In short, don’t do it.
But here’s that same sentiment, dressed up in lots more words:
It is a tremendous victory for free market activists that, for the first time in history, the debate over raising the debt limit became a debate over cutting spending. For that, we should be heartened that our efforts are truly making a difference. But we must continue to fight, because this deal is simply inadequate to the size of the fiscal challenge our country faces.
Ratings agencies have consistently called for at least $4 trillion in cuts to avoid a downgrade — and rated the Boehner and Reid bills on which the final deal was based as inadequate for putting the country on a sound fiscal footing. This deal includes only $0.9 trillion in guaranteed cuts and in a best case scenario envisions an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts. And these are Washington cuts, not real cuts; they merely reduce the expected rate of increase in spending, while the federal government will continue to grow.
Moreover, the trigger mechanism relies on cuts to Medicare provider payments that are unlikely to generate any real savings given the experience with the failed Sustainable Growth Rate that is routinely “fixed” by annual legislation. The exemption of Medicaid will allow ObamaCare’s enormous expansion of the program to continue unaffected.
Additionally, the new super committee could propose significant new tax hikes, especially increases in business taxes, always a bad idea but especially now, when high rates are already undermining our competitiveness and the economy is still weak.
While we appreciate that the debate has been focused on the right problem of spending and has considerably improved from earlier bipartisan proposals, we must remain firm to our commitment to the Cut, Cap, and Balance approach as the only way to genuinely solve the problem of out-of-control spending. Until strong balanced budget amendment has been adopted, we urge Congress to vote no on authorizing any additional debt.
Once again, CC&B was the compromise, and it would satisfy the credit rating agencies while institutionalizing a compliance mechanism by force of constitutional law.
Over 20 Democrat Senators ran on support for a balanced budget. Some of them are up for re-election in 2012. Republicans in the House need to defeat this Boehner plan, repass CCB, and then pressure the Senate to vote on it — and Obama to veto it if necessary.
The upshot? Instead of giving the President his spending increases and his revenue hikes without any real cuts to spending, you get to unmask either he, the Democrats, or both as willing to let the country’s credit rating be downgraded rather do away with automatic budget increases each and every year.
(thanks to jho)
If we don’t do it, and we’re still paying our notes and our Grannies the day after tomorrow, that would be something interesting that people could notice about what a motherfucking fearmongering liar Obama is.
Also, Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict
…institutionalizing a compliance mechanism by force of constitutional law.
A good start, but I think we’d also have to introduce a mechanism to force compliance with constitutional law. I recommend SquidCo(r) brand torches and pitchforks.
Yep, August 2nd End-of-the-World-Day is an artificial construct to be shown by reaching August 2nd with no deal and no prospect of a deal. Take a few days more Congress, read the bill, think what the bill will do to the nation, think what the bill will do to your careers as politicians even, then vote the bill down because it’s the right thing to do.
Expect a whole lot more of this jazz:
We’ve been played and they’re still playing us. Man, but we’re dim.
Oh, and Speaker Boehner (having just escaped his own self-undoing last Friday) has now placed himself again in the position where when this deal fails, he should offer up his resignation as Speaker. He can’t lead like this.
I agree if this vote fails it’s a vote of no confidence and Boehner has to go away and Jeff Flake is the new speaker and if Meghan’s coward daddy calls everybody hobbits it’s probably just cause he’s deranged.
Were that he would! But:
1) leading like this hasn’t stopped him so far
2) he’s probably arm twisting on that very point “we can’t afford to lose like this (so help me lose gracefully you troglodytic midget!)”
3) Eric Cantor isn’t an improvement.
Or not.
Eric Cantor not only isn’t an improvement, Eric Cantor is knee-deep implicated in the ongoing failure of leadership. He too can take a hike.
Eric can take a hike down to Rite-Aid for free birf controls and with the monies he has left over he can get tasty thrifty brand cotton candy ice cream omg omg in the cone even but if he’s feeling austere you can walk to the back and get a whole carton for only a little more than two scoops cost at the counter!
Mark Levin: Boehner, McConnell Are In Wrong Place In History
the debate over raising the debt limit became a debate over cutting spending. For that, we should be heartened that our efforts are truly making a difference.
Our efforts?
Please.
It’s the sword of Damocles (credit-rating loss; imaginary default) hanging over the heads of these critters that’s got ’em any kind of religion.
And the only reason we’re at a crisis point in the first place is that the critters just kept spending and spending and spending and spending and spending.
Which means that the reason we’re talking about cutting spending is because of the critters’ actions, not ours. Had they listened to us before, they wouldn’t have to listen to us now.
Assuming that’s what they’re doing. Which they’re not.
Also, The Anchoress has some nice pithy quotes by Chesterton on democracy and journalism and stuff.
Ms. Dana had me at CC&B.
It is not like Jeff is not saying the same thing, but it sounds better from Ms. Dana’s mouth.
The word cloud for the WaPo/Pew Poll on the budget talks is worth hanging on to. I think it’ll be handy for describing any number of things what come out of Washington in the next coupla years.
Or not.
Careful now, Pablo. You might upset the poor dear.