DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 03, 2013, 04:38:52 PM
-
Now that we have the ridiculousness of increased taxes as 1 side of the supposed "balanced approach", Obama kept repeating needed to be implimented to deal with the raging debt, time to put up.....
Enjoy the communal sigh of relief while it lasts, America. Sure, the endlessly-discussed "fiscal cliff" has been averted thanks to a flawed, 13th-hour deal -- but the high-stakes partisan wrangling is just beginning. We'll get to the road ahead in a moment, but first, a word or two about the compromise itself. Let's stipulate right out of the gate that it stinks. It was jammed through in late night votes at the last possible minute, it scratches the Left's "fairness" itch to no constructive end, and the CBO calcluates its tax hike to spending cut ratio is roughly 41 to 1. Pathetic. Nevertheless, Phil Klein captures things pretty well with his appraisal of the deal as "objectively bad, but relatively good." He runs through the handful of reasons why it isn't an unvarnished disaster:
At the start of 2013, income taxes were scheduled to go up on nearly every American, but if this deal becomes law, roughly 99 percent of taxpayers would be protected from those tax hikes. For over a decade, Democrats opposed the Bush tax cuts and prevented them from becoming permanent. Now, they have voted overwhelmingly to preserve about 84 percent of the dreaded cuts, which for years they demagogued as only benefitting the very rich. Lawmakers also agreed on permanent changes that minimized the tax increases on estates and capital gains. In addition, the deal permanently prevented the Alternative Minimum Tax (originally passed in 1969 to capture a small number of rich households who were avoiding taxes) from hitting tens and millions of Americans. From a more technical standpoint, this also means that the deal locks in a Congressional Budget Office revenue baseline that will be as low as possible. So, if future Republicans propose real tax reform, we won’t end up with estimates saying that their proposals would cost trillions of dollars, because such proposals will no longer be judged against an unrealistic baseline that assumes all of the Bush tax cuts would otherwise expire and open the floodgates to new revenue. A less publicized but still significant positive from the deal is that it formally repeals the CLASS Act, a long-term care entitlement that is part of Obama’s national health care law. There’s a lot to hate in this deal, no doubt. But any honest assessment of it must grapple with the reality of Obama as president, Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader and $4.5 trillion in automatic tax hikes hitting in the new year. With this in mind, I’d rate the deal as objectively bad, but relatively good.
I'd again emphasize that the Bush tax rates on 99 percent of Americans are now permanent. House Republican leadership fractured on the question of final passage, with Paul Ryan, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Boehner himself voting aye (Speakers rarely cast votes), and Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy voting no. The GOP's rank and file opposed the bill by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, with a handful of Democrats joining the "no" crowd. Thus, most tallies in favor of sending the bill to the president's desk came from Democrats; Boehner shelved the House's "majority of the majority" rule of thumb to allow an up-or-down verdict on the bill. Will this fuel an internecine revolt against him, or are most members willing to forgive their cornered leader's power play -- particularly after the pre-Christmas "plan B" fiasco? We'll know soon enough. The new Congress is sworn in today, and the Speaker election is expected around noon. Rumors of Boehner's demise may have been premature. We'll see. Meanwhile, the president has returned to Hawaii to resume his vacation...at an additional cost of $3 million to John Q. Taxpayer.
Which brings us to what lies ahead. Obama delivered a useless, petulant, counter-productive speech on New Year's Eve, which incensed House Republicans and threatened to derail the ongoing McConnell/Biden negotiations. (Sidebar: It's noteworthy that once Harry Reid left the room, a deal finally got done). Obama's remarks weren't merely about gloating, base-pandering, and demagoguery -- which are all staples of the president's rhetorical repertoire, of course. No, they seemed primarily designed to lay the groundwork for the next round of cliff-esque drama, due in February or March. For all his gloating about Republicans being forced to permit Democrats to enact some tax rate increases, he quickly cautioned that forthcoming deliberations over debt reduction would also require "revenue" increases on "the rich" and "large corporations." This was Obama's unsubtle way of warning Republicans that he'll be demanding even more tax increases this winter when the debt ceiling debate sets this city aflame. Also keep in mind that the new cliff compromise kicks the controversial sequestration cuts down the road for two more months. The automatic sweeping cuts that were to be the legally-mandated consequence of a "Super Committee" failure to settle on a spending cut package have been postponed. That failure is at hand, but the cuts are not. Surprise. So the central spending reduction gimmick from the last debt ceiling deal has thus far resulted in zero cuts, and has been shoved off yet again...as another debt ceiling brawl is looming because we've already blown through those additional trillions.
This, I think, provides a real opening for Republicans to finally regain their political footing. Obama and his Congressional allies exploited the GOP's unpopularity and internal chaos to force tax rate increases on "the rich." Indeed, Washington just birthed a dreadful bill that postpones the only real spending cuts on the table and jacks up taxes. It's a fairnesspalooza. But it will accomplish nothing. We'll still have a massive deficit, our debt will continue to swell, and the $600 Billion in anticipated revenues over ten years are already slated to head right out the door in the form of new spending. When we hit our debt ceiling this winter (we've technically already done so), the American people will be treated to yet another political spectacle, replete with the now-familiar warnings about our nation's credit rating, hysterical threats about a government shutdown, and a ticking clock. This is what the "Doc Fix Economy" hath wrought: Rather than engaging in standard budgeting -- as Congress is required to do -- Democrats have ushered in a new era of budget-free governance, resulting in a maddening parade of recurring, man-made "emergencies." It's throughly dysfunctional, and the cycle must be broken. If and when Obama resurrects his class warfare/more taxes schtick in a few months, Republicans can occupy the high ground by pointing to the fiscal cliff and advancing actual solutions:
You've gotten your pet tax hikes, Mr. President. The last batch of meaningful spending cuts have been delayed. Our deficits remain out of hand. Our official debt is larger than our GDP, and our real debt is far, far worse. We must fundamentally change our tax code. We must reduce our spending. And we must reform the largest long-term drivers of our debt, something that even you have acknowledged. Tinkering at the margins with populist appeals about raising taxes on Daddy Warbucks won't cut it. Those taxes already went up, despite our vehement objections. You "won." But now it's time for real solutions...
