« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Pop Goes the Weasel

Those of you who have read my pieces in the past know that I was pushing for congressional Republicans to fight for deficit reduction on the continuing resolution.  This didn’t happen.

Instead, explained the GOP, (1) it would be so much easier and risk-free to use the debt limit, and (2) besides, they were about to unveil a budget which would be widely applauded because (A) the press loves Paul Ryan and (B) no one could attack Medicare changes which left benefits intact for everyone over 55.

Uh…

But, predicted I, if Republicans held up the debt limit, all sorts of sycophantic, sleazy, Obama-worshipping economists would crawl out of the woodwork in order to predict financial Armageddon.

And crawl they did, whining about the cataclysmic consequences of “default” on the U.S. debt.

Well, it turned out that predictions that the U.S. would “default” on making debt payments were -– to give the distinguished economists the benefit of the doubt and to put the best face on their motives –- a contemptible lie.

Without borrowing a cent, the U.S., with $172 billion of income in August, had nearly seven times the money it needed to service its debt ($29 billion).  It also had enough to pay Social Security ($49 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), soldiers ($2.9 billion), veterans (also $2.9 billion), and much, much more.  So we were not talking about a “default” in any traditional sense of the word, but, rather, a partial government shutdown (which had been done before).

Without admitting they were wrong, the sleazoids involved began oh-so-slightly changing the lexiconology  to talk about “default on government’s obligations to the American people.”

So there is a new narrative:  Unless Pell Grants continue to flow, international financial markets will collapse (WP, 7/16).  The sources for this proposition are always anonymous and are always supposedly people who, in other contexts, liberals would regard as unworthy of trust.

Predictably, the fact that Congressmen Steve King and Michele Bachmann had forced Obama’s economists and in-house professional liars (MSNBC) to concede that they had engaged in criminal fraud did not stop them from calling King and Bachmann “balloon heads.”

But, with House Republicans rebelling against their leadership and finally showing a little backbone, now comes Mitch McConnell in an effort to troll for favorable MSNBC press.  You would hope that the not-without-reason “minority” leader would be troubled by the fact that the Washington Post (and every liberal in town) suddenly thinks he’s a genius, not unlike a puppy learning to jump for a tasty treat.

The modified “good boy!” McConnell-Reid proposal would codify the $1.5 trillion in phony defense and out-year “cuts” okayed by Biden, allow Obama to unconstitutionally borrow $2.5 trillion by submitting a comparable amount in hypothetical phony cuts, and -– scariest of all –- create a commission of McConnell/Boehner clones to create an unamendable fast-tracked bill to destroy any aspect of the economy left standing after Phase 1.

What could go wrong with that?

We know, for instance, that one of the “cuts” would be achieved by hiring a lot more government employees to ferret out “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

But, says McConnell, at least the GOP won’t have to “own” the economic conflagration his proposal would create.  The visage of a smiling McConnell standing beside Obama as he signs himself into history as “the great budget cutter” will simply go into McConnell’s scrapbook, and that will be that.

Really?  Is that your “final answer”?

Because Standard & Poors, in addition to its “default”-related threats, is also saying it will downgrade U.S. obligations based on McConnell’s failure to reduce the debt by $4 trillion (WP, July 16, 2011).  And -– this is just a hunch –- but I’m betting the CBS Nightly News is not going to suddenly take the stance that “it’s Obama’s fault.”

In fact, from ObamaCare to Lame Ducksmanship to the CR to the debt limit, you would think the GOP would have learned a simple lesson:  Fleeing in horror does not stop Obama from chasing them.

But what about McConnell’s argument that Obama would finally be required to submit “cuts.”  Huh?  You think Obama, with virtually no parameters on his discretion, can’t come up with $2.5 trillion in phony, political risk-free cuts?

To the contrary, Obama will be able to take his phony cuts and spend the next year taunting the GOP for not enacting them.

But, argues McConnell, Democrats up for reelection, like Ben Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, and Tester will have to spend the next year and a half voting for three veto overrides of debt limit increases.

Wrong again, Tonto.  The Democrats only need one-third plus one in one House.  That means that all of the endangered Democrats can vote “right” on the veto override and can go into the next election touting their fiscal responsibility.

