« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Cantor, Kyl, and NO OTHER REPUBLICANS to deficit panel.

The AP doesn’t really explain the significance of the fact that the GOP is sending just House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl to the President’s much-ballyhooed deficit reduction panel, so let me do it.

When the President set up this thing in the first place, he told the four party leaders in Congress – Speaker Boehner (R) and Minority Leader Pelosi (D) in the House; Majority Leader Reid (D) and Minority Leader McConnell (R) in the Senate – to each send four Congressmen to it, for a total of sixteen.  That effectively translates to “President Obama’s deficit reduction panel was intended to be ineffectual:” you generally cannot get sixteen people to agree on anything.  While Congressional Democrats theoretically were taking this panel more seriously [by only sending two apiece] – well.  The Senate Democratic picks are Inouye and Baucus, which as the NYT notes are both hostile to the idea of deficit talks.  Pelosi picked Van Hollen and Clyburn, which are described as obedient mouthpieces for the former Speaker (who herself hates the idea of deficit reduction) by that noted right-wing shill The Huffington Post.  So that’s the Democratic side.

And on the Republican side? Neither Cantor nor Kyl are recognized as being particularly fiscal policy players: they’re there because they’re second-in-command to Boehner and McConnell, respectively.  Boehner’s made it clear already that he expects deficit reduction negotiations to reflect the existing House budget, and Cantor is likewise making it clear that raising the debt ceiling will have to be linked to budget reform.  Kyl is being less public about it, but he’s saying the same things as his House counterparts.

Look, here are a couple of truths that probably a number of my readers don’t want to hear, particularly if they’re still upset over the continuing resolution brouhaha: the debt ceiling will end up being raised eventually, and probably at the last moment.  That does put a limit on what the GOP can accomplish, although it’s not going to be as much a limit as the Democrats apparently think that it’s going to be (the 65 or so screaming maniacs* we put in the House last November will ensure that).  And whatever the deal ends up being, we’re going to see another round of cries of utter and total betrayal from the conservative side.  Sausage and politics: don’t watch either being made if you value your mental health.

But at least the GOP is not taking this deficit panel nonsense as a heaven-sent excuse to send over eight legislators to solemnly jaw-jaw at each other and kick the fiscal can down the road yet again.  Instead, we’ve put in two people whose ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ – mostly ‘No,’ at least until the Democrats start taking this stuff seriously – can and will be seen as being binding on the larger caucuses.  In other words: the GOP is at least trying to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls.

Which is a bit of an improvement over, say, the last time we had a House majority, don’t you think?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Says he, with nothing but admiration in his voice.  In fact, I wish that we had eighty-five screaming maniacs.  Not that I didn’t try my best to make that happen, of course.

COMMENTS

  • Xasteius

    Especially after the House GOP leadership claimed $100 $61 billion in cuts that turned out to be only $352 million.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    I don’t think a day goes by that this particular point doesn’t make me sit back and say, “WTF?”

    How can an adult who has access to information act in such an irresponsible manner? I can understand a position like “raise taxes and cut defense to keep spending money on social programs”. But to fundamentally WANT to increase the deficit as fast as possible?

    I just scratch my head in confusion, it simply make no sense except as an expression of insanity.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    .

  • Diogenes314

    He has a Nobel prize, you know.

  • joepyne

    “How can an adult”

    Since when did Pelosi become an adult?

    Did I miss something when I went to the can?

  • jccbin

    Sadly. It. Will. Come. To. This.

  • gekster

    I.m still waiting.
    Ya got the link or not.

  • westbrook348

    he supported deficits because they help with reelection. You artificially inflate GDP. The economic benefits of the government borrowing in the short term gains you voter support. They are getting something for nothing, basically; instead of paying taxes, most of the pain is deferred to the next generation. Not enough people understand the long term consequences of the debt or see the extent of the risk.

  • carolina

    and anti-everything they ‘stand’ (spend) for.
    How can they redistribute if they have limits on their spending (welfare state).
    With close to 50% of the folks on the receiving end of all the redistribution – we are at risk of going over the tipping point. Everybody seems to love ‘free’ money. Scary times, imo.

