« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Here’s One Way Out of the Debt Ceiling Impasse

Ok, let’s look at both the politics and the economics of this issue.

The underlying politics is as follows: the American people are sick and tired of deficit spending. The pundits are completely wrong when they downplay this issue, because deficits are FAR worse now than they ever have been in peacetime (10+% of GDP). And they got far worse at almost the exact moment Obama was elected president.

The practical politics looks like this: Congressional Republicans chose the otherwise-routine moment of a debt-ceiling increase to draw a line in the sand and press the deficit-reduction argument, on behalf of the American people. But by linking two things that don’t really belong together (the political objective of deficit-reduction with the technical objective of funding the government), Republicans have backed themselves into a corner. Their position is strong on the merits but extremely weak in practical terms.

And the practical weakness of the Republican position arises from the economics of the issue. There’s been a lot of argumentation of this point, most of it pure garbage spouted by people (including economists) who know little or nothing about capital-market dynamics or practical finance. I happen to know something about both, and I’m going to tell you the truth about the matter.

Point 1: A US default on debt service is pure unthinkable, FULL STOP. Larry Summers, for once, is absolutely right: a sustained debt default would very likely produce market disruptions comparable to, or worse than, the fall of 2008. However, at only about $200 billion and change per year, avoiding a debt default would be easy. The President, the Treasury Secretary and others are lying by omission when they fail to stress this point.

Point 2: A failure to increase the debt ceiling would produce a deep economic recession, almost instantly. We’re talking about cutting out an amount of spending that’s almost 10% of the economy. The 2007-09 recession only dropped the economy by about 6%. We really DON’T want a failure to increase the debt ceiling.

This leaves us with an unsolvable political dilemma. Neither the White House nor the Congressional Republicans want to back down. Implementing some version of the McConnell plan would be a pure victory for the president, as it would produce the same result as if Republicans had never taken up this fight in the first place: we’d have continuing high deficits, continued high spending, and no movement on the tax issue.

Clearly enough, McConnell is trying to solve the Republican’s political problem in what he thinks is a clever way. He couldn’t be more wrong. The only thing the public will see is that the president, against all prior expectations, somehow found the leadership skills to keep the Republicans from gutting Social Security and Medicare.

So the McConnell plan is, or should be, a non-starter. But so is a grand bargain to reduce deficits by cutting spending and (maybe raising taxes). There just isn’t the time to put that plan together before August 2. Especially not a plan that wouldn’t be like every other deficit-reduction compromise in history (that is, with tax increases now and spending cuts in some future that never seems to arrive).

But the issue of deficit reduction is of critical importance to the country. The president wants to get it off the table any way he possibly can, because the only thing he has to say about it is that our taxes are too low. As Walter Mondale could tell him, that argument won’t get him re-elected.

So here’s what Republicans should consider doing, in light of all the above:

Congress should immediately pass a ONE-MONTH extension of the debt ceiling, authorizing exactly enough additional borrowing to continue funding the federal government, at current spending levels. (No increases, not for COLAs, weather emergencies, war supplementals, or anything.) Include language directing both Congress and the president to continue good-faith negotiations aimed at finding a permanent solution to the problem.

Then, one month from now, DO IT AGAIN. Then in another month. do it yet again. Rinse, lather and repeat every month until either the president changes his mind about true deficit reduction, or the next election comes.

If the president should get fed up with this, or Senate Democrats fail to pass it in any given month, then he and they will have the privilege of explaining their intransigence to the American people.

This is the only way I can think of to avoid a market and economic catastrophe while continuing to keep the deficit-reduction issue front and center. Any other outcome takes the issue off the table permanently (or at least until interest rates blow up), and also hands a gargantuan political victory to the Democrats.

COMMENTS

  • keysconservative

    Simply brilliant.

  • YnotNOW

    The whole idea of tying deficit reduction to the debt limit (which although not directly tied together, are definitely related so it makes sense to combine them in one bill) is to provide LEVERAGE on the democrats that want the debt raised but must be FORCED to go along with spending cuts.

    I agree that the “grand bargain” probably cannot be done in time for Aug 2nd, and that the debt ceiling does need to be raised (though the Aug 2nd date is not hard-and-fast). But the “mini-bargains” should ALSO contain budget cuts at least equal to the amount of the debt ceiling raise. That is called using the leverage you have, in order to achieve your goals.

    p.s. – my understanding is that the first month of debt raise would be quite large, because we have to not only fund next month’s government operations, but also the past 3 months which Geitner has been covering up by juggling the books. True?

    • zooboy

      like 1 or 2% of discretionary non-defense spending. If the DemOs even block that, it highlights to the public how childishly they are the party of Big Govt. , and they own any turbulence that follows.
      BUT, this article reflects a Keynesian mindset that Fed Govt spending is good for the economy. The failure of the Trillion dollar Stimulus package is another recent example that it isn’t. He also doesn’t mention the fact that many trillions of potential investment dollars are being held on the sidelines by businesses and investors, because of the tremendous uncertainty caused by the federal govt’s gross irresponsibility on all fronts. If the Congress takes any serious measure to reduce spending, a torrent of investment capital will be unleashed, more than making up for the reduced Federal spending.

      • YnotNOW

        under a scenario where the debt limit is raised incrementally each month, which means the economy would still be depressed. But at least the incremental spending cuts would offer hope to the business community, such that they would eventually gain confidence.

        Note that the spending cuts “1 or 2% of discretionary non-defense spending” will be easy to identify and get relatively broad buy-in the first couple months, but increasingly harder as the months go on, because eventually cuts require major reform of entitlements, which cannot be done incrementally.

  • carolina

    So he says…..

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      He has to do the vetoing. Let him personally decide Gramps gets no SS next month. Let him personally decide PFC Jones gets no combat pay while hunting The Taliban in the Afghan Wastes.

    • sarg01

      The media might be in love with him, but even they’re gonna have a hard time objecting to a ceiling raise that doesn’t decrease the size of government at all.

      Of course, that’s kind of the problem. It doesn’t do anything in and of itself. You could make an argument that it helps present Republicans in a positive light. Done enough, maybe the narrative can start to shift from “those crazy Republicans” to “that hypocrite Obama”. And if there’s one thing we know about Obama, it’s that he’s more concerned with his electoral prospects than any short term policy. If he starts taking serious fire from the public, he’ll settle a lot easier.

      • cordpt

        It’d allow him to score a big political victory and a big policy victory every month till the elections.

        • sarg01

          I don’t think it’d go over as an Obama victory, though.

          I think the disappointment of the R base would be offset by the disappointment of the D base. Remember, they can’t EVER win their argument without R cover (taxes need to go up).

          Dems have a *strategic* problem and need crisis to give them political cover to implement it.

          Rs have a *tactical* problem (don’t cut MY government payout, cut his) – the public endorses R strategy. They just need effective communication and the levers of power.