Finally, as to the commission, modeled after the one that bamboozled Reagan, well -– enough said.

It hurts me to say this, but Newt Gingrich is right.  Republicans need to be spending every hour of every day promising that they will save seniors from Obama’s gratuitous threat to cut their social security in order to make them political pawns to his liberal agenda.

It’s probably not a bad idea, in the same breath, to remind Americans of the reasons that Obama needs to borrow $2.5 trillion (ObamaCare, the government takeover of financial services, wasted stimulus bills totaling almost one trillion a crack, bailouts, regulatory gun control, etc.).

What is a bad idea is to grovel around in an effort to curry favor with media which is already owned by the White House.  Because, whatever tomorrow’s headlines read, history will ultimately not look kindly on the guy who was outwitted by Barack Obama again and again and again.

by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89.

COMMENTS

  • wbb1950

    You wonder sometimes whether these RINOS do not have a death wish–not for themselves but for their party. Everything you say here, and in the last blog is true. Your argument is clear cogent and convincing. I hope every Republican senator and congressman sees a copy of this so they know the trap Weasel McConnell is leading them into, and then I hope everyone of them has the courage to just say no to the Weasel.

  • http://www.riversedgealliance.org Robin Smith

    How do we as Republicans keep a straight face when grimacing about this debt ceiling mess and the addiction to spending when the Continuing Resolutions fully funded Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, etc.?

    That little exercise that ended in laughable “cuts” should have prepared us for this moment.

    Those who ran in 2010 promising fearless cuts & leadership are guilty of the same practices as Democrats.

  • Finrod

    I first was of the opinion that McConnell’s plan might not be so bad, but it keeps looking worse and worse the more I hear about it.

    I don’t necessarily think that we have to get a constitutional amendment out of this, but we MUST hold the line on no tax cuts and MUST get some significant budget cuts out of this.

    • Finrod

      No tax INCREASES not no tax cuts, obviously.

      • aesthete

        so long as they come *after* the spending cuts — steep inflation is essentially another form of taxation, anyways (and quite a regressive one at that).

        • Doc Holliday

          .

          • acat

            A 1% national sales tax on all goods and services other than medical and food – with a BBA – would be fine with this cat.

            It gets *everyone* in the game, it’s small enough individually that it’s not objectionable, it’s large enough collectively to make a dent, and with the food-and-medical exemptions it’s not “too hard on the poor”.

            To use the common analogy, after we cut up the credit cards, we must devote every extra penny to paying down the debt we’ve run up. I’m in, since it beats the alternative… but the cards must be cut up first!

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            in lieu of the present tax code. I do not think we need any more of a tax burden. I believe cutting spending would require fewer taxes, am I wrong? And am I still the only one that believes cutting taxes would spur the economy and increase revenues?

            If we actually get rid of a few government agencies, or say cut the government workforce by 30 percent or so, I will talk about a 1 percent sales tax to pay down the debt quickly. But it better be called the Democrat Reparations Tax.

          • Doc Holliday

            meant to say

            “am I the only one that still believes…”

            and yeah yeah, smart guys, I know, we need to be on the right side of the Laffer curve, which I think is the left side ironically. Anyway, I think we certainly can “afford” a few tax cuts.

          • aesthete

            The problem is that, except in periods where there are extreme deflationary pressures, inflation of the sort that we’ve been racking up under Greenspan et al are effectively tax increases. Milt Friedman said during the ’00s that inflation when the nation is running a high deficit is nothing but taxation deferred. Since our choices when it comes to deficit spending are to 1) either pay for it upfront through taxes, or 2) to increase inflation, I would rather bite the bullet and increase taxes directly.

            Firstly, it allows for discussion and implementation of taxes to be more upfront — we would realize shortly that there is no way to pay for the current level of government spending short of massive tax increases on the poor and middle class — in effect, what has been happening through inflation, anyways. Secondly, it forces the generation that votes for crappy government programs to pay for them, too — no more passing the buck onto junior by allowing inflation to take its course! Finally, all taxes must go through the legislature and get signed by the executive, making such things accountable to public sentiment (which is unkind to tax increases, at least in the US). I’m not against central banking, but I do believe that it needs to be strictly regulated and kept in its box — as of right now, it prioritizes funding the US government (an important function, admittedly) over consistent currency inflation.