As they prepare for battle, every single Republican lawmaker should review and internalize the following exchange on MSNBC yesterday morning, in which Sen. Pat Toomey -- a conservative from Pennsylvania -- lays out this case clearly and articulately:
Sen. Toomey discusses the fiscal cliff on MSNBC's Morning Joe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNTm0yYjRrM#)
Pitch perfect, detailed, and digestible for public comprehension. More of this, please.
UPDATE - Ask and you shall receive. Mitch McConnell lays down his markers in advance of the next debt punch-up:
Now that the House and Senate have acted in a bipartisan way to prevent tax increases on 99 percent of the American people, Democrats now have the opportunity—and the responsibility—to join Republicans in a serious effort to reduce Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for. Despite the President’s call for more and more Americans to send even more of their paychecks to Washington, the federal government will still have another trillion-dollar deficit this year. But in the upcoming months, we will have the opportunity to put our country back on sound financial footing—and there’s no excuse not to seize it. The President claims to want a balanced approach to solve our problems. And now that he has the tax rates he wants, his calls for ‘balance’ mean he must join us in our efforts to achieve meaningful spending and government reform. We have an immediate opportunity to act: the debt ceiling. Washington’s credit card has reached its limit again, and the Senate majority must act on legislation early in February—rather than waiting until the last minute, abdicating responsibility and hoping someone else will step in once again to craft a last-minute solution for them. Once the Senate passes bipartisan legislation, we can conference with the House on a solution. But this time the entire Senate must have an opportunity to act.
UPDATE II - No amount of tendentious presidential rhetoric or "fair share" fetishism can wash away this reality:
(http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u1842/2013/01/YLchart1.jpg)
....or shut up (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/01/03/reminder-the-fiscal-cliff-solution-just-sets-up-another-political-fight-n1477742)
-
Peas are all the rage when it comes to talking about the country’s fiscal woes.
You might remember that in July of 2011, when fighting over the debt ceiling, president Obama- right before he left for his 17th vacation at Martha’s Vineyard that year- complained about congressional inaction by saying that’s it time for the country “to eat its peas.”
From CBSNews:
"I've been hearing from my Republican friends for some time it is a moral imperative to tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way," Mr. Obama said. "What I've said to them is, let's go."
The president said today he would not accept a smaller, short-term deal. "We might as well do it now," he said. "Pull off the band aid. Eat our peas."
Of course the president and Congress refused to eat their peas then, preferring to put it off until after the presidential election. There were far too many sweets at the table going into an election year- and delicious pork too.
But, now the election is over. Sweets are off the table; the congress is a lame duck even if still addicted to pork. And a deal has been FINALLY struck to “tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way.”
Just wait; this ought to be really funny.
Because now we have an idea just exactly how many peas Obama meant in 2011 when he said it was time to “eat our peas.”
Ahem.
Here’s what he meant: one (1) pea.
Yum. Thanks Congress! Thanks Mr. Obama!
Now we’re too full apparently for any more peas. Glad we’ve shown how serious we are about deficit reduction too.
At least that’s the take of Rick Santelli, the editor at CNBC, who helped create the Tea Party by his famous soliloquy calling for a Tea Party in Chicago reminiscent of the one that took place in Boston in 1773.
Back then Santelli was outraged by the administration’s proposals to bailout homeowners who were behind in their mortgages. He nailed the administration on encouraging bad behavior by trying to keep people in houses they couldn’t- and still can’t- afford.
“We’re thinking about having a Chicago Tea Party in July,” shouted Santelli to cheers on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange as CNBC host Joe Kernen made comments about mob rule. “All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna organize it.”
Now he’s taking on the deficit and runaway spending and the politicians who promote more reckless spending.
Earlier this year, the showman Santelli smashed melons with a large wooden mallet- ala the comedian Gallagher- to make a point to politicians about how easy it was to undertake deficit reduction.
“Smash some deficits, smash some deficits, smash some deficits,” he cried as the mallet mashed the melon meat until the juice flew.
Let’s just say that with those melons as a benchmark, Santelli is less than enamored of the newest, bestest deal out of congress and the president to reduce the deficit and cut down spending.
As a result of the deal, Santelli this week held up one pea against a white board.
He then smashed it with a hammer.
“There’s our debt smashing for the end of the year,” said Santelli comparing it to the melons. “It’s basically a pea,” he added comparing the debt to the size of the Empire State Building.
“It’s pretty much about a tax deal. We have done all of this to arrive at an arrangement on taxes [by raising taxes without cutting spending].”
No word yet if the pea is one missing from the White House.
But this much is certain: If it is, it won’t be missed by Obama.
He's already full of peas; or pea, as it were.
Seriously.
Send your pea- one (1) only- to: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20006. (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/01/03/a-pea-party-for-the-tea-party-n1477887)
-
So , is this a good time to produce a new spending cut or loophole closing bill?
Just a little one .
I am surprised that Pat Toomy thinks that the presidents new tax will be a 6% of the spending gap to the good, I would have guessed less.
6% is pretty good if you don't stop there, find another 6% of fix in closed loop holes or spending cuts and then find another 6% every six months.
A six percent improvment every six months would fix the problem of having deficit spending in about ten years.
-
Twenty-three point nine trillion dollars.
That will be our national debt in 2022 under the fiscal-cliff bill that just passed Congress. That’s nearly $4 trillion more than the current-law baseline, and while most of that comes from making the Bush tax cuts permanent for most Americans without offsetting the loss of revenue through spending cuts, at least $330 billion of the new debt results from the increased spending that was part of the deal. Our government debt will amount to more than 118 percent of GDP.
So the deal not only fails to cut spending, it also simply tosses more money on top of the spending increases that were already built into future budgets. Now the federal government will spend $5.5 trillion in 2022, compared with $3.5 trillion this year. We will be spending $2 trillion more per year and facing $1.5 trillion more in debt than if federal spending were to rise commensurate with population growth plus inflation over the next ten years.
And this is only going to get worse after 2022, as entitlements, still unreformed after the cliff deal, explode. By 2050, our national debt will top $58 trillion in today’s dollars. That’s more than double what it would be if the increase in federal spending were limited to inflation plus population growth.