  • usadying

    The Republicans also will appear to have no spine….again. Obama has won the narrative. There is a difference between not funding the essentials (debt service, miltary, SS, and Medicare) and not funding all the other crap that our wonderful govt has passed. If the Republicans would include defunding Obamacare, it would go a long way. In my dreams….

    This was supposed to be the “easy” battle. The progressive propaganda machine is in top gear, playing on emotion rather than reason and facts. They also have the financial institutions on board since they bailed them out and continue to give them free money (the Fed). I don’t know how you fight this.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      Force him to own the crash.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        The groundwork is firmly laid to blame the Republicans for the crash and there’s no way around the talking heads and their elected Democratic counterparts.

        My choice would be to pass the bill and then take credit for the shutdown and the accruing savings.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          Besides, I kind of think we are so badly malinvested at this point that the US Economy has to crash soon or it will become too corrupt to be worthy of saving.

        • cordpt

          If you want to give the Democrats filibuster-proof majorities in 2012.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            they don’t need filibuster proof majorities. In fact, given the performance of the last Congress, with huge Dem majorities, they’re probably better off today.

    • cordpt

      Because the republican base spends too much time listening to guys who have no idea what they’re talking about.

      The card the Republicans had to play was not raising the debt limit – and that’s something they’d never do (and they shouldn’t – it’d be political suicide and, frankly, achieve nothing in terms of policy except causing unnecessary and unbreathable economic pain).

      The battle for meaningful deficit reduction and budgetary reform can’t and won’t be won as long as the Democrats control the Senate and Obama is the POTUS and can’t and won’t be won in the context of a debt limit increase authorization. It’ll only happen with Republican majorities and within a proper budgetary process. Once the congress decides to spend, they’ll have to pay for it.

  • Right Reason

    “This is the only way I can think of to avoid a market and economic catastrophe while continuing to keep the deficit-reduction issue front and center.”

    Your solution looks to me like McConnell’s plan, just broken up into little pieces. It mentions nothing about actually SOLVING the debt problem, just keeping it in the headlines.

    The way I see it, there are 3 choices:
    1. Increase the debt with no strings. This continues until we have a meltdown a la Greece. I think this is the worst option.
    2. Increase the debt only in exchange for significant, structural spending cuts. This, obviously, is the most desired outcome, but depends upon democrat agreement.
    3. Do not increase the debt ceiling. This would undoubtedly cause major disruptions to the economy, but would not be as bad as scenario 1.

    Given the above, I think the path is largely laid out for us.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      What Barack I wants, is for this to go away. He wants it to be like a tee-shot in golf. He wacks the ball, it goes a couple of hundred feet away at least.

      This becomes a burr under his saddle. He has to deal w/ this crap again every month. It’s like some annoying put, against a fairly sharp incline, that he never quite gets into the cup.

    • Francis Cianfrocca

      Not raising the debt ceiling is unambiguously worse for the economy under all scenarios. You can disagree with that, but if you do, then I’ll ask you how many business you’ve run, how many corporate financings you’ve closed, and how many Wall St. crises you’ve lived through first hand.

      So much for the economics. In terms of the politics, I can think of worse things than forcing Obama to say “We need higher taxes!” every month while explaining why he has to keep signing monthly debt-ceiling increases between now and the election.

      I’m looking for the opposite of the McConnell plan. I want to keep the issue alive so we can actually do a real deal with immediate and tangible spending cuts. (Not the president’s “I’ll agree to cut $4 trillion sometime in the future.”) Even if it takes a couple of years to get it done.

      • Right Reason

        I will freely admit that you may be correct in your assertion, but you’d do much better explaining why – in specific terms (I do understand economics) – rather than attempting to belittle any layman’s criticism.

        Who knows, you may convince me rather than just pi$$ing me off.

        • red_oakster

          A massive recession will be laid at the feet of the GOP. Obama would not dare veto a short-term solution. When you control only the House, failing to get your preferred program through is a given. It’s a platform whose implementation awaits a Republican president. That’s why whatever deal is done, will be messy and imperfect.

          • Right Reason

            Excuse me if the question sounds obtuse, but I have yet to see one prediction of a catastrophic recession due to the failure to raise the debt ceiling that includes the details of why this is so.

          • sarg01

            It doesn’t matter if it causes a recession or not.

            If it does, Republicans will get the blame.

            If it doesn’t, Obama and the willing media will blame it for unemployment still being high next year. The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

            If the jobs picture improves, Obama will take all the credit.

          • Right Reason

            if your sole focus is politics. I’m interested in fixing the problem. I’m wondering which path causes the least pain and problems, not which path gets the GOP to power.

          • sarg01

            Anything one Congress + Prez can do, another can undo. However, that’s only true when the Congress + Prez are unified.

            As long as Obama is Prez, the problem can’t be fixed. Any plan that doesn’t include seeing him lose – and the Rs holding the House and taking the Senate – isn’t a plan that works, even if it cuts $10 trillion from the debt. The next Dem Congress will just put the spending right back!

          • Right Reason

            Currently, the GOP is the only available vehicle for putting conservatives in power. But make no mistake, putting the GOP in power will not necessarily solve the problem.

          • sarg01

            Without the political win, we can’t win on policy.

            Futhermore, we can outright lose on policy now, score a political win, and then reverse the policy loss. This is exactly the formula for Obamacare.

            Politics has to be a massive, even overriding consideration. Nothing short of the BBA ties future Congress’ hands, and the BBA can not get 20 Democrat Senate votes, or 50 House Dems, so it can not be passed by this congress.

            This isn’t 2002, and no one’s talking about “compassionate conservativism”. Greece is failing, and the rest of the EU is soon to follow. Spending is going to be a priority for any GOP administration – Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Paul, whoever.

          • Right Reason

            but that does not make the GOP conservative. Be careful not to conflate the two.

            Ideology MUST trump politics. I, like others here, am conservative in the primary and GOP in the general. But I will fight just as hard against a RINO in the primary as I will against a democrat in the general.

      • mercyvetsel

        Francis Cianfrocca
        Not raising the debt ceiling is unambiguously worse for the economy under all scenarios. You can disagree with that, but if you do, then I?ll ask you how many business you?ve run, how many corporate financings you?ve closed, and how many Wall St. crises you?ve lived through first hand.

        Right, so you have and that makes you an expert in macroeconomics and disqualifies anyone who hasn’t?

        So I held my tongue at first, but this is an obnoxiously unintelligent followup to one of the worst posts I’ve ever seen on this blog.

        One thing you learn quickly in NYC is that only losers and poseurs actually say “I work on Wall Street” when asked way they do, but somehow that category fits a lot of people. After all, the whole “Wall Street” angle carries a lot of cache in most parts of the country, but if Red State readers want to know what Wall Street thinks, then look at the markets (incidentally, despite the pending doom from the real prospect of not raising the debt limit, treasuries are flat or even up slightly)

        Still, I can’t remember the last time that I saw such an adolescent display of bogus credentialism. Cianfrocca is like the neighbor who says “Don’t go to a mechanic. I can figure out what’s wrong with your Jag, after all I lived in the UK for years and I drive a Range Rover.”