  • moosewing

    This should be easy. Allow the debt ceiling to be raised in return for complete repeal of Obamacare. I know it’s a stretch, and the Republican people in charge (I hesitate to use the word leadership) won’t have the nerve to do it, but Obamacare is becoming less and less popular with the American people. It would be a good start toward fiscal sanity and people would understand it. Simple concept. Eliminate a huge program that hasn’t started instead of making cuts to an existing program.

  • Diogenes314

    Only if you believe Paul O’Neil.

  • carolina

    on the investment from the government spending was greater than the interest payments on the borrowing, then we came out ahead.
    Unfortunately, too much (most all) of recent govt borrowing has been used for consumption and does not provide any return (obama’s ‘stimulus’)
    This kind of wasteful govt spending is a travesty.
    Way too few politicians understand anything about economics. On top of that there are idiots like Krugman that mislead the few that try.

  • aesthete

    from an accounting point of view suffer from opportunity costs. For example, the Venezuelan oil industry is state-owned and provides the state with revenues. However, it is undeniable that a free market in oil would both benefit the nation of Venezuela, and possibly provide even greater returns to the state in terms of tax revenue. Most of what the Bush administration funded was incredibly wasteful, as is the case with most government spending. Medicare Pt D cannot be construed to be investments, ditto with the corruption-laden highway appropriations bills. Westbrook is right — the best thing a politician can do to improve his chances for re-election is spend other peoples’ money and cut taxes.

  • DONTREADONME

    returns will invariably be utilized to fund future waste. The history of Government if ripe with this circle of life.

  • Common_Cents
  • Common_Cents
  • Adjoran

    Democratic promises cannot be believed. Every single recent promise for fiscal responsibility has been broken by the current Democratic leadership in House, Senate, and the White House.

    If we don’t get something actually passed into law FIRST, whatever they promise us will evaporate into thin air. The budget is the most important thing. We need to act now on this deficit mess.

    Anything else is just a post-dated check.

  • westbrook348

    according to Drudge right now; we’re $25.6 billion below the limit & spending between $4 and $9.4 billion a day.

    Geithner’s “emergency measures” will gain us an extra $165 billion, meaning the ceiling vote is definitely coming within 41 days. But at the current spending rates, it’s more like 17 days before we run out of credit.

    100% chance they raise the ceiling, & we probably won’t even get any concessions out of it either. The GOP has handled this so badly. I’m quite ticked off.

  • sowa1

    There is no reason to raise it. there is plenty of waste in Gov’t. The Census and Stimulous are two that have money left over. Give it back or put it towards paying off the debt. Like the American people, the Govt should pay all debt first and live on what is left. Get rid of Gov’t workers, the EPA, Education Dept. Foreign aid, money to Brazil to drill and on and on. if there is not enough money to pay for them, get rid of them. DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT

  • sowa1

    There is no reason to raise it. there is plenty of waste in Gov’t. The Census and Stimulous are two that have money left over. Give it back or put it towards paying off the debt. Like the American people, the Govt should pay all debt first and live on what is left. Get rid of Gov’t workers, the EPA, Education Dept. Foreign aid, money to Brazil to drill and on and on. if there is not enough money to pay for them, get rid of them. DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT

  • jlsankot

    This is the message I’ve been sending to Boehner.

    (Bet it won’t do any good.)

  • ag8tor

    fig about me or you or the country. She’s got hers and if she has to help bring down the country to stay in favor and power she will. You do understand that, right? She’s a true lefty if it fits her purpose. It’s All ABOUT HER NOT THE COUNTRY!

  • fightinmad

    You know, I like many if not most of you look at our Country, Our world, and our choices out there to pick from and it looks really bleak. Response after response in these daily blogs repeat the sad news over and over. I got a better approach. When you look up, be sure to look higher than the debt ceiling. Look up and look beyond the utter stupidity of those who try to lead us. We were warned by some 35 or so men in 66 books 2 testaments, who were inspired by one God to write how this would all work out. For some, by their own choice, the end is very very bad! That end lasts forever. For the rest of us who know the truth and accept Him who is the Truth, all of this is the foreshadow of His return. He warned us that all of these things would come to pass. What was His advice? Look up! Why? For His coming draweth nigh. End of story!