          • aesthete

            nt

          • Doc Holliday

            I knew we would eventually disagree on something :) I just don’t trust the taxman, it is really that simple. I believe taxes specifically targeted to solve a public problem have always failed. Remember the taxes on cigarettes? What about the Social Security lock box? As you know, Dems always raise taxes or borrow money for specific feel good reasons, then the money all ends up in government coffers and is doled out to special interests.

            Whenever the politician asks me for more money, I ask them what they did with the money I already gave them. And increased taxes might reduce demand based inflation, I will give you that.

          • Doc Holliday

            that is a real problem we have in our fragile democracy. If more than half the people pay no taxes, they will never oppose tax increases. But the only way to fix this problem is to scrap the tax code and replace it with a sales only tax.

            We can’t argue increasing income taxes on the middle class and not increasing them on the wealthy, that will never fly. Maybe I am not understanding your position? I know we can’t be that far off on this.

            If we add a national VAT tax to the existing code, the Dems will have gained one of their cherished dreams. And we will be more like Europe.

          • aesthete

            My hope would be that, confronted with the upfront %s that would be required, Americans would be more supportive of reducing taxes and spending. There just isn’t that “sticker shock” when it comes to inflation, even though the inflation that we experienced under Greenspan was effectively similar to a tax (and, I’m sure I don’t need to say, precipitated the current housing crisis).

            Ideally, I would like to reduce inflation, spending and taxes simultaneously, and I would like to see a flat tax of some sort (I’ve heard good cases for flat income and flat sales, but gravitate towards income just because it’s easier under the current system). Practically, it’s more likely that we’d have to be more savvy than that, by showing people exactly what the welfare/entitlement state costs, and by providing incentive to get rid of large chunks of it (namely, reduced up-front taxes). We can’t do that so long as the Federal Reserve can just hold an auction whenever we’re pressed for cash. I hope that makes my point more clear.

          • Doc Holliday

            sure it also crushes the saver and consumer as well. I believe the fed is borrowing not to pay the debt, but to spur the economy, even though they are wrong to do so.

            The only way we dampen inflation and help the economy is to lower taxes and slash federal spending. And we get the added benefit of promoting capitalism and moving away from tyranny.

          • acat

            If we end up with stagflation, though .. all other expenses (food, gasoline) go up faster than wages, so the benefit is eaten up (more than eaten up) by the loss.

            I’d hoped not to live through another “malaise”… C’est la guerre.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            or the borrower to move into a less inflationary asset re. swiss francs, gold, etc.

          • CMaree

            needle puncturing the fabric of our republic. We do not need to yield to that silky meme that Socialists so love, “Tax the rich, entitle the poor,” as they seek to stitch our frayed country into a global governance blanket.

            Right now the Republicans should have said and still can say across the board cuts in every federal program. The House ought to pass cut after cut after cut. We make this be our better meme: Shared Sacrifice.

          • acat

            Something like 45% of Americans pay no income tax. Not a dime. Nada.

            The reason we’re talking sales tax is – as you say – to make sure the shared sacrifice is, in fact, *shared*. (right now, it’s quite the opposite)

            And again, if you read what we’ve said, there shall be no new tax hikes without the cuts required via BBA or similar.

            Mew

          • davesinsanantonio

            1% soon become 1and 1/2%, then 2% etc., because each increase is sold to the public as “needed”, and “too small to be a burden to anyone”. It is a form of the old “salami slicing” problem of the Hitler era and the Cold War.
            In addition, eventually it will cover food and medicine because “rich” farmers and doctors need to pay their “fair share”. Etc.
            You’ve seen these tricks before, many at the state level, all of them at the federal level. So, I don’t trust ANY promise a politician makes. So, as the Founders intended, we have to tie their hands so tightly they can’t wiggle out, but I don’t have any ideas how to do that safely. So, my solution is the Fair Tax and a Constitutional amendment to abolish the current income tax system. That way we can spot the politicians who “cheat” more easily, and get rid of them individually. If we vote out every person who violates the intent of the Constitution, the others will tread more carefully. (I hope!) But, it is up to We the People to make it work. Always has been. But we have been negligent for about a century in our duties to each other. It is time for us to man up and hold our representatives responsible for actually representing us again.