How did we end up with this epic failure? In part, it was because Republicans’ fixation on cutting taxes blinded them to the real threat to economic growth and freedom — the growing size of the federal government.
I would be among the first to agree that raising taxes is bad. Tax hikes take more money out of the productive sector of the economy and redistribute it to the non-productive governmental sector, slowing economic growth. The distortions in economic decision-making brought about by those taxes will slow growth and reduce prosperity even further.
But even more important, taxes appropriate the property that an individual has justly earned through his labor or ingenuity. Every dollar that the government takes from an individual is one less dollar that he or she can save, invest, or spend as he or she sees fit.
But simply paying for big government through debt rather than taxes is not an appreciable improvement. As Harvard’s Robert Barro points out, there is a “significantly negative relation between the growth of real GDP and the growth of the government share of GDP.” And, of course, our liberty is further constrained as a growing government takes up more and more space that once belonged to individuals and their choices.
Yet during the fiscal-cliff negotiations, Republicans were all too willing to forgo spending cuts as long as they were able to retain some additional tax cuts.
Republicans claim that, having disposed of the tax issue, they will now devote all their attention to securing spending reductions as part of the continuing-resolution and debt-ceiling negotiations to come. But President Obama is already laying the political groundwork for this debate, warning that Republicans will risk throwing the country into default over the debt ceiling in order to cut Social Security and Medicare. Will the GOP have the courage to insist on making the deep and painful cuts that will be required to restore us to fiscal sanity?
Forgive me for being skeptical, but not only did the last debt-ceiling agreement fail to actually cut spending (federal spending rose by $61.5 billion in the twelve months following that deal), the fiscal-cliff agreement undid two months’ worth, or $24 billion, of the sequestration cuts resulting from the debt-ceiling compromise. Indeed, congressional negotiators will spend the next two months looking for ways to undo the rest of the sequester.
“God put the Republican Party on earth to cut taxes,” the late columnist Robert Novak once noted. “If they can’t do that, they have no useful purpose.” Perhaps. But unless Republicans are willing to see that spending is every bit as big a threat to liberty and prosperity as taxes are, America is well on its way to becoming Greece.
The Spending Cliff (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/spending-cliff)
-
You hear that we are becoming Greece a lot these days, but we are not.
I wish we were, Greece has a friend in Germany and can get a lot of help in digging itself out.
Germany is like the biggest climber lashed to the others as they cross a glacier, if Greece falls into a cravasse Germany can belay untill Greece can cut steps and climb out again. Europe needs Germany to be big and conservative and stable.
The USA has a lot of climbing partners , we are attached to all the world , but unlike Greece none of the partners we are attached to has more than ten times our size and resorces.
If the USA falls into a Cravasse we are going to the bottom , and just about all of our friends are going to land on the top of us, we are the fat guy that all the rest together cannot belay. There in the cold dark deep under the ice we will have plenty of oppurtunity to recall all of our wasted oppurtunity.
-
You hear that we are becoming Greece a lot these days, but we are not.
Not that we are Greece, simply in that we are heading that direction, and with the last DC "compromise" worked out, we picked up some speed, on that road
The USA has a lot of climbing partners , we are attached to all the world , but unlike Greece none of the partners we are attached to has more than ten times our size and resorces.
Alas, as the debt worsens, and it will, folks like Germany & China, and many others will not see us for the good "investment" they think it is currently, and simply stop lending us money....at least not at the lower interests rates we're presently getting
-
Absolutely! And the first place to start cutting is entitlements. They can cut my SS and my VA compensation. I know vets that are getting 100% from the VA who shouldn't be getting one red cent. The problem though is that it isn't just the Democrats who have feet of clay when it comes to entitlements, the Republicans do to.
So, push your congressmen, tell them you are willing to take a cut on your entitlements, and lets get this show on the road.
BSB
-
Riiiiiiight,,,,,,,,like that's what's being advocated. One always knows when a leftist is empty on substance...they make up for in extreme hyperbole. Bravo
-
That is what has to be done. It's the entitlements. I'm being dead serious.
What a shithead. You point out what has to be cut and the dipstick disagrees. lol
BSB
-
That is what has to be done. It's the entitlements. I'm being dead serious.
Yea, that does need reforming. So who the hell is claiming it needs scrapped?? Not 1 red cent, you bellowed. Nor is it simply entitlements, since there's a whole host of agencies and programs that we can seriously discuss their merits and appropriateness.
Any time you wish to get "dead serious", with dicussions on how best they can be reformed, please send us a memo. Until then, enjoy bathing in the idiocy of your hyperbole
-
You watching this BT? This is your fault. You kept this idiot around here.
BSB
-
So, the one throwing the hyperbole is "the sane" one here? The one trying to have a substantive "conversation"? Yea, riiiiiiigt. As Bsb again reinforces, when lacking substance to a debate, throw hyperbole, and/or more personal insults
You know B, what would be a breath of fresh air, is instead of just sputtering insults, at anyone that doesn't support your ignorant tactics, back them up. How am I an idiot? How is Plane a phony? How is Cu4, or any other conservative a moron? Not just because you say so, but with actual examples. That at least would be some effort of yours to "think" vs just spewing, since you've demonstrated pretty much squat ability to actual debate the issues being discussed, such as in this thread or any thread related to CCW's & guns
-
Not just because you say so, but with actual examples.
Be carefull what you wish for.
-
Entitlements are such a big budget item , and growing so , that no budget deal that totally preserves them has any hope of reduceing deficet spending.
It may be politicly necessacery to cut a bit off of everything elese first but the growth of entitlements needs to stop and reverse because we basicly can't afford them as they are, let alone as they will be if they grow as projected.
But it is going to cause a lot of pain as the people who are just marginally coping with their finances find the ground being cut from under them.
Has our government the ability to cause widespread pain with even a mild austerity program?
-
Not just because you say so, but with actual examples.
Be carefull what you wish for.
hehe......they have to be credible examples. Like if he were to try and use what's a military assault weapon. He's going by looks and how a military person could use a weapon. I'm going by the military definition, which includes the option of being able to select an automatic mode. So that'd be a bogus example. He could opine about how is "not necessary" that someone like me should have the ability to carry a weapon, yet I have empirical data & facts that demonstrate the increased safety and decreased death associated with people who carry. So, I'm not afraid of his supposed superior say so, since most facts would debunk it. However, I would be wholly curious as to any credible examples he might have
-
There was no hyperbole sirs.