        Still, I’ll grand that Cianfrocca has an outstanding understanding of macroeconomics. Why hide the fact that he is simply endorsing the same convenient Keynesian logic that was dragged from the grave to justify the stimulus?

        After all, suddenly cutting spending to match the level of revenue is exactly the reverse of the stimulus and Keynesians appose it for exactly the same reasons they endorse the stimulus.

        The problem with this line of thinking is that when the government “creates GDP” by spending money, that money imposes costs somewhere else.

        Since he doesn’t even acknowledge that he is just expressing the same Keynesian logic that has suddenly become the conventional wisdom in the media, I doubt if this calls for a full-fledged debate on the merits of government spending to generate growth, but let’s at least be clear about what side we are on and realize that there is a debate.

        For example, Canada, Ireland and the UK have gone in a different direction. Canada has held the line on spending and Ireland and the UK have adopted austerity packages.

        Just in case Cianfrocca didn’t come across this in all of the corporate finance deals he’s closed, the following “Keynes vs. Hayek” videos show that there actually are two sides to the issue in a very entertaining manner:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

        -Mercy

        • Bill S

          It’s amazing the kind of comments that spring forth from ignorance. This is a textbook example.

          Before you throw accusations about a person’s background, you really should have a clue what it is. You don’t.

        • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

          Francis is the real deal. You might want to shut up now before you make yourself look even worse.

          • mercyvetsel

            Jeff Emanuel:

            Then please explain why he says such stupid things?

            You are precisely the reason why someone would make such bogus claim regarding credentials.

            Bill S:

            Please reread my post — my judgement was based on the idiotic claim in his post.

            One would think that on a blog his thoughts would stand on their own.

            -Mercy

        • cordpt

          If you believe so, I can only pray for those who engage in business with you.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            It’s wadded up in unmarked bills. She has them stuffed in her mattress in her top-secret hideout.

    • keysconservative

      “Your solution looks to me like McConnell?s plan, just broken up into little pieces. It mentions nothing about actually SOLVING the debt problem, just keeping it in the headlines.”

      True. But SOLVING the debt problem will never happen as long as the Dems control the Senate and the White House. Never. Going. To. Happen.
      The best we can hope for is: 1. to keeping this issue in the headlines, and hopefully educating the voters to what’s really going on. 2. Expose the Dems and the Obama for what they are.

  • vamoose

    The one-month-at-a-time plan sounds good now, just as did earlier this year when the GOP put through monthly stop-gap spending measures with token budget cuts. It lasted about three months and then came the underwhelming deal in April. Three months is indicative of the discipline that Republican leadership has. Ultimately, any strategy is only as good as the weakest spine amongst Republican leadership.

    • red_oakster

      It is not in the nature of legislative parties to be strongly coherent. How do you think George Bush implemented the surge over the objections of a Democratic majority? Legislators don’t hang together. That’s why a bad deal obtained early may be the best we’ll get. I want to get to 2012 and beat Obama. It’s a bad idea to bet the farm of the debt limit. The president is at 42% and sinking. Absent a crisis, the logic of accountability will work for us.

  • Kyle-MI

    I agree with the short term debt ceiling raising strategy as a short term solution. The problem is that both sides are at an impasse and no one has the full power to pass what is needed. The only solution is for the voters to choose one side or the other and put them in full power. Unfortunately the nearest election is about a year and a half away. Nothing can be done until then, except kick the can down the road. The biggest danger is if the election doesn’t decide anything. A lesser danger is if the Dems regain control. We only have a one out of three chance that we will get the right answer. It is looking pretty grim.

  • CMaree

    and by rinse and lather, this analogy should not refer to a monthly allowance of the debt ceiling. We must cut the spending plus rinse and wash out exorbitant federal debt. Because as Senator Rubio tweets, the debt ceiling is not the problem, debt is.
    Here is the telling statement from Rubio’s added news link:

    “Egan-Jones Ratings Co. cut its rating on the U.S. by one step to AA+ from AAA, citing the high level of debt outstanding relative to other countries and concern that politicians may fail to reduce spending.”

  • http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

    I agree that government spending cuts would be painful in the short run, given that the private sector is extremely hesitant to invest with all the uncertainty the current administration’s creating.

    That aside, there’s a good case to be made for the GOP to keep the debt ceiling where it is until they get everything they’ve asked for, for the following reasons:

    1. It would be a huge demonstration of political courage to risk temporary economic pain. That’s sorely needed from the GOP leadership.

    2. The next Congressional election is 15 months ahead of the August date when the federal government is supposed to default, long enough for the temporary pain to go away.

    3. Obama, not the GOP, can be made to own this. His (and Congressional Democrats’) reckless borrowing has gotten us to this point in the first place.

    4. It’s painful, but not the end of the world, if federal contractors can’t pay their bills for a month or two, and they and their vendors have had plenty of time to anticipate that possibility.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      We need to be constantly asking any Dem Senator who whines, “Where is your budget that solves this issue? Are you part of the solution, or a loud-mouthed part of the problem?”

    • Francis Cianfrocca

      You could zero out Social Security AND the DoD and still not have enough money to fund everything else.

      There are people who honestly believe there’s nothing wrong with this as either policy or as political gamesmanship, and you may be one of these. Fair enough.

      But the disruption to the economy would be considerably worse than the recession we’ve just been through. Millions of jobs would be lost.

      In the first place, I really don’t want to take that kind of a hit to the economy, even if the political rewards are there. In the second place, I don’t feel confident that the political rewards would be there.

      • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

        I agree that cutting the Government 40% instantly is not good policy, and we shouldnt think of default as anything other than a short-term ‘shutdown’ event.

        … BUT, this claim that large cuts in Government spending will create a recession is not true. In 1945-1948, spending was cut significantly – by TWO THIRDS – no recession. From 1920-1923, the Federal budget was cut almost in half – no recession. In fact in both cases growth accelerated. There are other cases of this globally.

        If you think about it, it makes sense. A trillion dollars less in Government spending releases a trillion dollars ELSEWHERE in the economy, it doesnt withdraw it. A trillion in less borrowing and taxing means a trillion that can be applied in domestic investment and/or consumption. Keyensians wrongly believe that investment is somehow a bad thing, as it takes away from consumption, but in fact it is investment that drives economic growth.

        …. so, the economic disruption would be there, but it would not be as severe as some claim. Its being overhyped. In reality, it will be like a Govt shutdown, and USA survived the shutdown in 1995 without a recession.

        • sarg01

          Taxing but not spending does not.

          It has other salutary effects, like not handing a big bill to our kids, being responsible, etc. However, these are not economic boosts.

          If even conservative activists are willing to stipulate failure to raise the debt ceiling will cause some economic issues … how can we ever hope to convince the public the generally crappy economy isn’t our fault? At best, we might manage some “pox on both your houses” middle ground. This would destroy any hope of a Republican wave in 2012. Without a wave, we can’t repeal Obamacare before it goes into effect in 2014, even if Obama loses.

