of the argument, that thought their moral position superior, and didn’t want to talk about compromise but wanted confrontation; unwilling to see their morality subjugated to another’s. It came very close to being a situation where no deal would be possible, and that the states would never be able to form a union because of the moral component present in the opposition to slavery. And then Franklin reminded them that they’d been sent, empowered by their constituents, to form a union; the alternative being unacceptable.
In this debate we also have a situation where neither side wants to see what they consider to be their superior moral position subjugated to the other’s; where confrontation, not compromise, is on the mind of many of the players as well as a segment of the public. And unfortunately, once again, we need to make a deal because the likely alternatives aren’t acceptable.
As you and many others have noted, it’s likely that this debate could go on for some time after August 2, and the UD government could continue to meet 60% of their obligations. But regardless of this, there would most likely be large scale economic turmoil, as the stock market roiled and the bond vigilantes descended on the US. This would likely result in a rise in interest rates here at the very least, which, in addition to exacerbating the feds budgetary issues, would adversley effect a great number of households. In short, it could be very bad for the nation as a whole, in addition to being politically disastrous should the MBM and the Dems succeed in cementing the blame on the Rethugs! in people’s mind.
So keeping in mind that it’s for the good of the nation, and that it may actually be an interesting way to force Obama and the Dems to “own” the increases through the next election, this might be one of those moments when compromise, and not confrontation, is in order; literally, for the good of the nation.
I’m not advocating “tearing up the Constitution” Jeff, nothing of the kind. I’m just saying that as immoral, unjust, and unpalatable as all here may view McConnell’s proposed compromise, this may be a situation akin to the one at Constitutional convention. If it becomes necessary to avail ourselves of this solution, let’s hope that it leads to Obama and the Dems electorally losing power in 2012, and leads to real solutions.
Because the remedy for the original faustian bargain was pretty tough medecine indeed…
“And here we were praising McConnell.”
I’ve been away for a week. When exactly were we praising that douchebag McConnell?
If they have the stones to reject tax increases they can damn well reject raising the debt ceiling. Gallup still finds BitterClingerLand is against raising the debt ceiling.
The problem with the democrats ever “owning it” is the press would have to be honest in its reporting, which you know will never ever happen. No matter what occurs, it will be the fault of the evil republicans and extremist tea party and Obama will be the “good man” who stood up to those right wing crazies when the chips were down. Its a political solution but I’m convinced those only work when you can actually get the truth about what’s occurring to the majority of the people.
I’m more inclined to follow Jeff’s path – stand firm and make the democrats own it. We have enough money to pay bills. There’s plenty of things that can and should be cut but Obama won’t do it. Congressional leaders need to start calling the president a lair when he says crap like the social checks won’t go out – they will if you stop putting money into frivilous governmental programs.
I’ve been away for a week. When exactly were we praising that douchebag McConnell?
He told Obama to fuck off in a really good speech, right before he delivered this flaming bag of poo to our doorstep.
If McConnell’s “backup” plan is unconstitutional, it sure isn’t obviously so, at least not to me. Trouble is though, it’s not obviously constitutional either, to the extent that it can appear when in just the right angle of light to have contours defeasing Congressional power, ultimately in the favor of the executive. So no slam dunk either way that I can see.
As to the possibility the thing could pass? This is a somewhat less dark question, I guess, since I don’t think the House would muster the numbers in favor of passage. Here again though, I could be wrong. Still, the point of the exercise, if that’s all it amounts to, is to force Obama to put up spending cuts in detail equal to or greater than the sums needed to cover the older and oncoming debts, and to let the people see those cuts as Obama’s choices.
sdferr,
I’m not trying to co-opt you into my band of percieved capitulating Constitution shredders, but does this situation seem reminiscent of the Constitutional convention arguments and brinkmanship over slavery as I articulated admitedly poorly at # 119?
As far as passing the House, no, I don’t think McConnell’s plan will. There’s been too much outrage over it already by some influential folks to allow people the breathing room to objectively consider it-at least it seems that way to me.
Unless, you know, another James Madison comes along with the fiscal analogue to the bill of rights…
But Hahn’s victory was far from impressive, given an 18-point Democratic registration edge in the 36th Congressional District, which runs from the famous Venice boardwalk through the beach communities south of Los Angeles International Airport.*
What? A heavily liberal district votes in a corrupt, partisan hack of a politician from a family of corrupt, inept politicians? Here in West Illinois (or Illinois By The SEA, if you prefer)?
I tell ya, this idea keeps looking better and better all the time.
Sorry, ‘feets, but this plan leaves you stuck in Failshit CA where all the swanky cupcake shops are.
He told Obama to fuck off in a really good speech, right before he delivered this flaming bag of poo to our doorstep.
Excellent one-sentence summation of the situation.
I like that idea
The lines drawn over the question whether the United States remains a country committed to a natural right theory of government or will formally renounced any such commitment in favor of positive right appears to be in active contention Bob, though neither side of the issue appears generally willing to articulate the grounds of the dispute (with allowances to be made for exceptions among a few honest thinkers on both sides, I suppose).
How those underlying issues unfold in the light of day and the light of legislation is often murky at best. This dispute however, has a more direct implication than the slavery question seemed to have, I think, at least to the extent that it appears to be a more fundamental question directed with precision at the assumptions underlying our whole scheme. Which, so far as I’ve seen wasn’t entirely the intent of the slavers.