You're a sad case and we all have to pay for it in here everyday.
BSB
-
So, in other words, you have squat, be it back up to advocates for total take down of entitlements, or sirs' supposed idiocy. Thanks for the confirmation
-
No one said anything about a total takedown.
Sirs just continues to be a pain day in and day out.
BSB
-
No one said anything about a total takedown.
Not one red cent, YOU said. Is that what YOU are advocating??
Sirs just continues to be a pain day in and day out.
BSB
Naaa, just hilighting absurdity day in and day out
sirs
-
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
More pain in the assisms from Sirs. You have to wonder, is he drug dependent? I'm not sure it's possible to be as big a distraction without a chemical aid.
BSB
-
Naaaa....more unsubstantiated insults from Bsb. Can't back up accusations, can't back up claims, can't even acknowledge if its his suggestion that certain entitlements be scrapped....."not 1 red cent". Can only throw insults. Hey, but if it makes him "feel" better, who am I to rain on that delusional parade. Have at it, big fella 8)
-
Do you know what reading comprehension is sirs? This is what I posted:
"I know vets that are getting 100% from the VA who shouldn't be getting one red cent. "
That means those particular vets don't deserve one red cent. Nothing about cutting benefits to all vets.
Sirs just continues to be a pain day after day, post after post.
BSB
-
Why should they not be getting 1 red cent?? Were they not verterens who represented and sacrificed themselves for this country?? Why should they be denied everything, per your parameters??
-
Because they are cheats sirs. Some people cheat SS disability, welfare, and so forth, some vets cheat the VA. Very simple.
BSB
-
And how exactly are they "cheating"? You do realize the bigger the program, the more "cheaters", and the easier it is to "cheat". Of course the sad part is, whatever "cheating" is occuring, that it's occuring with our tax dollars, and yet Obamination care looks to rachet up the health care program exponentially.
-
Peter Orszag argued as much yesterday, and Byron York continues the same argument today. By splitting the fiscal cliff into two different debates — one on taxes, the other on spending and debt — Republicans shed their worst political position with a one-off concession and can now concentrate on a political strength. Or at least that’s what they hope:
Their thinking was this: The GOP was on the wrong side of the polls in the battle over raising taxes on the highest earners. Surveys showed substantial public support for the president and Democrats on that issue. But Republicans are on the right side of the polls in the battle over fiscal responsibility. The GOP, the party trying to put sensible limits on Obama’s runaway spending, is better positioned to make the case for cuts.
“We’re making a hard pivot to spending,” says a senior GOP Senate aide. “Our view is that the revenue question has now been settled. It’s behind us. Now we fight on spending, and we’ve got two good opportunities to do so coming up — the debt limit and the continuing resolution.”
The Republican strategy is more than just positioning. It’s the right thing to do. Everybody knows Obama’s tax increases will do little to reduce deficits in coming years; they’ll add about $60 billion in revenue a year, turning a $1.2 trillion deficit into a $1.14 trillion deficit. And everybody knows entitlement spending is on its way to eating the entire federal budget. It has to be reduced or disaster awaits.
Byron notes that Barack Obama will try to get more tax increases in the next round too, demanding the deduction elimination the GOP proposed in this round as an alternative to raising rates. However, Obama undermined his own argument on that point repeatedly over the last few weeks by deriding it as too little to make an impact on the deficit. Ever since September 2011, Obama has insisted that the so-called Buffett Rule rates would make the system “fair” and relieve the deficit problem. In two months, it will be clear that revenues aren’t rising enough to even make a noticeable dent in the trajectory of the deficit, and that will further strengthen the GOP’s hand.
Jim Geraghty also points out that the tax-rate argument has been the Democrats’ only answer for the deficit since Obama was a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature:
Looks like a pretty slam-dunk counter-argument for Republicans: “Why the hell are you guys talking about raising taxes on the richest Americans again? We just did that at the beginning of the year! We haven’t even reached the annual tax-filing deadline of April 16, and your calcified one-track minds are coming back with the exact same policy recommendations that you insisted would fix the problem before!”
And just think, this debate will occur as everyone in America sees their paychecks get 2 percent smaller (at least on the first $110,000 of income) because of the expiration of the temporary reduction in the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. (Here’s one Democratic Underground commenter exclaiming with surprise, “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with.”)
One of the fundamental reasons that “raise taxes on the rich” is less popular than Democrats want is the public’s well-founded wariness of just what income level constitutes “rich” in the eyes of lawmakers.
Obama is proudly proclaiming that he saved the middle class from a tax hike, and that he only raised taxes on the rich. But since most voters perceive their taxes in aggregate – that is, what’s left on their pay stub after everybody takes their bite – they’ll probably perceive the opposite, that an income tax hike supposedly targeting the rich made their paychecks 2 percent smaller. Thus, they’ll be even more skeptical than usual, since they’ll think the last tax hike on “the rich” hit them instead.
So the Republicans have better leverage for the spending fight in two months. That doesn’t mean they’ll have all the leverage, or even most of it, since Obama and Harry Reid outnumber John Boehner. However, there won’t be any more appetite for tax hikes, especially if the economy takes a hit from the rate increases and other changes passed on Tuesday. That’s what Investors Business Daily expects to see — and they’re not alone, either:
Let’s look at what Obama has managed to achieve with his $620 billion tax hike on the wealthy and the boost in the payroll tax rate.
• They’ll hurt the economy. Economists are admitting the fiscal deal will slow the already sluggish economic growth.
Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi says the higher taxes on the wealthy and the increase in payroll taxes will shave close to 1 point off GDP growth this year and result in 600,000 fewer new jobs.
Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors chief economist Ian Shepherdson figures the deal will cut GDP by 1.5 points. And Gallup’s chief economist Dennis Jacobe says the deal has created a “higher probability of recession — just the opposite of what fixing the fiscal cliff was intended to do.”