        • Death_of_the_Donkey

          before shooting this BS?

          Recession dates:
          1920-1921 (18 months)
          1923-1924 (14 months)

          and
          1945 (8 months)
          1948-1949 (11 months)

          So it would seem your facts may be just a bit less than factual.

      • http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

        If the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised, the Treasury has to pay IOUs instead of cash. Which makes it a huge pain-in-the-ass for a federal contractor who still has to pay their employees and vendors with their cash on hand, while not receiving cash.

        Of course that’s not sustainable in the long run. But realistically, I’m not saying and I don’t think RMJ and other serious people are suggesting that the debt ceiling should stay at its current level for say, the rest of the year, or all the way until next election. Just until the Democrats force Obama to give in.

      • mercyvetsel

        “You’re talking about cutting $1.6 trillion out of the economy”

        Yes, that’s the precisely the Krugman logic behind the stimulus which he would say “added $1 trillion to the economy”.

        Cutting money “out of the economy” (i.e. cutting spending) hurts the economy while “adding money to the economy” (i.e. the stimulus) helps.

        If Red State thinks the Krugman / DeLong 1970′s era Keynesian view of economics makes sense then that’s great, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking this is the only view or worse yet the standard view of conservative economists.

        There are a also a lot of very astute economists (and people doing corporate finance, driving armored cars, working as bank tellers, mechanics, etc.) who think the Keynesian multiplier for government spending is less than 1 and the empirical research backs them up.

        It’s great to have multiple viewpoints on the blog, but let’s at least be clear what viewpoint is being articulated.

        -Mercy

    • sarg01

      The public will see it when someone gets laid off because their company didn’t get checks they were expecting. The absolute last thing we should be doing is giving Obama cover for his dismal jobs record. “The unemployment rate is at 10% because the Republicans forced a default”

      We need to be clear – even a huge spending win is strictly temporary if we do not win the 2012 elections. There’s nothing this Congress can do that the next one can’t undo.

      It IS the end of the world if the public can be convinced Republicans are behind the unemployment rate, not Obama. At least, the end of America as we know it.

  • cordpt

    At least McConnell’s plan would force Obama and the Democrats to own the debt ceiling raises and allow Republicans to vote against it 3 times and could be complemented with some spending cuts.

    This one would force republicans to vote for the debt limit raises every month, allow Obama to play the “moderate grown up who’s looking for a long-term solution but being short-handed by GOP obstructionists who’re playing politics” and allow him to blame the stagnant economy on the uncertainty caused by the GOP playing politics.

    Maybe it’s time for me to recover my first post on this issue: Bush-conservatives talk-show hosts and bloggers opposition to McConnell’s plan would result in an even worse outcome to the GOP and to the country.

    • littlehouse18

      and is already exposed as a complete abdication of responsibility and dubious political maneuvering. Not to mention it will finally and completely alienate a great many conservatives.

      With FC’s proposal, the Republicans can at least say (truthfully) that they had to do it to prevent Obama from figuratively shooting the hostage. That will be acceptable to many more folks.

      This way, we call Obama’s bluff. He will have to own it if he fails to sign. We can even probably get a few cuts in there too.

      • cordpt

        It gives him the exact same power he’d have with this one.

        McDonnell’s plan will force Obama to veto successive spending cut bills hence forcing him to show his true borrow, tax and spend colors to the electorate.

        This proposal will force republican to abdicate from their cut&balance stance and pass successive debt increase bills while allowing Obama to keep posing as the one trying to reach a long-term solution.

        McDonnell’s proposal can achieve some spending cuts.

        This proposal will leave the spending levels at their current level.

        It’s obvious that McDonnell’s proposal is far superior to this one from a conservative perspective. Conservatives who would be alienated by McConnel’s proposal but not by this one can’t be taken seriously.

        Some people just aren’t humble enough to admit they were wrong and are willing to accept a worse outcome just for the sake of it.

        • littlehouse18

          which is supposed to be reserved for Congress, and thus it sets a very bad precedent. Congress is supposed to be making the spending decisions. Yes, he’s got the power of a veto, but the distinction is important.

          You make the statement:
          “Some people just aren?t humble enough to admit they were wrong and are willing to accept a worse outcome just for the sake of it.”

          I’m not sure to whom you refer with this. I hope you don’t ascribe this to me or other folks at Redstate. I do not believe in plunging over the debt ceiling cliff. I sincerely believe that McConnell’s plan will unnecessarily cause great harm itself. Not just to Republicans, but to the country. It is not the only way. And as I said, the fact must be faced that the McConnell (not McDonnell, that’s my superb governor) plan will drive many votes away from the GOP. Not mine, but I understand those who give up on Republicans.

          Please be careful when you point fingers. My Granny had a saying about that …

          • sarg01

            It doesn’t give the Prez authorization to spend money at random.

            Congress still goes to the car dealership and gets taken for a ride. Congress still has to agree to the trade-in, and buy the extended warranty, the bonus cupholder package and the extra polish on the under-carriage. Congress still has to sign the loan.

            This gives the President authorization only to mail a check to the financing company afterward.

            I still don’t like it. I think debt is a winning 2012 election issue, and suggesting that our side isn’t willing to be responsible for it sends a weak message.

          • littlehouse18

            even if Congress disapproves. The plan allows him to veto their resolution of disapproval. Do you really think Congress has enough votes to override his veto? Would the Senate ever vote to disapprove in the first place? The plan gives Obama de facto power and in the opinion of many is unconstitutional.

          • lastgopinillinois

            and the plan allowed O to veto their resolution of disapproval every three months. That was the political beauty of the McConnel option. How does that look to the voters? Especially when you know that every conservative in congress will use every chance they get to capitalize on it while C-Span is rolling.
            Unconsitutional. Sure it is.
            You got two boxers in the ring. One is a commie and one is a Republican.
            You got a referee (he represents the American people.
            The referee says: “The RULES are – there shall be NO kicking”
            The fight begins
            The commie starts kicking, but the referee isnt paying much attention.
            Does the republican lose the fight or does he KICK BACK.

            I am for whatever we need to do to defeat Obama in 2012. Obamacare and a lot of other commie crap must be repealed asap.

          • cordpt

            with a message like “Congressman X says he defends a balanced budged but he voted with Obama and Pelosi to raise the debt limit for 3 times just in the last 18 months” and to force Obama to have 3 opportunities to bring spending cuts to the Congress – that’s what the proposal forces him to do in the first stage, the requirements must be combined with spending cuts from his choice – and miss them all: he won’t be able to keep the fiction he’s serious about deficit reduction after that.

            At least McDonnell’s plan gets us that. This one forces republicans to vote for increases on the debt limit without spending cuts 18 times without getting anything back at all. And it’s supposed to be better? Heh.