  • josephk1972

    is just completely wrong. An oil monopoly whether state owned or otherwise will always be more profitable than a company operating in a free market. Go do some research on John Rockefeller.

  • cpa2222

    So old Commie hater Joe wasn’t all hot air. And you’d think the law ow large numbers would kick in someplace, too.

  • josephk1972

    there is a difference between money that has been budgeted for certain programs and cash that one actually has to spend. When they allocate funds for those programs, they don’t actually put the money into a fund for that purpose. There is no cash to give back.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    But the Apostle Paul said and believed the same thing, and he was off by 2000+ years. We ought not to count on rescue from above.

    “Pray as if it all depends on God. Work as if it all depends on you.”

  • josephk1972

    This is not worth screwing around with. Both sides want to raise it and it needs to be raised, so they need to stop screwing around and raise it. There is no need to potentially blow up the capital markets. You think the Lehman collapse was fun? A US debt default would be about 10,000x worse.

    Fundamentally, this whole thing makes no sense. You shouldn’t get two bites at the apple. You pass a budget, you live with it. You don’t pass a budget and then have a second vote at a later date on whether you can actually pay.

    Raise the debt ceiling by a few trillion. And once that is done, stop doing everything else and figure out a long term solution to the problem.

  • powertothepeople

    grant more credit to a bunch of spend happy bums. Giving more money to a person who can not currently budget what they have is always the best thing to do.

    PS, the last line was sarcasm in case you did not pick it up.

  • cpa2222

    Check the history of Rome. We are now, and have been for 20 years, in the era of bread and circumstances. We keep the masses stupid, but supply their entertainment. Pelosi, Reid and others thrive on their fans’ adulation, and are drunk with power, and think they can keep the circuses going long enough until they die. Then they don’t care. As Charles Beard said, “those the gods would destroy, they first make mad with power.” unfortunately their madness is our reality.

  • SirGladiator

    They want us, as Americans, to believe that raising the debt limit is necessary to pay our bills, when the exact opposite is true. The higher we raise the debt limit, and thus the more in debt we become, the harder it will be to pay our bills. If we stop borrowing and going further into debt, and start only spending what we take in, it will make it much easier for us to pay our debts, it won’t result in ‘default’ or ‘financial armageddon’ or whatever other lies Washington wants us to believe. They lied about how much they were cutting in that 38 billion, or rather 350 million spending package, and they’re going to keep lying for as long as they can get away with it. Folks in both parties, just brazenly lying to us, its quite disgusting at this point. Hopefully we as Americans will see through them this time, and tell them not to raise the debt limit any further, and more importantly vote against anyone who does vote to raise it. Its time to take a stand for fiscal responsibility, as well as simple fiscal sanity.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Where’s the evidence that it needs to be raised? Furthermore, why give Obama that sort of carte blanche? A reasonable, mature leader wouldn’t see it that way, but Obama will. There’d better be a pretty compelling reason to do so.

  • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

    ‘…the debt ceiling will end up being raised eventually, and probably at the last moment.” Is there anyone out there, including the author who writ this, who,can ‘splain to me why the debt ceiling will be raised?
    The ONLY result of raising the debt ceiling is a continuum of raising the debt ceiling for more spending by the progressive socialists!

    As the Former PM of England said, “Socialism works until the government runs out of other people’s money.” There is no money left!
    Apparently there has been no need to raise the debt ceiling with fiat money in full throttle. Good grief, print some of the worthless paper for the debt ceiling! Officially raising the debt ceiling with Monopoly Money would serve the same purpose.