• They’ll do nothing to fix the debt crisis. Even with the Obama tax hikes, deficits are likely to reach nearly $1 trillion this year and top $6 trillion over the next decade (see chart). Worse, by slowing economic growth, the tax increase makes tackling the nation’s debt crisis all the harder. Getting deficits under control means tackling the massive growth in entitlement spending. But Obama still hasn’t put forward a credible plan to do so. If he fails again, he’ll pay a price with the public. And if he does put forward a plan, he’ll find himself at war with his own party.
The problem that underlies both debates is the national debt, which is soaring to Greece levels and shows no sign of abating under Obama’s perpetual trillion-dollar annual deficits. Michael Ramirez captures the issue perfectly for Investors Business Daily, and warns Obama that it may not be safe to go back into the water. Obviously, Michael is a big fan of Jaws:
(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ramirez-debt.jpg)
As Glenn Reynolds is fond of writing, that which cannot be sustained … won’t be (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/04/has-leverage-switched-to-republicans-on-spending-cuts/).
-
Remember this?
Harry Reid in '06: Raising debt limit last thing we should do, will weaken country, hurt economy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELkbDdPeL7I#ws)
-
Debating the debt ceiling is stupid and counterproductive, regardless of party.
-
Debating the debt ceiling is stupid and counterproductive, regardless of party.
Isn't that the job of the congress?
-
Only if they are homogeneously stupid.
If they want to cut spending, they should vote on cutting spending, NOT shutting down the government and refusing to pay for items they already owe money for.
-
Debating the debt ceiling is stupid and counterproductive, regardless of party.
Then why have it?? What was Reid ranting about if it isn't important?....just some gimmick?
Harry Reid in '06: Raising debt limit last thing we should do, will weaken country, hurt economy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELkbDdPeL7I#ws)
-
When more gets spent than they have authorised , they can't even talk about it?
-
This coin idea is hilarious.
Treasury: We won’t mint a platinum coin to sidestep the debt ceiling
Posted by Ezra Klein on January 12, 2013 at 3:32 pm
The Treasury Department will not mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin to get around the debt ceiling. If they did, the Federal Reserve would not accept it.
That’s the bottom line of the statement that Anthony Coley, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, gave me today. “Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit,” he said.
An Australian $1 coin stands on a U.S. $1 note. (Tim Wimborne – Reuters)
The inclusion of the Federal Reserve is significant. For the platinum coin idea to work, the Federal Reserve would have to treat it as a legal way for the Treasury Department to create currency. If they don’t believe it’s legal and would not credit the Treasury Department’s deposit, the platinum coin would be worthless.
The idea of minting a platinum coin to invalidate the debt ceiling comes from a few key sentences tacked onto the 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” it reads, “the Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue platinum coins in such quantity and of such variety as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.”
The author of those sentences was Mike Castle, a Republican congressman from Delaware. The intent was to help coin collectors who wanted the Treasury Department to mint cheaper platinum coins. “People couldn’t afford the $600 investment, so they wanted the flexibility to put in smaller coinage so that people could collect them,” Castle told Wonkblog this month. But in giving the Treasury Department the flexibility to mint platinum coins of little value, Castle accidentally gave them the flexibility to mint platinum coins of unlimited value. “That was never the intent of anything that I drafted or that anyone who worked with me drafted,” Castle continued.
The idea of minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin was first floated in May 2010, in the comment section of “The Center of the Universe,” a blog devoted to Modern Monetary Theory. The author was a lawyer writing under the pseudonym Beowulf. “Curiously enough Congress has already delegated to [Treasury] all the seignorage power authority it needs to mint a $1 trillion coin (even numismatic coins are legal tender at their face value and must be accepted by the Federal Reserve) — the catch is, it’s gotta be made of platinum.”
The platinum coin idea gained some powerful adherents during the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011, but it really developed traction following the 2012 fiscal cliff deal, as politicians and economics writers realized that the country would, indeed, be facing another debt-ceiling crisis in a matter of months. A Twitter campaign by Joe Weisenthal, of Business Insider, and Josh Barro, of Bloomberg View, forced it into the conversation, and subsequent endorsements by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman and former U.S. Mint director Philip Diehl gave it further legitimacy.
But others, including myself, worried that the coin would be seen as an unprecedented power grab by the president, leading to a far more bitter standoff over the debt ceiling, a possible panic in the financial markets and a showdown in the courts. There was also the simple fact that it would, indeed, represent an admission that the government’s executive and legislative branches could no longer be trusted to come together and effectively manage the country’s finances.
Nevertheless, many top Democrats believed that the White House needed some kind of fallback option. Former president Bill Clinton said that if he were in office, he would invoke the 14th Amendment to call the debt ceiling unconstitutional “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”
On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his leadership team sent President Obama a letter urging him to “to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global crisis — without congressional approval, if necessary.”
In response, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement saying that to avoid the debt ceiling, “Democrats are looking at everything from the ridiculous (printing a trillion-dollar coin) to outright abdication of Congressional responsibility. But avoiding this problem will only make it worse.”
The White House seems to agree. This is, in fact, the second time that the Obama administration has ruled out a possible end run on the debt ceiling. In December, Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “This administration does not believe the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling — period.”
The administration’s position is that raising the debt limit is Congress’s responsibility until the day that Congress votes to make it the White House’s responsibility, which is a resolution the Obama administration would happily accept. Until then, White House officials say, they will not negotiate over the debt ceiling, and if congressional Republicans attempt to use it as leverage, then the consequences will be theirs to bear. As White HOuse Press Secretary Jay Carney put it, “there are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default,.”
-
Hahahahahahaa!
The Congressman Who Jump Started 'Mint The Coin' Criticizes The White House For Ruling Out A Bargaining Chip
Brett LoGiurato|Jan. 12, 2013, 8:05 PM|735|11
http://www.businessinsider.com/jerry-nadler-trillion-dollar-coin-end-platinum-mint-obama-white-house-treasury-2013-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/jerry-nadler-trillion-dollar-coin-end-platinum-mint-obama-white-house-treasury-2013-1)
Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, the Congressman who first promoted the idea of the Federal Reserve minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin to work around the debt ceiling, said Saturday night that its demise is a "shame." In response, Nadler said he would soon introduce legislation to permanently repeal the debt ceiling altogether.
In a statement provided to Business Insider, Nadler questioned why the Obama administration would rule out "one of the very few bargaining chips it has" on the debt ceiling if Congressional Republicans do not agree to raise it by sometime next month.