          • cordpt

            Are you actually saying that the proposal that includes some spending cuts, forces Obama to own the deficit issue and makes clear he’s the one who doesn’t want to tackled the overspending issue is worse than the proposal that doesn’t cut any spending at all, allows Obama to pose as the only guy with a long-term deficit reduction plan and gives him the opportunity to blame the Republicans for the economic mess the country is in?

            Wow, just wow.

            You can keep repeating talking points – that doesn’t change the fact that this plan doesn’t cut any spending at all and is poisonous for the Republicans politically while McConnell’s plan (sorry for the typo) does.

            And I’ve repeated this over and over: raising the debt ceiling isn’t a spending decision. Those spending decisions were already made.

          • littlehouse18

            His plan is a transparent cop-out.

            I am quite aware that raising the debt ceiling is not the same as spending. To repeat myself, I am not against raising the debt ceiling, I just think McConnell’s plan will not work the way you think it will.

            And save the condescension, it sounds like a 15-year old, or a liberal. Wow.

          • cordpt

            Raising the debt limit without getting any spending cuts at all and missing the chance of putting Obama on the spot which is what the plan you endorse would achieve? You have to explain why exactly is this better than McConnel’s plan. Is it because it cuts more spending? It puts the country in a better position for the future? It works for the GOP advantage politically? Something, anything. Just repeating “McConnell is worse” over and over doesn’t do it. My contention is that this manages to be even worse than McConnel’s plan, not that the later is some sort of heaven.

            If you keep making ad hominem remarks – “do you work for McConnell; sounds like a 15 year old; sounds like a liberal; etc” -, this conversation will soon be over. There was no condescension whatsoever permeating my comments, I apologize if you felt that way. Let’s discuss the issue and stay way from that personal and emotional crap.

  • skorrent1

    From a “numbers only” guy. He claims that 100B less in government spending of brand-new, freshly-printed dollars means that the magic GDP suffers an immediate drop of 100B. I suggest that cutting the 100B that Obamacare is costing now, on its way to costing trillions later, would result in an almost immediate jump in the private sector GDP, which, to me, is the only sector that counts. I claim that the same thing would happen if a few tens or hundreds of billions were cut by gutting the EPA, ESA, EEOC, and maybe the NLRB for now. Saving a few hundred billion would allow the private sector to reduce the 1-1.5Trillion they have to spend each year following gubmt regulations.

    To a number cruncher, those cuts represent a reduction of 10% in GDP, which would be tragic. To me they represent a freeing up of the dynamic private sector which, in the not-to-long term, would explode the GDP in a way that would benefit everyone. The key is not the number of dollars cut, but where those cuts take place. That is a political, not economic, problem.

  • Right Reason

    How failure to raise the debt limit will send the economy into recession. I am not doubting it is the case, I just have never heard any specifics – in any such pronouncement – on why this is so. It reminds me a bit of the TARP fiasco.

    And will the failure to authorize $100 billion in US borrowing per month really take it out of the economy? Won’t that money be available for lending to the private sector instead of the US government?

    • red_oakster

      The whole point is that you can’t execute a debt turnaround in the midst of a crisis. Rather you need to have a president who will sign budget-cutting legislation and a Congress which will restore presidential impoundment powers. The reason why folks like Paul Ryan voted for TARP is that when you get to a crisis, it’s too late.

      • Right Reason

        Sorry for yelling, but no one seems to want to answer this question.

        The government wil spend $100 million per month less – I get that. But it is $100 million BORROWED dollars. They will no longer borrow these dollars and they will be available to lend to the private sector, putting them back into the economy, yes?

        The US will no longer issue treasury bonds, except for rollover on the current bonds, yes? This would drive up the price of the existing bonds, lowering the interest rate, yes?

        Granted, the above is only freshman level economics – if that, but I don’t see how any of it causes a massive recession.

        Can someone please answer the question?

        • gekster

          Didn’t 1 trillion get spent by the government, (the stimulas), and no economic improvement at all, and if anything, the economy got worse.
          So wouldn’t the other side of the coin be that if the government doesn’t spend the money, the economy gets better?
          Seams simple to me, but what do I know. ;)

          • Right Reason

            from the doomsayers, I’m inclined to agree with you, gekster.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          GDP = C + I + G + (x-m)

          A recession is defined as a reduction in GDP for 3 consecutive quarters or longer. This forced cut would reduce official US GDP by 10.6%.

          The assumption that makes people afraid of that is that massive unemployment would follow. I think it certainly is possible. I also, however, believe that it will happen someday, and is totally unavoidable. We have badly malinvested in our economy and TARP, Porkulus, Cash for Clunkers, HAMP, et al have made this problem measureably worse than it was before the coronation of Barack I.

          I tend to believe that the massive economic collapse that a 10.6% reduction of GDP next month would trigger is baked intot he cake. It will happen, its a question of just how much feke will hit the oscillating rotary device, and which set of economic beliefs will be blamed for said feke messing up all the quaint and pretty wallpaper.

          The sooner it happens, the less bad this fekestorm will end up being. J. Kyle Bass of Hayman Securities I think very eloquently explained what needs to happen when he wrote that what will solve our crisis is a Darwinian Flush.
          Putting this dire necessity off will allow a greater malinvestment to take place and the eventual crisis to become worse and more encompassing. We might as well try our best to maek the Boy President do what is necessary to eat the uniquely flavored and malodorous sandwich now, rather than later.

          • Right Reason

            But given that the 10.6% is borrowed, as I have said that capital will now be available for the private sector, which would raise I by the same amount that G decreases. Thus GDP at the least stays the same.

            And I wholeheartedly agree that tomorrow’s comeuppance will only be bigger than todays.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            who takes up your argument that the 10.6% is not performing as advertised and not really helping GDP.

            Here’s his chart.
            http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=1853

            Here’s the post he first used it in.

            http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=189912

          • buddha1556

            The decrease in G does not equal an increase in I. The amount of borrowing involved requires mostly institutional (possibly foreign) lenders/investors who are looking for the guaranteed returns afforded by Treasury debt, and our much publicized AAA rating. If that opportunity for investment goes away, it’s incorrect to assume any meaningful percentage of that money will be directed to the private sector, and the higher risks associated with those options.

            Most of the borrowing amount would just go away, unless we adopt a more business (investment) friendly atmosphere to offset the vacuum created. We all know how likely that is to happen. Unless and until much of the private sector uncertainty is resolved, it will fill little, if any, of the void left by G spending, in the short to medium term, thus the dire predictions of the OP.

          • Right Reason

            It will have to go somewhere. Government borrowing is real treasuries bought with real money. Even if there are no more treasuries, there is still the real money. Though I believe you are right that it would not all go into the private sector, I disagree that what would is not a meaningful amount. Those investors are still looking for a return on their money. They’re not going to stuff it in a sock if there are no treasuries to buy.

          • sarg01

            If China can’t buy US Treasuries because the government stops issuing them, does it necessarily follow they’ll instead invest in US-based industry?

            And I’ll repeat my earlier point that capital takes a while to shift into growth. Loans have to be approved, project plans have to be made, and then months or years are spent in the process of carrying those plans out. Yes, some of the money is spent quickly, but not ALL of it. The difference is a direct reduction in economic activity, as the government checks stop going out pretty much immediately.