          • acat

            and by tying this to the BBA’s 18% of GDP restriction, it’s an issue .. but less of one.

            That said, I’d like to see your proposals for getting the 45% of Americans who pay no income tax to start helping to shoulder the burden. That is a problem near the root here… the people have voted themselves bread and circuses, and have voted me (and other working stiffs) the bill.

            Mew

          • cwfoster

            Let’s not act like this is the first time at this rodeo! Remember the Amnesty bill during the Reagan/Bush years? It was supposed to clear up all the long term illegals, PRIOR to securing the border (much like they are insisting on with the current immigration reform proposals!)But once they got their amnesty through, they conveniently forgot to secure the border. Just EXACTLY like they want 2.5 Trillion to spend now in exchange for $4 Trillion they’ll cut over the next ten years!

          • djvu

            to remember La Guardia’s (do you even know he was mayor of New York City?) New York City’s 0.5% temporary sales tax. What is it temporarily now? I’m ninety years old and because of my age, I can’t remember what it is now. Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know. What I do know, because I live in France and pay it every day that I buy something, is that my ‘sales tax’ is 19.6%. Before how long do you think that your 1% would reach that level? Many years ago I bought a car in France at a fortunate time. They had just rduced the ‘sales tax’ on autos from 32% to 28% and consequently I saved some money. The only reason the ‘sales tax’ is now only 19.6% is because of the EU inasmuch as all members of the EU must have the same rate of taxation.
            acat, please excuse my sacasm but I have lived a little longer than you have.
            Robert Palmer Smith author of DARKEST TRUTHS OF BLACK GOLD in which I detail some of the horrors of what you are proposing.

          • acat

            so while I know Fiorello LaGuardia was a mayor and got an airport named after him, other that that, don’t much care about him.

            I do, however, live in the shadow of Chicago, where we’re currently enjoying the highest sales tax in the country. I know *exactly* how insidious sales tax raises can be, it’s one argument I have used against the FAIR TAX in the past.

            That said, if you see another way to get some of the 45% of Americans who pay no federal income tax to shoulder the load, please post it. I’d like to be enlightened by the wisdom you’ve gained for how to fix that problem.

            One solution would be a sales tax, but one that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses to adjust the rate or – like I said above – that is tied to a balanced budget amendment, including the 18% GDP cap.

            Mew

        • wbb1950

          Or why we may not be okay with higher taxes: Here is Michael Barone’s analysis:

          Michael Barone

          Archive | Latest | Log In

          July 18, 2011 12:00 A.M.
          What the Debt-Limit Battle Is All About
          The debate may be complicated, but the issue is basic.

          It

        • Finrod

          NO MORE TAXES.

          PERIOD.

          Let me say that again, just in case I wasn’t clear enough:

          No More Taxes.

          If we surrender on taxes, we might as well start calling ourselves The Other Democratic Party. Taxes were a huge chunk of what inspired our Founding Fathers to fight for independence, or have you forgotten the Boston Tea Party?

          I will personally scream bloody murder at any Republican that votes to raise taxes, and I will work to defeat them in 2012 primaries, or whenever they’re up for re-election next.

          If Republicans vote to raise taxes or add new taxes, we will see a substantial third party movement in 2012, and rightly so. Then Obama will get re-elected and if you think things are bad now, they’ll be 100x worse by 2016.

          • acat

            That’s what I’m hearing, Finrod.

            Especially since the post of asthete’s that you’ve replied to indicated, quite clearly, “after spending cuts”.

            As long as the new taxes hit people who, currently, are *not* paying income tax, I think the benefits to our country would outweigh the cost.

            Mew

          • Finrod

            The only way that you’re ever going to get people currently not paying any (income) tax to start paying taxes regularly would be to throw out the income tax and all the other taxes and go with the FairTax or something similar.

            And that’s not going to happen until we have a Republican President and comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress.

            Any income tax adjustment will only raise the taxes of people that already pay them. The Democrats will bloody well see to that. If Republicans go along with it, then lots of people are going to think “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me” and that’ll be it for the GOP for a while.