    “The first [debt] limit was set in 1917 and set at $11.5 billion, according to the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. Previously, Congress had to sign off every time the federal government issued debt.”
    “How high is the debt limit right now? The ceiling is currently set at $14.294 trillion. As of April 14, [2011] the debt subject to that limit totaled $14.219 trillion — or $75 billion shy of the cap. But the total can fluctuate up or down daily.”
    “How many times has the ceiling been raised? Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001.” By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writerApril 15, 2011: 5:49 PM ET-CNN

  • billybaa

    they will wait until the last minute on purpose
    then say we need to do it fast
    Boehner is ONLY worried about his job
    shut the Fed down until we get what we need done
    Communists will always lie
    get results FIRST

  • gpclaw

    I’m all for defunding Obamacare, but that only addresses a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The biggest problem we have in this country, even bigger than Obama’s collectivist philosophy of government, is that it is too easy for Washington to spend money.

    Once a balanced budget amendment is in place, the leaches in congress would be forced to address entitlements, Obamacare being one of them.

  • gpclaw

    Because our leaders in Washington have a long track record of being proactive, and addressing issues responsibly.

    If they raise the debt ceiling, with nothing else attached, all we will get is more talk. It will be business as usual, and a year from now we will have the same debate, about the debt ceiling, all over again.

    It’s about time we stopped basing our decisions on “how the markets will react”. This just leads to more big government, such as “too big to fail”, and more crony-ism..

  • ihateliberals

    The Presidents Debt panel is a joke and a total waste of time. Why send out best and brightest when it doesn’t matter what they say? Obama is using the panel as a smoke and mirrors trick to keep the public occupied. he didn’t follow what they suggested the first time why would the second go round be any different? When has he ever told the truth about anything?

  • ihateliberals

    major Ditto’s

  • YnotNOW

    So I agree that an agreement on the budget should be a prerequisite to an agreement on the debt limit. anything else is a blank check. Pass a budget with the greatest possible cuts, and the smallest possible deficit. Then we have a real number to use to raise the debt limit to ONLY that amount, while going on record that it will not be raised again for 2012 spending, such that we have to hold to the budget constraints.

    Note that I am still skeptical that Congress will agree to anything that is not based upon smoke and mirrors.

  • YnotNOW

    So I agree that an agreement on the budget should be a prerequisite to an agreement on the debt limit. anything else is a blank check. Pass a budget with the greatest possible cuts, and the smallest possible deficit. Then we have a real number to use to raise the debt limit to ONLY that amount, while going on record that it will not be raised again for 2012 spending, such that we have to hold to the budget constraints.

    Note that I am still skeptical that Congress will agree to anything that is not based upon smoke and mirrors.

  • YnotNOW

    The profitabilty of the oil company with the economic well-being of the entire country. They are opposite in this case.

  • YnotNOW

    The profitabilty of the oil company with the economic well-being of the entire country. They are opposite in this case.

  • adair

    Add to the recent promises for fiscal responsibility all the promises made in the Reagan era. Classic duplicity, symptomatic of the Party..

    They exposed themselves from 2007 through 2010, and now are trying to put their sweet, cooperative, honestly-interested-in=making-America-whole-again masks back on.

    It can’t be incompetence. It has to be intentional.

  • The_Gadfly

    Either event would signal the collapse of Progressive world view, much like Gorby signaled the collapse of the Soviet Union when he didn’t fire on protesters. Therefore expect the collectivists to resist until all hope of their viewpoint is gone.

    *I’ll assume when you say BBA that you are referring to the one that limits spending as function of GDP as well as the other requirements with a few very narrowly defined escape hatches for events such as wars, otherwise we’re in a whole different ballgame.

  • The_Gadfly

    practical. Even if they still had several weeks of credit left, it will take the better part of several months to pass the 2012 budget. The 2011 horse has finally been shot.

    That leaves you with the practical problem of what can you extract that furthers getting future cuts while providing as little credit as possible to keep the government functioning at an expected level and not defaulting on any bonds. Requiring that the Senate passes the proposed BBA (including the percentage of GDP requirement) would be the sort of thing I would accept in exchange for boosting the debt ceiling enough to get us through to January 15, 2012. And yes, that’s not a typo: I’d make him fight the debt ceiling issue again at the start of primary season. If I thought I could swing it, I’d make him fight it again right before the November election too.