Earlier on Saturday, both the Treasury and White House officially ruled out the trillion-dollar coin option as a means of working around the debt ceiling. The White House has also repeatedly declined to consider another theoretical option — invoking the 14th Amendment.
Here's Nadler's full statement on the situation:
"It's really a shame that the administration is ruling out one of the very few bargaining chips it has with Republican extremists who are intent, once again, on using the debt ceiling as a means of political blackmail. That leaves us just two options of which I'm aware to gain leverage against GOP hostage takers: the 14th amendment and repealing the debt ceiling altogether through legislation I'll soon introduce. We must be prepared to use every weapon within our arsenal to prevent defaulting on our debts and sending our economy into a tailspin."
Nadler was the only member of Congress to explicitly promote the trillion-dollar coin option. The top four Senate Democrats wrote President Barack Obama a letter on Friday urging him to "take any lawful steps" to work around the debt ceiling, but they did not specifically endorse the coin as an option.
Nadler's statement is further evidence that Democrats are somewhat dumbfounded by the administration's decision to rule out the trillion-dollar coin option. Earlier, a Senate Democratic aide told Business Insider that "it's certainly a strange negotiating strategy to go out of your way to decrease your leverage by taking options off the table."
-
The idea behind the trillion dollar platinum coin was so outrageous, one wonders how it even had any legislative traction. I mean, let's mint a whole bunch of them, deposit them in the treasury, and poof, debt has been retired....we're now running a surplus!! Brilliant, right? :o
-
About that legislative authority to mint the coin:
The story starts in 1995, when Rep. Michael Castle, then the Republican at-large representative for Delaware, took over as head of the House Financial Services subcommittee on domestic and international monetary policy. Issues of coinage were part of that subcommittee’s jurisdiction, and so Castle — who tells me that he personally has never collected coins or previously hadn’t had much interest in coin issues — started working with coin collectors and others to draft legislation on the topic.
Castle’s biggest accomplishment in the role was the 50-state quarter program, which involved issuing 50 differently designed quarters in the order the states were admitted to the Union (it isn’t a coincidence that Castle’s home state of Delaware was the first admitted). But he also drafted a bill, the Commemorative Coin Authorization and Reform Act of 1995, that included this provision:
The Secretary may mint and issue bullion and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
There’s a slight problem here. The law stated that the Secretary may issue “bullion and proof platinum coins,” but does not state explicitly that the bullion he issues must be platinum. This was later corrected by the United States Mint Numismatic Coin Clarification Act of 2000, written by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), who until this start of this Congress chaired the Financial Services committee. That act struck the word “bullion” and replaced it with “platinum bullion coins.”
When I told Castle — who, following a defeat by tea party activist Christine O’Donnell in the 2010 Republican Senate primary, became a partner in the lobbying division of DLA Piper — about the platinum coin solution for the debt ceiling, he was baffled. “That was never the intent of anything that I drafted or that anyone who worked with me drafted…It seems to me that whatever’s being proposed here is a stretch beyond anything we were trying to do,” he said, audibly astonished.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/04/michael-castle-unsuspecting-godfather-of-the-1-trillion-coin-solution/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/04/michael-castle-unsuspecting-godfather-of-the-1-trillion-coin-solution/)
-
Interesting
-
It could be a REALLY LARGE coin, like the natives used to make of stone on the Pacific Island of Truk (now called Chuuk).
It is not as stupid as allowing idiot Republicans to wreck the credit rating of the nation by shutting the government down.
I do not approve of using a refusal or threat of a refusal to raise the debt limit or to shut the government down by either party. Keep in mind, however, that the Genius Newtster actually was the one who shut down the government, and the fool still thinks it was a clever thing to do.
-
Then why have a debt ceiling?? What was Reid ranting about if it isn't important?....just some gimmick?
-
I am all for doing away with the debt ceiling. I really do not care what Reid thinks. He does not support my views, nor I his. I do not care what his motives are, or were.
-
But you didn't answer the question.......why is there one?? And why is DC making such a big deal about it, if we can simply "do away with it"?
-
It is not as stupid as allowing idiot Republicans to wreck the credit rating of the nation by shutting the government down.
The GOP did not shut down the government. The rating was lowered because the Obama administration would not agree to the spending cuts necessary to maintain the highest rating. It was in all the papers, surprised you did not know that.
-
I answered all the questions that I needed an answer for.
Answer your own stupid questions.
You would not believe a word I said, anyway, there is no use bothering myself with your puerile queries.
-
But you didn't answer the question.......why is there one?? And why is DC making such a big deal about it, if we can simply "do away with it"?
I answered all the questions that I needed an answer for.
Answer your own stupid questions.
You would not believe a word I said, anyway, there is no use bothering myself with your puerile queries.
Perfect example (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/just-saying/msg149590/#msg149590) of what I was just saying
-
Again, I am not responsible for Reid.
You want answers to your question, figure them out all by yourself.
-
So why do you bother to come to a debate forum, if you chose to remain ignorant in debating? I know who I would answer the questions, especially in how important a debt ceiling is, thus I'd never advocate abolishing it. I also think Reid was right on target, when he was criticizing the raising of it
How does a hard core liberal answer them....why is there a debt ceiling and why is DC making such a big deal of it, if we can simply "do away with it", as you say??
-
What is a hard core liberal? And what is the history of the debt ceiling?
Have these fights been going on forever?
-
What is a hard core liberal?
(sirs points to Xo, as an example)
-
Well that is the problem.
He isn't.
He certainly doesn't live like one.
-
I have a very conservative lifestyle, and by conservative, I mean I conserve my resources quite well.
I have no outstanding debt. My house in a less than elegant neighborhood is paid off. I have always done my own taxes and handled all my own finances. My investments have always exceeded the S&P 500 on average.
Most of my needs are met by my Social Security payments, which I started collecting at age 67.
My car is a 1985 Mercedes Diesel wagon with 221,000 miles.
I have no central AC and have never bought a new car, stove, refrigerator, washer or dryer. I have made no car payments since 1973. When I bought my house, I assumed a mortgage and avoided real estate commissions, "origination fees" and other crap. I have owned 16 cars and bought all but two for cash and none from any dealer.