  • anjinconsulting

    Everything they have worked for in terms of maintaining and perpetuating an ever expansive government is at risk, and every lie they have told, every excuse they have made to justify their favorite constituent or prgram is now being laid bare. God help them when someone in the press publically asks them: “what happened to the money for Social Security and why should anyone give you any more?”

    There will not be another chance to control our own destiny as a country if these goverment cash addicts are not tethered on the shortest of leashes. Now is the time for the Tea Party & other conservative groups to rise and be heard.

  • jaykali

    We are not getting really anywhere else. The McConnell plan completely sucks. Obama is going to come out looking like a rose. He gets to dream up whatever phony cuts he wants. The press will run with whatever number he comes up with and he’ll look like a cost cutter without having to cut anything. He is wondering right now how he got so lucky that the Republicans blinked so easily. All he had to do was bluff ab social security checks. Absolutely pathetic. I am not overly critical of Republican strategy bc it is harder than it looks, when you don’t have the presidency or the Senate you are going to not get everything you want.

    This has been completely pathetic. Does anybody remember why we are having this big drag-out fight? It’s because the Republicans with their 2010 mandate were going to force big cuts in order to raise the debt ceiling. They had captured the narrative so that we were discussing not whether or not to cut (see Obama’s budget that didn’t cut anything), but HOW MUCH. How wonderful!

    Your move Democrats. So what they did was say okay the Republicans have us pinned in a corner. The way out is to say okay, so we need to get out of a deficit, fine we’ll do cuts in exchange for tax hikes. We’ll even let you have 2 or 3 times as many cuts as hikes. And of course when Republicans laughed at this idea – I mean we are the ones who forced this debate and if taxes were so great why didn’t you just raise this in December, right? Well but of course the media has assisted and now the Republicans are made to look unreasonable. I mean what’s wrong with a few more dollars on trillionaires in exchange for some big vague cuts in out years? And when you come back and say Obama HAS NO PLAN OR SPECIFICS he says well look if the Republicans aren’t going to be serious we can’t negotiate in good faith (and that’s why we can’t show you our super-awesome-secret-plan). That is their playbook.

    The Republicans should have been passing cuts bills all the while and letting them fail in the Senate. The cut, cap, balance deal is completely symbolic and too late. They could have started with that one, but it should have been a month ago. They are losing the narrative and then so we’re left with some crappy bill that will get cobbled together last minute.

    The Republicans will say, “Shwew, glad we escaped that one” — wait a second, this was created by the GOP to force big cuts by a Democratic president! You just got out maneuvered! That is what has happened.

  • jaykali

    It’s so stupid, it’s almost worst than just a straight vote, at least that wouldn’t have wasted everybody’s time. Does every big deal that comes out of congress now have to be smoke and mirrors BS. The press should stop letting these morons get away with it. They are too busy trying to prop up Obama as greatest prez evah that they can’t do any ‘investigative journalism’ outside of going through Sarah Palin’s trash.

  • RealQuiet

    This certainly is no less.

  • Adjoran

    And I don’t mean that in a “Ron Paul weirdo interpretation” sort of way, but in a “the Courts have held” way. Congress may not delegate their ennumerated powers to the Executive. That’s what sunk the Line Item Veto some years back, and a couple of regulatory carte blanches, as well.

    Plus, it’s not just making interest payments and paying the bills this year. Unless we cut $4-5 trillion in this ten year budget window, our rating will be downgraded, and the increased interest cost will kill us.

  • popdaddy

    The House should pass a

  • Kyle-MI

    If it is such financial doom to “default” on the debt, then why don’t Obama and the Dems just give in to those crazy Republican demands? After all the GOP is so mean that they might “default” just for the political advantage over Obama. Those tea partiers are nuts, I tell you nuts. Just give them what they want and back away.

    On the other side, the fallback position for the GOP should be an endless short term extension of the debt limit a couple months at a time with some reasonable cuts thrown in. Play it until Nov 2012. Do you really think Obama is going to veto it (or the Dem Senate not vote on it)? The GOP needs to pound on the press and constantly drive home to the voters that we have done our part (with short term extensions). If the Dems stop the short term extensions then they are the ones “defaulting”, playing politics, and being unreasonable.