The disputes among the founders necessitating compromise, in other words, seemed to concern the practical implementation of an agreed theory of right, whereas here we seem to have no such thing. Which in turn makes the questions arising all the harder to ponder.
I’m not seeing it either. If it were to pass, (which it won’t) it would be Congress authorizing the raise, and dictating how and under what conditions it will occur. I don’t see how that’s surrendering their authority.
Not technically. Only effectively. Because we all know that a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto is not going to happen.
May as well just let Obama claim the authority under his reading of the 14th. Not like the Senate will bring impeachment proceedings. So. Same result.
And anyway, the Constitution is old and fundamentally flawed. I think it makes sense to start tinkering with the separation of powers checks.
I think the problem is the assumed automaticity (if I may be permitted a made-up word for the occasion) of the veto/non-veto override Pablo, itself being the cause of the subsequent spending ceiling raise. In other words, the spending takes place with no-one having voted formally “yes” in favor of it.
Damn, shoulda refreshed.
I get the feeling some aren’t truly understanding the gravity of the situation. Everyone agrees our current trajectory is unsustainable, but it seems the obvious significance of the debt ceiling debate with “unsustainable” is lost on some.
We know there is an endgame to what
wethey are doing; soon servicing the debt is going to dominate the budget, and we will move from “unsustainable” to “unrecoverable”. The only way to stop the progression is to make them live up to a fucking limit.We as a country are robbing future generations of their wealth in order to live beyond our means now. Personally, I’m ok with suffering economic calamity now to stop that. We’ve already gone too far, there will be no reversal without pain. Decide if you’re a patriot or a pussy.
Not paying the military and seniors is a bluff. They might even do it for a while. Call the bluff and watch game change. .
Oh my. These PURISTS are going to be the ruin of us.
LIVE
BRITTANYMITCH (AND HIS BRILLIANTLY CONCEIVED, ALMOST MADISONIAN IN THEIR GENIUS, SHORT TERM POLITICAL PLOYS TO GET THE BLAME OFF REPUBLICANS) ALONE!Short version (for those who don’t like my often longwindedness).
Slept on it and read a bit this morning and I’m now sure that Jeff G. is right in #96-97.
Long version.
Read this in the Morning Jolt email.
It is not that Obama believes that a smash-up will win him a second term, that is just the blah-blah for his lefty base. All the dreams and hopes of that new left coalition are just means to Barack. His end sought is to bring down America by any means necessary and in so doing crash the West. It is the old dream of the USSR which still burns bright in a few true believers even these many years after the fall.
Obama sees a default/shutdown as a means to get his hands on not just the executive but the legislative power of the purse to as he will decide what gets funded and what doesn’t. He believes that he can in one fell swoop do what has been his dream for life, destroy all that America has stood for and then be the one to remake it from the ashes in his own image.
However his choices, and he will have to make choices, about what to fund and what not to will finally make what he himself thinks is the role, the essential part of government clear to all as this is something which cannot be hidden away. Hiding this was the reason the Democrats would never put a budget on the table to be seen by all. That it will take a shutdown/default to unmask their actual positions shows how desperate they have been to hide them all along.
The McConnell plan attempts to do the unmasking without the pain and that will not work. The pain is what will bring enough clarity to reveal what he and they are about to those voters who normally do not pay attention. What, as Jeff G. said in #96-97, the House Republicans have to do is pass and publicize an alternative to what Obama will be doing on funding decisions and make sure that it is known that what is happening is because of the “decider-in-chief” has decided that it will happen.
In an Opinion piece today in US News and Word Report shows what to expect from the “unbiased” press and is suitable as a case study in the left’s use of projection to firm up their reality.
The Economist is a British owned and operated publication. Taking sovereign debt advice from the Euro-zone is of questionable utility. They have done so well there.
Good points sdferr about the underlying premise being on the line instead of merely some nuts-n-bolts of it’s implementation.
I guess I was looking more towards the macro-economic fallout, and likening the necessity of the dedt-ceiling-deal(from a purely economic standpoint) to the do-or-die exigency the founders percieved at the time of the original Constitutional convention.
That is, I think I was focusing on the politics of the moment and not so much the philosophical difference(or similarity) of the players.
Posh, geoffb. Don’t you know that not allowing the federal government to increase its own spending limit so that it can continue to spend money we don’t have on things we don’t want is a form of moral recklessness and economic illiteracy?
Why, everyone knows that the best way to cut spending is to increase the limit on your credit card and give it to a teenage girl, then drop her off at the mall. Take away her credit card and she’ll only refuse to clean her room and won’t go with you to see Grandma and Granpa. And then what are you going to do?
Nuance.
Is it true the Ryan Budget proposes close to $6T in cuts over the next ten years? Seems to me the game isn’t over in the least anyhow.
Hey, Harry Reid endorses the plan — he and McConnell agreed a long time ago that this is not the President’s problem.
Sweet!
If Harry’s for it, and Ezra Klein is for it, well, then so am I, I guess. Pardon my earlier pooh-poohing.
Right about now I expect to hear cries to raise the minimum wage. Aren’t minimum wage raises always a good thing?