          • Right Reason

            The question is whether taking whatever percentage of the $100 billion out of the economy now by choice is better or worse than having likely much more taken out when austerity forces us to later.

          • sarg01

            … to sweep the 2012 election on the basis of Obama’s depressing the American economy with his anti-business posture.

            Then, with someone in the Oval not hostile to business, the recovery will begin quickly, and be in full swing by the 2014 midterms. It’s the Reagan Revolution all over again, with Obama playing the role of Mr. Carter … complete with Nobel Peace Prize. Progressivism can be set back for decades. In fact, with the cautionary examples from Europe, this time we might kill it off for good.

          • Right Reason

            R’s controlling Congress and the WH doesn’t magically mean sunshine and rainbows. The recovery doesn;t start just by them being there. They’ve got to roll back what’s been done in the last 2 1/2 years.

            Unfortunately, there’s been more than a few statements from the GOP hierarchy hedging on that.

          • sarg01

            Business are just holding onto the last piece, the hiring. They do it because they haven’t got a clue how much business expansion will cost them with this administration.

            It’s certainly true that if the Rs get in and act like the Obama admin that would be an issue. However, Bill Clinton didn’t act like the Obama admin, why would we expect Perry, Bachmann, Romney or Pawlenty to?

            Boehner won’t consent to tax increases now. Why would he after a big 2012 win validates the conservative position?

            Yes, they do need to get rid of O-care before 2014, but even RINOs will more likely support that then the most “conservative” D. Not a single Rep voted for O-care, not even the RINOs.

          • Right Reason

            If and when they’re in charge, they have to undo what’s been done. That means cutting – not reductions in the rate of growth – actual cutting. Keeping taxes where they are doesn’t fix the spending. And putting leashes on the bureacrats. I’m not convinced they have the stomach to stand up to the demagoguing that will surely take place.

          • sarg01

            The employment recovery takes place regardless of cuts. Cuts aren’t about economics, they’re about right/wrong and the definition of what freedom means in America.

            The cuts need to happen because we need to stop debt piling up. They need to happen because government is exceeding the powers granted to it in our social contract. We need cuts to break the cycle of dependency.

            Political will is a lot easier to come by after you’ve just had a big electoral win and the perception of the economy is going up. Insisting they have to prove future actions before granting them the power is a catch-22. We can toss them if they fail AFTER we give them a winning hand.

          • http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

            Businesses are already sitting on the cash they’ve got. The money that would have gone into treasuries is likely to be put into other “safe” investments, as opposed to being placed into productive use, with all that entails in a time when the president has shown an enormous resentment of productivity.

            I disagreed with Francis above that failing to raise the debt ceiling by August 2 is catastrophic, but it’s naive to think that it’s not going to cause short term economic pain.

            On a more general note, you appear to be mistakenly concluding that government borrowing is part of the “G” in “GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)”. It’s not – government spending is.

            Another point about GDP (and just to be clear, I don’t think you did this, Right Reason):
            The formula above is very useful for calculating GDP that has actually been produced, and useful for predicting future GDP if you can reasonably estimate C, I, G, X, and M. It is absolutely worthless for analyzing the effects changes in C, I, G, X, and M have on each other.

          • Right Reason

            I just doubt that it would cause more pain than the forced reckoning that will come if we fail to address the problem.

            And why wouldn’t government borrowing be counted as part of G? The money is spent, is it not?

          • cordpt

            Once it’s spent, it counts. Otherwise, it’d be counted twice.

            I agree that some serious spending cuts that will necessarily provoke some economic pain are necessary – and I do believe there will be a political price to pay for it and that the GOP should be willing to pay it for the sake of the country and future generations of Americans.

            A completely different thing is the economic turnoil that would be cause by not increasing the debt limit.

            It’s like comparing a decision to not buy a new car with a decision to buy a car and then run away without paying for it. The consequences, at a macroscopic scale, are vastly different – as are the acts themselves from a moral perspective, btw.

          • Right Reason

            A part of government spending is borrowed money. All the money the government borrows is eventually spent. Perhaps its a few days, weeks or even months later, but it’s all spent. Thus, part of G is borrowed money.

            And I think your analogy is a little off. To me, it’s more like after going on a shopping spree with your credit card, realizing you don’t have the money to pay for everything. The responsible thing is to return what you can, and work to pay off the rest as promptly as possible.

          • cordpt

            I thought the discussion was about why the money the government borrows wasn’t factored in the determination of the GDP. Otherwise, yes, government spending is financed through borrowing and taxes. But the amount collected in taxes (and via seigniorage) and borrowed by the government doesn’t equate to G (understood as a component of the GDP) because transfer payments (like, say, social security, social welfare payments, subsidies, etc) aren’t part of G.

            If your plan is to pay off the bill as promptly as possible, what’s exactly the point of defaulting on it? That seems quite nonsensical to me.

          • Right Reason

            who may consider not raising the debt not to be the most terrible option out there with deadbeat debtors is nothing but BS ad hominem.

          • cordpt

            You’ve offered an analogy as a reply to my own; a couple of minutes later you were able to identify an ad hominem on it?

            You may not like to hear it, but not increasing the debt limit is not a spending cut; it’s merely the government not paying the bill of the spending decisions already made.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            A recession is typically defined as 2 consecutive quarters of decline (although it is officially decided by the NBER). Also, a decline in GDP of 10%+ is typically defined as a depression.

            Also, keep in mind that government is currently subtracting from GDP (ie the non-government GDP for last Quarter grew at roughly 3%).

            Finally, the hit to the economy in the immediate term would be catastrophic as it would trickle down as vendors didn’t get paid, who then couldn’t pay their employees, who then couldn’t pay their bills or spend, etc. And no, this is not baked into the market cake.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            There is nothing scoreable in anything the Democrats have offered. There are no near-term cuts in the spending profile in anything the Democrats have offered. The malinvestments that currently plague our economy are only doubled down on.

            I like Francis’ idea of just putting the 1 month extensions out there like a good, steady jab in a boxing match. This needs to become something that never goes away until.

            1) The US Senate quite the 800 Club and actually passes a budget.
            2) The reconciliation work between the Ryan Plan and whatever the Senate budgets gets properly done.

            The 1 month extensions that Francis proposes will prevent “Whatevermageddon” until that gets done IAW proper budgetary procedure. The way it should have been happening for the past 800 days!

        • sarg01

          The economy contracts far faster in response to changes than it grows.

          Some government contractor doesn’t get paid on time. Yes, theoretically, they still have an asset on the books equal to the government’s debt, but in practice companies need cashflow to operate. Sure, the big guys will be fine, but the little guys can get into trouble very quickly.

          I’m sure most of us were living paycheck to paycheck at one point or another. Ask yourself how you would deal with your employer giving an IOU instead of money for a month. You immediately cut spending – you have no real choice.

