« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Do Republicans Have the Temerity to Hold the Debt Ceiling?

The Democrats have a habit of sabotaging our economy and then demanding that we pass their legislation to avert impending doom that would result from their original policies.  Unfortunately, Republicans credulously accept their premises and acquiesce to the emergency legislative actions.  We watched this unfold during the debate over TARP, in which Republicans naively bought into the notion that the Great Depression would return unless they supported the Democrat bailouts.  We agonized over it when Republicans agreed to extend unemployment welfare and ethanol subsidies for another year, lest taxes go up for a week in January.

The same dynamic is now unfolding with the debate concerning the debt ceiling.  The national debt currently stands at $13.95 trillion, as we accrue over $100 billion in new debt every month.  By that calculation, we will surpass the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling in less than three months.  The Democrats are demanding that Republicans consummate and perpetuate their unconstitutional spending habits by raising the debt ceiling, or suffer the peril of defaulting on our credit.

Never mind that it was the Democrats who caused the credit, housing, and budget crises in the first place!  They seem to forget that programs like TARP, bailouts, porkulous, union payoffs, cash-for-clunkers, 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, Franken-Dodd, and Obama Care are the culprits for the doubling of the national debt.  Should the Republicans reward the pillagers by granting them one more opportunity to purloin the taxpayers?  Are we ever going to stop passing the buck down and indefatigably fight against big government in the present?  Even the much anticipated repeal of Obama Care was oddly postponed to placate the Democrats’ shameless politicization of the Tucson shooting.  Why not start reversing the $1.4 trillion deficit now?

Instead of falling into their sinister trap once again, we must uproot their premise by demanding a lowering of the spending floor.  If we lack the intransigence to block Democrat proposals due to threats of peril, how many more Democrat initiatives will we support under the guise of “a one time emergency fix”?  Will Republicans support one last tax increase on Social Security to preclude its bankruptcy?

Here is another important question to consider.  If we don’t strike out at the heart of the dependency state when the public finally has an apatite for spending cuts, then when will we ever cut the debt?  It is well known that Republican consultants have more regard for positive polling data than principled conservative policies.  But the reality is that the public now supports the Republicans on issues of spending more than ever.  In fact, according to a new Reuters poll, the public opposes raising the debt limit by a whopping 78-19 margin.  We will never enjoy a higher level of support for any conservative issue, let alone for aggressive spending cuts.  The Democrats are the ones who are forced into an awkward position on the issue of the debt ceiling, so why back down now?

Unfortunately, it appears that Congressmen Steve King and Michelle Bachmann are lonely in their opposition to raising the debt limit.  Most Republicans are buying into the argument that we will face imminent default if we fail to raise the debt limit immediately.

To that end, we must be prepared to force a compromise.  Not the sort of “bi-partisan compromise” that gives the farm away to the Democrats, but one that would permanently undermine their ability to spend.  Rand Paul and others have suggested that we demand a balanced budget amendment in return for a temporary increase in the debt limit.  I think that a more prudent and strategic demand would be the passage of Mike Pence’s Spending Limit Amendment.  This would automatically limit spending to no more than 20% of GDP, except when there is a declaration of war.  This is far superior to the balanced budget amendment because it directly attacks the spending side of the ledger and denies the Democrats the opportunity to raise taxes to balance the budget.  Also, many states have balanced budget amendments, yet they are able to run a structural deficit, while using accounting gimmicks to complete their balance sheets.  Now is the time to demand direct and permanent spending cuts.

The bottom line is that we must make our stand now.  With bloated government spending crowding out private investment, the U.S. has fallen to ninth place in the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom.  We need to ensure that any increase in the debt limit is less than $200 billion, while demanding a permanent budgetary fix in exchange for the increase.  Otherwise, we will continue to repair the disastrous results of big government with more increases in government.  After all, who has the heart to let the country go bankrupt and the poor eat dog food?

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

COMMENTS

  • steve010

    limit amendment, but it has to be a Constitutional Amendment and not a law passed by Congress that can be rescinded at anytime.

    A vote could be justified by both chambers by taking cover behind the State Legislatures for the non-marxist members of Congress. It’s not law until 3/4 of the State Legislature’s ratify it. I think it might just beat the record of 4 months for the 26th Amendment.

    Plus the issue of a Constitutional Convention to require a balanced budget is looming over Congress. It won’t take too many more States and then a CC would be held. I’m not too sure that is a good idea.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      is a constitutional amendment. It would undoubtedly be arduous to round up 2/3ds in each house. However, it would force Democrats to go on record as opposing authentic measures to finally deal with the debt problem.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    Let me begin by saying that I am as fiscally conservative as any here, but to lay the blame for both the credit crisis and debt on the feet of the Dems is a bit of an overreach. We were/are just as responsible for the deficit/debt problems we have today and may actually be more culpable for the financial mess (with Rubin’s help) for our support of FSMA and CFMA of 1999.

    Having said all of that, I absolutely agree that spending needs to be reigned in and that the only way to do so (over any length of time) is to have some sort of spending level enshrined into law (and without exempting anything ie defense/social security/medicare). However, I would much rather see the spending limit tied to a prospective level of revenue at some unemployment level (say 7% or so) that to a % of GDP, since that not only can wildly fluctuate, but also doesn’t necessarily reduce the deficit if let’s say we cut revenues to 10% of GDP (where we would still end up with a 10% deficit).

    As for the debt ceiling, it would be suicidal to not raise it at this point, as the only way you can stay under it would be with huge cuts in current programs that no one supports (the same poll you cited about the public being against raising the debt ceiling also showed that the only real money the public was willing to cut was defense and that was only 50-50). So, what needs to be done is a debt ceiling increase coupled with a realistic long-term cost cutting plan that will eventually get us back towards a balanced budget.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      The federal treasury will still collect taxes during that period which must be used to pay interest on the debt first. This is not the first time that we came to an impasse on the debt ceiling for a short time. During the October 95′ government shutdown, the debt ceiling was broken, yet the treasury was still able to meet their obligations for that short period. This situation is even better because it will occur during the April/May surge of revenues from tax collections.

      Don’t get me wrong, if we would indefinitely fail to raise the debt ceiling without cutting spending then we would be in trouble. But we do plan to force budgetary cuts. The objections of the opposition revolve around imminent doom if we fail to raise the debt ceiling. I’m simply pointing out that we would definitely have a few months to get our House in shape. If that is not enough time, then we will never cut spending no matter how many times we raise the debt ceiling. That is the thesis of this article.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    and I just don’t see that happening with a threat (ie default) holding over our heads. I agree that we must cut spending, however, we do not get to dictate the cuts all by ourselves and this is where it will get sticky, as whatever passes the House has to also pass the Senate and veto pen.

    Also, again, the real cuts that need to be made are all the big ticket things (defense, social security, medicare) and those simply are not going to get done before we have to raise the ceiling.

    Finally, I would be afraid of shutting down government during this economic climate, as the bond markets/currency markets may get roiled and cost US businesses and taxpayers far more than the small political gain we will achieve through an actual refusal to raise the ceiling. The best (and I mean best for the country) solution is to temporarily raise the cap by enough to take us to the end of the year with the caveat that government will come up with its deficit plan before the next vote. This isn’t exactly a new problem, we have been raising the debt ceiling for decades.

    • Death_of_the_Donkey

      nt

    • KC

      Given that democrats have proposed a 78% cut in defense spending, I suggest that we apply the same percentage to every federal program.

      Set this percentage cut in the same legislation that raises the dept ceiling and enforce it.