I shop online and at thrift stores. I never order wine in any restaurant, because it is a scam.
I contribute to worthy charities, including the local NPR and PBS stations.
I never put a bumper sticker on my car.
Reagan's campaign gurus apparently decided that if I owned stock and asked me for a contribution in 1980, I stuck the postpaid envelope to a neatly wrapped brick, dropped it off at the post office, and the GOP never bothered me again.
-
Well that is the problem.
He isn't.
He certainly doesn't live like one.
His rhetoric demonstates otherwise. But I'm game to be shown where I'm wrong. What solidly conservative position does he advocate? Being ridid with their finances is hardly a conservative position, just smart. Too bad the Government can't follow suit. I guess they don't have to be, when they forcibly can take, via taxation (which he advocates at every turn), nor do we have access to a printing press to just pump out dollars (withiout being arrested for counterfeiting)
So, by all means, show me how his positions/advocations don't equate to being a hard core liberal
-
Living within your means is precisely a conservative position.
Live and let live is another.
I have seen XO advocate both.
-
I have YET to see even ONE conservative ideal he openly supports/advocates, and no, being frugal isn't one of them, not when he turns around and openly supports the taxation of anything everything "rich", just because they are. Please, show me where I'm wrong
-
Please explain why living frugally is not a conservative attribute?.
-
Lemme try this again...show me how his positions/advocations don't equate to being a hard core liberal. Give me one conservative position he pushes, please. Here's a hint, there are plenty of non-frugal conservatives, who are staunchly conservative. Living within one's means is admirable, but not some defacto Conservative position, especially if its supplimented by rhetoric that supports that government be as big as it needs to be, and screw anything frugal :o
So, back to square 1.....show me how his positions/advocations don't equate to being a hard core liberal??
-
Let's try this again. Explain why living frugally is not a conservative attribute. I'm curious because your stance re: the debt ceiling runs counter to that. Perhaps you are not the conservative you think you are.
Here's another. He avoids taxes however he can within the law. That is almost right out of Norquists toolbox.
-
So you don't have anything. That's kinda what I thought. (and I already explained how living frugally is one thing, but supporting government living completely un-frugally is at the heart, a very liberal position. But then again you knew that, which begs the question, why are you even dragging this out??)
-
Au contraire. I have given you two solid examples of his conservative lifestyle.
You seem to have come up empty as far as
1. Defining a hardcore liberal
2. Explaining how XO conforms to that definition.
Your failure to do so speaks volumes.
-
Not quite....I asked for conservative positions he PUSHES. You provided me 2 examples you can apply to anyone that wants to take care of their money.......scrooge comes to mind, but that's NOT a defacto conservative position. That's just being smart with their own money. A hard core liberal is someone who ADVOCATES POLICIES THAT ARE EXTREMELY LIBERAL AND IDEOLOGICALLY LEFT.
It has squat to do with living frugally. IF he also openly support that the Government do the same, THEN you might have a leg to stand on
I've done precisely what I referenced, and you have yet to demonstrate even ONE conservative position he supports. Not one. Speaking volumes, indeed
-
A hard core liberal is someone who ADVOCATES POLICIES THAT ARE EXTREMELY LIBERAL AND IDEOLOGICALLY LEFT.
Define extremely liberal.
-
You are really good at "speaking volumes", aren't you?
I have a perfect right to every opinion I have.
You are not much of a judge of anything. Mostly, you parrot the silliest of right wing loons within a day of said loons announcing their silly opinions. When they stop addressing any issue, you also abandon it. Not a word about the "flat tax" the "fair tax" or the oh so clever nine nine nine plan since they were forsaken by Lintball and his pals.
It is like the only that injustice that matters is what the rabid right says they are, and only for so long as they rail about it.
-
You are really good at "speaking volumes", aren't you?
Not really, since I'm the one usally pointing them out in others
I have a perfect right to every opinion I have.
Oh good gravy, who the hell says you don't?? It doesn't get much lower in "substance" when the rebuttal is something along the lines of I have a perfect right to every opinion I have. Good lord. This little tiff Bt has been having has nothing to do with what you can or can't opine. It has to do with WHAT you opine
You are not much of a judge of anything. Mostly, you parrot the silliest of right wing loons within a day of said loons announcing their silly opinions.
Oh the irony
When they stop addressing any issue, you also abandon it. Not a word about the "flat tax" the "fair tax" or the oh so clever nine nine nine plan since they were forsaken by Lintball and his pals.
Hey, I have no problem talking about any of it. I'd much rather talk about those items than the idiocy of dealing with your personal slurs and insults
It is like the only that injustice that matters is what the rabid right says they are, and only for so long as they rail about it.
That made absolutely no sense. I could even opine you don't even understand your own posts. Sound familiar?
A hard core liberal is someone who ADVOCATES POLICIES THAT ARE EXTREMELY LIBERAL AND IDEOLOGICALLY LEFT.
Define extremely liberal.
extremely - as in exceedingly, as in towards the far end, farthest from the middle
liberal - a person of liberal principles/views, especially in politics, arguably socialist in nature
::)
Still waiting to see just one example of a Conservative governmental policy he supposedly supports, to refute the notion of his hard core liberal credentials
-
Please provide an example of an extremely liberal policy that XO advocates that complies with your definition. You made the charge, show your work.
-
- Government can expand adnauseum
- Tax "the rich", and keep taxing them
- Tea Party are a bunch of racists/fascists
- Republicans are a bunch of racists
- Conservatives are a bunch of racists
I could go on, and on, and on, but to what end.
Now, are you EVER going to provide even ONE example that refutes his being a hard core liberal?? That's YOUR claim, and please show your work
-
- Government can expand adnauseum
- Tax "the rich", and keep taxing them
- Tea Party are a bunch of racists/fascists
- Republicans are a bunch of racists
- Conservatives are a bunch of racists
I could go on, and on, and on, but to what end.
Now, are you EVER going to provide even ONE example that refutes his being a hard core liberal?? That's YOUR claim, and please show your work
How do any of those statements vary from what one would read in the comments of thinkprogress, the dem underground or the comments on yahoo. They seem pretty much rant per rote.