          Then remember that the spending we’re talking about is either entitlement spending or paying for goods/services already rendered. Apart from the entitlements (which everyone refuses to cut for political reasons) we still owe the money anyhow, whether it’s officially recorded as “debt” or not.

          Our liabilities continue to rise when the debt ceiling is reached, we just stop putting them in the books. These are real liabilities. The government has consumed something, and refusing to pay for services rendered is theft – every bit as bad as just taxing the money away.

          • Right Reason

            Thanks, I can see that delayed payments would cause disruption, I admitted that in my original post a few threads up.

            Most of the estimates I’ve seen say we’ll have between $170-$200 billion to cover about $300 billion of budget. Interest, SS, Medicare/Medicaid and militatry pay will take $135 billion, leaving $35-$65 billion to cover the remaining $165 billion budgeted. Assuming all of that amount is for services already rendered (which is doubtful), that means That means $100 billion will not get paid on time. However, as we move forward, less and less of the discretionary spending would be already contracted. Assuming similar amounts of income and fixed outflow each month, the amount of services already rendered would quickly diminish, meaning the balance could be paid to the overdue balances.

            One can look to the California situation a few months back for a microcosm of this situation. Businesses were paid in IOU’s. There was disruption, without a doubt, but not catastrophe. Granted, this would be of a larger scale, but I do not see an apocalyptic scenario playing out.

            The shock to the economy would be for those businesses who have structured themselves around government largesse. I would submit, however, that this shock is unavoidable, it is just a matter of when and how severe. And the farther we push this reckoning off, the more severe it will be.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            after August, the gap goes to about $110-120 billion/month. You literally would have to eliminate defense and social security entirely to close the gap for this year.

          • Right Reason

            It is easier to cancel a project not yet started than one in progress. Less and less of the gap is work in process.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I proposed incremental solution in April:

    http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2011/04/24/solving-the-debt-ceiling-deficit-crisis-incrementally/

    I also maintained, and still do, that we need a ‘big proposal’ (cut cap and balance does the trick) and a ‘small alternative’ to pass the House:
    http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2011/07/13/plan-a-how-to-win-the-debt-ceiling-fight/

    And the third leg is to rely on ‘regular order’ by passing bills out of the House and demanding Senate action, and no more WH talks that go nowhere:
    http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2011/07/07/rep-carter-return-to-regular-order-to-handle-the-debt/

    This is the right strategy. There are different variations on how to do ‘short term’, the one above and Gingrich proposals are similar.

    It is troubling to me that either our own leadership did not look far enough ahead and/or is not thinking strategically enough to realize what options they would be faced with. If I could figure out in April that we would get to this point, why couldnt they? Why could they not come up with a better plan than mcconnell’s sellout?

  • dblagent007

    I agree with Francis that not raising the debt ceiling is going to be really bad. However, I disagree about whether the economy will be harmed by cutting government spending. Fiscal stimulus does not work when the central bank targets inflation. If the government cuts spending and inflation begins to drop, the central bank simply increases the monetary stimulus in response.
    http://www.economist.com/economics/by-invitation/guest-contributions/assessments-fiscal-policy-cant-ignore-central-bank-react

    There will be a slight drop in output when the government cuts spending, but the Fed can easily counter it and keep the country growing. The only problem is that the Fed will let inflation get down to 0.6% before it will take action, but it will take action.

  • Scope

    I like the one month extensions, at current spending levels, with no additional emergency monies allowed. The only focus for the Republicans right now would be to just tread water until the 2012 elections. They cannot be blamed for trying to push granny over the cliff, with entitlement reform, that will never ever happen, and shouldn’t, until the Republicans have all three houses in Washington. To try to do entitlement reform now means accepting liberal ideas into the package, and even with that, it will never fly, Nancy said so. The Republican message should be that their hands are tied on accomplishing much of anything unless and until they regain control in Washington. Those screaming for miracles now need to educate themselves that a party cannot accomplish much, when the other two houses have control and the majority of power.

    There is an additional benefit, if you will, to doing it one month at a time, the economy doesn’t collapse, but, it doesn’t improve either, keeping Obama from being able to tout any good economic news. Unemployment numbers will remain high, uncertainty would remain. High unemployment means disaster for Obama in 2012, I don’t care what the liberal said that it won’t matter, it will. Granny still gets her SS check, Medicare remains the same, and the military still gets paid. He couldn’t threaten any of those groups, or do fear mongering to them.

    Obama said that he would veto any short term solutions. Of course he would, the ongoing problem, with no long term solution, keeps him in the spotlight of a very weak economy, which really hurts his re-election hopes. He especially can’t afford hassels in the months just prior to the election. It takes the onus of any bad decisions away from the Republicans, and puts the dire economic situation right in Obama’s lap, at the most critical time.

    I really don’t understand why all the fuss and fury at McConnell and his plan, it isn’t going anywhere, period. The newbie Senators will never go along with it, as well as DeMint. The 87 or so new members in the house will not go along with it, no matter what Boehner or Cantor say. It is DOA. Wouldn’t it be much better to stay on the attack against Obama and the Democrats, rather than trying to do a witch hunt on one of our own. McConnell hasn’t changed his stripes. He did not become the sell-out squish he is currently just this year, or even last. In fact many of us here were directly involved in helping to pull him across the finish line in his last election, which was close. The sentiment was that he was still better than any Democrat. Now it sounds like some would gladly trade him for a Democrat. He isn’t up for re-election until 2014, why cut his legs off now, and make the entire party look bad, when the best we can accomplish would be to look early for a strong primary opponent to primary him in 2014. Better yet, work on getting rid of Lugar, Hatch, Snowe, Brown et all in 2012, replace as many of the 23 Democrats as possible with conservatives, and then sit McConnell in the corner to ponder his traitorous positions. Believe me, he will leave willingly if he has no power.

    I can see many positive outcomes from your one month at a time proposal.

  • Right Reason

    where and how they can, how on Earth an they be trusted to stand should they gain the house, senate and WH? I can see it now, “we don’t have the 60 votes in the senate, so we can’t do entitlement reform, or repeal Obamacare, etc.”

    They had all three under GWB and look what happened. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice. . .

    • Right Reason

      *

    • Scope

      I keep hearing some saying “if not now when.” You do realize that we don’t have control or any power in the Senate, and we don’t have the WH right? The House has already passed bill upon bill, including repeal of Obamacare, and other important pieces of legislation, only for every one of those bills to die in Harry Reid’s Senate, not even to come up for a vote. Remember, not long ago, the Republicans demanded that, I believe it was a vote on a budget plan to come up to a vote in the Senate, because Reid wouldn’t even bring it to the floor, because for Democrats to vote against it would harm their re-election campaigns? He did so, and as was expected it failed, and even had some RINO Republicans voting against it.

