The Red-Headed Stepchild of All No Brainers
Blue Collar Commentary
With Dale McCoy
I can’t believe our leaders are arguing over how to raise the debt ceiling. They should be arguing over how to lower it.
The debt ceiling has never been treated as anything more than a symbolic cap. It has been raised 10 times since 2001, and 74 times since 1962. It is routinely ignored by legislators when they vote for increased spending, then adjusted upward after such votes have already taken place. Right now, we are committed to debt well beyond the current 14.3 trillion dollar limit. Lawmakers are telling us that our only recourse is to raise the cap. I disagree, and I am adamantly opposed to raising the debt ceiling. We must bear the pain of spending cuts now or we will surely bear an exponentially increased pain in the future.
Legislators were well aware of the debt ceiling when they voted for TARP, Stimulus, “Affordable Healthcare”, Cash for Clunkers, and myriad other expenditures. President Obama was well aware of the ceiling before he started his own undeclared wars. Congress, President Obama, and most American Citizens are well aware of the dire financial conditions of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is already impossible for us to cover all of the debt and unfunded liabilities incurred by the Federal Government. In the words of Bernie Madoff, a man who knows a financial pyramid when he sees one, “the whole government is a Ponzi scheme”. The sooner this Ponzi scheme ends, the better.
I read an Op-Ed last week on the subject of raising the debt ceiling. The author, David Brooks, feels that Republican leaders are foolish for not agreeing to revenue increases in conjunction with an increased debt limit. This article, titled “The Mother Of All No Brainers,” is filled with vague generalities and false assumptions. It embodies the hollow rhetoric of the left, and it offers the perfect vehicle to rebut the argument for raising the debt limit.
David Brooks contends that “since they took control of the House of Representatives”, Republicans have been effective negotiators who “put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda”. He asserts that the Democrats have agreed to “astonishing concessions” and are open to a truly large budget deal. David suggests that a normal Republican party would take advantage of this amazing moment and accept what he calls the deal of the century: “trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars in revenue increases.” Accepting this deal, according to David, is The Mother of All No-Brainers. He goes on to explain that a deal may not be reached because the Republican party has been “infected” by a faction who will “not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.” David says that people who do not want to raise the debt ceiling have no sense of moral decency and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
David has unmitigated gall.
The Republicans did not “take control” of the House of Representatives. The people voted them into control. The Republicans did not put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. The Tea Party did. Republicans have not been effective negotiators. They failed to follow through on a promise to cut 100 billion from the budget. They threatened to defund Planned Parenthood and NPR but accomplished neither. They have had no noticeable effect at reining in the Healthcare bill or the EPA.
The Democrats offer nothing more than a carrot on a stick. They are intent on punting our problems past the 2012 election and posturing for political gain. They speak of a willingness to cut, a willingness to compromise, and a willingness to make hard decisions. Yet, as usual, their decisions involve spending today and saving sometime in the future.
Recent history shows all too well how Democrats handle fiscal responsibility and the art of compromise. Under Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat controlled congress, our national debt swelled from 8.62 trillion to 14.03 trillion. And last year’s healthcare legislation showcased the Democratic leadership’s callous disregard for the spirit of compromise.
As far as the Tea Party goes, a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets is not an infection. It is the antiseptic for a festering debt
The fact of the matter is that neither political party will admit ownership of a Ponzi scheme that both parties created. This ownership, as I say, is The Red-Headed Stepchild Of All No-Brainers.
The current debt ceiling negotiation is the political equivalent of last year’s healthcare debate. Republican acceptance of “revenue increases” today in exchange for hypothetical cuts tomorrow will evince capitulation, not compromise. Republicans control only one branch of the Federal government. If they want to make a real difference, they will need to show bold leadership. They should call President Obama’s bluff, refuse to raise the debt ceiling, and take their case to the American People.
Dale
P. S
David Brooks’ Op-Ed is a case study in all that is wrong with today’s academics. It ranks as one of the most baseless, biased, and condescending articles that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
Posted: July 19th, 2011 under Blue Collar Commentary, debt limit, News.
Comments: (9) | Print This Post
Well said Dale. I agree with you. Raising the debt ceiling is not an answer to the problem. It will only create more problems in the future.
The “Cut, Cap and Balance” vote clearly identifies who in the House is willing to stop generational theft. The challenge is to retain them in 2012 and throw out those who do not have the courage to do what is right.
As always, your points and analysis of the current situation are right on, Dale. I’m so disappointed in the lack of leadership and guts from the majority (Republicans and Democrats) in DC. Keep on writing and fighting the good fight!
I do find it interesting that the same Republicans that are demanding so much before they will support raising the debt ceiling, are the same ones who never hesitated to raise the ceiling during President Bush’s administration.
Regardless of the politics of it, we do not have a taxing problem, what we have is a spending problem!
So Boehner walked away from the talks. He will be blamed by the traditional media sources even though it was the President that snookered the deal by demanding an extra $400 billion in tax increases at the last moment. The question is why would the President do so at the last minute knowing it would break the deal?
He will claim that he had to because of pressure from the liberal wing of the Dem party. He definitely was taking some heat from them but it was at a level that he could have handled. They would have complained but they would still have backed him come election time.
He may have done so because making Boehner walk away was a good way to make the Republicans look obstinate. The media would have loved to play along with this gambit and will do so. But the President looked visibly upset yesterday, more than one would have expected if he had intentionally screwed the deal. And I don’t think he is that good an actor to feign such emotion.
I think he expected fully Boehner to fold and take the deal with the extra tax increases. He never thought Boehner would walk away at such a late date.
I think that Obama expected Boehner to take the deal. He hoped that by forcing Boehner and Republican leadership to take such a deal it enrage the Tea Party people. He is trying to create a divide between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. If he can anger the Tea Party enough, they will be tempted to run their own Presidential nominee as a third party candidate.
He knows he has a poor shot at being elected as long as unemployment is above 8% as all economists now predict. And if gasoline is above $3.75 or even 4$ he is toast. Unless, that is, the Tea Party runs a third party candidate. If the Tea party does so, he will be assured of re-election as he will get 40% just through the liberal base on non-taxpayers and the very wealthy progressives. And that’s all he will need if the Tea Party runs its own nominee.
And that will be the game plan for the next 12 months.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Dale.
Dale keep up the good work.As you know i am not into politics at all. I beleive the tea party is a voice for working people like ourselves and i would like to help in whatever way i can.Send me an email or give me acall, i would love to sit down and talk to you . Thanks again . Terry
Dale keep up the good work.As you know i am not into politics at all. I beleive the tea party is a voice for working people like ourselves and i would like to help in whatever way i can.Send me an email or give me call, i would love to sit down and talk to you . Thanks again . Your cousin, Terry
America operates under elite-serving constructs and institutions (academia, courts, media). Issues (deficit, economy, health care, etc.) and personalities (Obama, Palin, etc.) play within elite-serving constructs and institutions. Americans and America lose.
On this planet only substance works over time. The one and only solution to America’s problems is find out what substance is, get on substance, and stay on substance.
In elite-operated America substance (nature’s political organization) is the great unknown. Nature’s political organization is no different from engineering principles; they both come from immutable realities and play out according to immutable realities. Adults understand through observing and living—the same way they understand engineering principles. Nature’s political organization (governance) is explained through fact situations that confront Americans and Americans can readily understand at http://www.frankcorey.com. The vehicle is real estate zoning in a suburb outside of Chicago. Governance Forever More!