How do they fit you definition of extreme?
-
BTW in case you haven't figured it out yet, your lack of making your case proves mine.
Ball in your court.
-
LOL......riiiiight. I make my case clearly, as his rhetoric parrots think progress, but because you claim I don't, I supposedly didn't. Topped off with your ongoing inability to provide even 1 example to refute the clear case made. Yea, I think we're done here
-
I might have made a wrong assumption.
I thought that XOs evident disapproval of the right indicated agreement with the left.
But of course, this is not necessarily so.
-
LOL......riiiiight. I make my case clearly, as his rhetoric parrots think progress, but because you claim I don't, I supposedly didn't. Topped off with your ongoing inability to provide even 1 example to refute the clear case made. Yea, I think we're done here
If the type of rhetoric XO spouts is commonly found on sites like thinkprogress i fail to see how that can be construed as anything but boilerplate progressive rhetoric. Where is the extremity in that.
I believe you have failed in your efforts to label XO extreme as well as hard core.
And since you have failed in that endevour i understand your desire to moveon.
-
I have never said that I think that government could expand, only become better at regulating what needs to be regulated and enforcing consumer protection.
I am all for progress.
I get really tired of all this "speaks voliumes" and "oh the irony" CRAP.
Who needs that?
No one.
-
Dang !
Do we repell Liberals so well that we don't have even one anymore?
This isn't good.
-
Indeed 8)
-
Dang !
Do we repell Liberals so well that we don't have even one anymore?
This isn't good.
XO hasn't gone anywhere.
Not sure what Sirs is indeeding about.
-
Dang !
Do we repell Liberals so well that we don't have even one anymore?
This isn't good.
XO hasn't gone anywhere.
Not sure what Sirs is indeeding about.
Is XO a liberal in your opinion?
-
Is XO a liberal in your opinion?
I think he leans more left than i do. But , and this is key, i don't think he is hard core or extreme.
-
His rhetoric would demonstrate otherwise
-
Your opinion is duly noted. But your claim remains unproven.
-
Ignore the dots at your own peril
-
Let me know when you can back up your claims with facts.
-
Been there, done that. If I ever feel the energy to go and pull all the prior Xo quotes that parrot precisely what I referenced, I'll give you a whistle....so then you can work on your next line of rationalization. I've seen plenty, as sadly you have as well, but I don't have the same desire to play this game. If I do see them along the way, I'll point them out, as I'm sure there will be many more to come. I'd rather discuss issues & highlight double standards/hypocrisy out of DC
-
Be sure to do that. And when you do be sure to show how those remarks are extreme and hardcore as that was your still unproven claim.
-
Ahh, pre-rationalization....brilliant. Transparent, but brilliant
-
Now back to our original programming
-----------------------------
Arguing with Liberals: Our Massive Deficit "Isn't a Product of Spending"
On CNBC last night, I participated in a discussion about America's debt and debt ceiling problems -- which are inextricably linked, despite the Left's bizarre insistence that they're two separate and distinct issues. I made the overtly partisan statement that Republicans are the only political actors in Washington who are even remotely serious about dealing with the debt crisis -- and the Democrat on the panel seemed determined to prove me right. Most of the fireworks came toward the end of the exchange, when Democratic strategist Mark Hannah decided to go the full hack. He began by attacking House Republicans as "extreme" and "reckless" for even suggesting that a debt ceiling increase should be paired with spending cuts. Then, when Reason's Peter Suderman brought up the inconvenient posture Sen. Barack Obama adopted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Hannah jumped in to argue that Obama was justified in taking that stand to push back against the spending that "exploded" under President Bush. (In case you're keeping score, opposing a debt limit increase in the face of "exploding" spending and a national debt of $8.6 trillion is totally kosher. Doing so after that debt has nearly doubled is "reckless"). Finally, when confronted with the unprecedented budget deficits under President Obama, Hannah dug deep and served up an airtight defense:
Guy Benson On Debt Ceiling Standoff With Larry Kudlow, CNBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcct2W1r_wY#)
"The deficit we face right now isn't a product of spending."
Suderman practically had an on-air stroke in response to that assertion. All I could do was laugh. This is what they believe, folks. We have $87 trillion in outstanding debt and unpaid-for promises on the books. Our government has spent at least $1 trillion more than the taxes they've collected for four years running. By the end of the decade, the interest we owe on our debt will amount to $1 trillion. Obama's spending as a percentage of GDP has been higher than any ratio in US history, with the exception of World War II. But that's all unrelated to government spending, apparently. The true culprits are Bush, and wars, and tax cuts, and "revenues," and the recession, and healthcare (as if healthcare entitlements somehow aren't government spending), etc. In fairness to Mr. Hannah, he wasn't exactly freelancing with his laughable answer. It's the official party line, handed down from the very top. Avert your eyes from these graphs:
(http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u1842/2013/01/YLchart1.jpg)
(http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/021612geithner1.jpg)
Incidentally, I outlined my game plan for GOP maneuvering during the segment (in brief,
- pass a clean debt ceiling increase,
- force the sequester cuts to go into effect,
- then go to the mat on the 'CR' fight).
I've since heard from a Republican leadership aide on the Hill that this approach is gaining momentum among some key players, but reports like this make me wonder if there's any unified strategy at all. For his part, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell penned an op/ed for National Review today renewing his party's insistence that any debt ceiling increase be coupled with meaningful spending restraint:
With the government’s credit card maxed out once again, President Obama took to the microphones on Monday to insist that the last thing we should do as part of a debt-limit agreement is to . . . cut spending. What the president refuses to acknowledge is that the only reason we’ve reached our spending limit in the first place is because Washington has a spending problem, and that’s why any sensible debt-limit increase must involve cuts to Washington spending. This doesn’t just make perfect sense; it’s also exactly how past presidents and Congresses have viewed previous debt-limit debates — as a perfect opportunity to reform the habits that are causing the debt.
Meanwhile, the president has made his position very clear: He won't negotiate, and any resulting disruption will be Republicans' fault. Parting quotation, from said president: "I don’t think anybody would consider my position unreasonable here."
The public seems to agree. Hooray. (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/01/16/arguing-with-liberals-our-massive-deficit-isnt-a-product-of-spending-n1490780)