      Do you remember from 06 to 08, when Pelosi was the Speaker, she sat on almost all of the Republican legislation, up to and including Bush’s Fed. judge appointees coming up for a vote. They played stall tactics, because they knew they had successfully spread Bush Derangement Syndrome, which would give the presidency to the Democrats in 08. In that respect, as bad as McCain was, he actually did surprisingly well, considering the hatred for Bush even among some Republicans. Voting for him was made only slightly less bitter because Palin was on the ticket. She deserves credit for McCain not going down in a major landslide.

      What I am suggesting is that the Republicans sit tight, tread water, don’t sink, and wait it out. The authors plan would accomplish just that. It would keep the Republicans from dealing in the 11th hour, when the Democrats make it into a world crisis of enormous proportions, which is when we always get bad bad deals.

      It really surprises me that so many think that because we have the house, where all spending bills begin for sure, that the Republicans can just pass everything they want. They can’t. They can stall, hold up passing funding for certain things, and just adopt the same tactic that the Democrats did from 06 to 08. Heck between 06 and 08 I believe every post office, and federal building in the country was renamed. That was all Pelosi ever did to earn her paycheck. Oh, and that was also the time when the feds took ownership of every acre of public land that they could get their grubby hands on, and now will not allow drilling on.

      I am looking for the smallest, most insignificant movements in the House and Senate until hopefully the Republicans can regain control of both houses, and the WH. That really is the best we can hope for at this time. Those expecting Republicans to accomplish much of anything are only setting themselves, and all Republicans up for major disappointments which can equate to another four years of Obama, and the final nail in the country’s coffin.

      • Right Reason

        I took civics. I saw “I’m Just a Bill” on America Rock on Saturday morning. Believe it or not, I know that the Republicans can’t pass whatever they want. But they can keep what they don’t want – what WE don’t want – from passing. Every time something gets through, they have failed.

        Here’s my scenario with the month-by-month plan:
        The extra $100 billion becomes automatic. After a few months the votes never even make the nightly news. Thus there’s no big impact on the ’12 presidential race.
        Even if we take both houses and the WH in ’12, our senate leadership decides it’s better to keep this arrangement because THEIR donors are now getting the goods. And we just go merrily skipping our way toward the meltdown at the end of the yellow brick road.

        • rightwingmom52

          Do you hear anyone talking about repealing Obamacare much anymore? That, of course, is a rhetorical question.

  • Spartan4Life

    ….is what a lot of people don’t get. It would be one thing if the deficit was 1-2% of GDP, but 10%? Ugh.

    A good analogy to show folks how serious this is is to compare to someone who is using their credit card to pay for necessities like rent and food. If you needed to get more credit to survive you probably would.

    The only thing that is going to change our structural fiscal situation is to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. Period. End of story.

  • Spartan4Life

    Why is it we talk about Medicare as some kind of a Sacrament? I use that term because to the left Government is their religion.

    The fact of the matter is that Medicare is only about 45 years old. Maybe those that opposed it at the outset were right that it was going to bankrupt our country. Now that we have created a system where beneficiaries take out 3X what they put in and drives up the costs for all healthcare consumers, maybe it is time to declare that system a failure and design something that will be better for future generations of Americans.

    I have always said the weakness of the GOP argument is to say how much they like Medicare out of one side of their mouth and tell folks they are going to get less of it out of the other side. I say declare it a failure and get about the business of replacing it with something better.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      Fund them with an appropriately named “Poor Tax.” People that are self-sufficient and well off should feel embarassed to except entitlement money from the national government. It should come with an implicit stigma.

      • acat

        Because at that point, it ceases to be “free health care to seniors” and becomes “subsidized health care for the poor seniors”…. and the rest of the seniors, who have paid into the system for decades, will realize just how screwed they are…

        (and maybe the light bulbs will go on and they’ll realize why most people under 40 do not trust that either Social Security or Medicare will be there wen they retire)

        Mew

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          Liberalism sells. As long the “fairness” gets inflicted on other people.

      • Scope

        I not long ago had a blue haired FLA acquaintance who constantly told me of the enormous amounts of money her friends had, but still insisted that Medicare pay for everything. I heard many stories of doctor procedures being done, but submitted under different diagnosis codes in order to qualify for Medicare reimbursement. Some were living in high dollar assisted living homes. I highly doubt they could be shamed into negative stigmas, as they thought they were very clever because they were getting one over on the government. Sure they paid into Medicare through their working lives, but what they took out of the system was tenfold, just as with SS.

        Agree with acat below in that the younger generations should run so far and so fast from wanting to support a system that can not be maintained. Not sure that will happen though if we don’t change the propagandist educational system that is bent on teaching “from those that have to those in need” or whatever the socialist mantra is. All of the entitlement programs were supposed to be for the very poor and disabled, but, you are now considered poor if you don’t have a big huge flat screen TV, and an ipad or ipod or whatever they are.

      • usadying

        Medicare and Social Security are their sacred cows….it’s their utopian dream. Equal care for everyone. Their way of handling the runaway costs and the upcoming boomer retirements is Obamacare. The Obamacare panel sitting above the fray will hand down medical care fiats that can only be overridden by a congressional super majority. If costs skyrocket, blame Congress. The panel will never be held accountable to anyone.

        Our doctors will be replaced by an HHS clerk behind a computer. He will type in your symptoms, and a table of possible diagnoses will pop up, the cheapest one first. If you have something serious, it will probably take at least a year to run through all the cheap possibilities. By then the condition will be too far along to treat successfully. Then you die. Voila….one less person collecting social security and medicare. Budget problem solved.

  • streetwise

    the nerve!

  • Spiral

    I like this plan. It implicitly acknowledges the most basic rule of politics.

    You have to win control over the levers of power before you can implement your agenda.

    The problem with some conservatives is this: They are so enthusiastic about enacting their agenda that they sometimes do not recognize that timing matters in politics.

    I will offer one small criticism of this plan. I don’t know if Republican congressmen will appreciate having to vote for debt limit increases on a monthly basis.

    I understand that the intention is to keep the debt issue in front of the public, even if the Democrats and Obama remain unwilling to do anything about the issue besides blather endlessly about tax loopholes for corporate jets.

    I don’t know if passing a six month debt limit increase would be better, making this debt limit issue a twice annual event or not.

    In any case, I appreciate the fact that you have thought this issue through and haven’t just accepted the standard talking points.

    And I think the final resolution to this debt limit issue will be similar to what you have suggested. After all, Boehner and McConnell have been around the block. They remember when Newt Gingrich tried to force Bill Clinton into accepting Medicare changes during the 1995-1996 budget battles.

    The result was that Bill Clinton got reelected, even though most people thought that Clinton was dead man walking after the historic 1994 elections.

    Boehner and McConnell aren’t going to pull a Gingrich. McConnell stated very clearly that he refuses to help Obama get reelected.

    I wish the tea partiers would make that committment.

  • renny

    as the Sen. has moved into dead stop and reverse gear (it has passed no budget since 2009) and then o would veto it, so he says.

    But the House should keep offering ideas, because surely no one else is, and let o keep saying NO. Remember when he characterized the Republicans as the party of No? Let him eat his own cake.