  • The_Gadfly

    So they have an agreement on how much they are planning to spend.

  • The_Gadfly

    slush fund. Force them to spend it or return it to keep government running for a few more days while they finish negotiations.

  • The_Gadfly

    Returning the unspent TARP money, Census money, and some of the other stuff would extend the time for the credit limit. It won’t get us through to the start of summer let alone the fiscal year, but it would help Republicans immensely to call the Dem bluff on defaulting. Force them to admit the choices are about how much of their precious social planning gets put on the credit card, not about whether or not we default. It would also regain some credibility with Tea Party types (like me).

  • westbrook348

    they will max out our credit limit. So stop increasing the limit. We take in almost $200 billion in tax revenue per month. That’s more than enough to pay our creditors and avoid default, while still funding the most vital functions of government. Geithner is full of BS when he says we will have to default if we don’t raise the ceiling. The politicians just do not want to finally be forced to make the hard choices about which programs should no longer get funding, or which bureaucrats should be laid off. Force them to make those tough decisions.

    Voting no on the debt ceiling will NOT cause default. It WILL force the politicians to stop borrowing.

  • westbrook348

    try to trick us.. they are professional liars =/

  • westbrook348

    The GOP pretends that waiting til we reach the debt limit gives them more leverage. It actually gives them less leverage because it becomes a so-called “emergency” situation. (Yeah, emergency to finally figure out which programs to cut spending for).

    They should have dealt with this issue months ago. Should’ve firmly said, right after the 2010 elections, “we’re definitely not raising it” so everyone could start planning how to handle the prospect of no more borrowing. Instead they signaled that they WOULD raise it; now they’ve waited until the last minute so they can pretend it wasn’t their intention all along even though they’re on record hinting that it was. We’ll get no concessions, no BBA, no nothin. I’m sick and tired of the GOP leadership and the rank-and-file who support them.

    If you guys won’t support Dr. Ron Paul for president in 2012, can you please at least make him speaker next congress? Him or Allen West. We need someone in charge who has some balls and knows how to say NO.

  • aesthete

    are called “natural monopolies”. While they are exceedingly rare, they do happen. As mentioned above, profitability for the oil corp is different from gains for society — the higher costs that customers must pay a monopoly (and lower demand as a result) result in a deadweight loss for society that would not occur in the case of a competitive free market. Since the discussion was government investment, I was simply unpacking the idea that anything which results in additional benefit for government, or short-term economic benefit, is something that “fiscal conservatives” should support. Beyond a basic and clearly understandable framework of rules, there’s precious little that government can do for the economy that isn’t built on a house of cards.

    (Cue long discussion of Keynesian macroeconomics, Austrian business boom-bust cycle theory, and Monetarist central bank theories.)

  • josephk1972

    there is no “unspent” tarp money. Let me try to explain and I’ll use made up numbers. They allocated $1000 to TARP. They invested $500. So it looks like there is $500 left over. But there isn’t. That money didn’t get set aside in some bank account. It means the people who get to spend the TARP money still have $500 available to them. They’d still have to get it from the treasury. Once they hit the debt limit and can’t issue debt, the only source of funding is incoming tax receipts. Thats it.

  • josephk1972

    That is definitely an option. But we all know the amount of the budget deficit. So if you don’t raise the debt limit, you have to pay all bills out of current income (the $200 billion per month). You want to pay creditors (always interesting – send the money to China) but you’re going to have to cut deep to spend only $200 bb a month. Seniors are going to stop getting their social security checks. Medicare payments are going to stop getting paid. Soldiers are going to stop getting paid, etc. I don’t care if congress stops getting paid, but be realistic. Suddenly 100 million people don’t have health care? Great idea. Will certainly focus people on the issue though.

  • westbrook348

    They’d just get paid significantly less. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar. We’d need maybe 20-25% cuts to everything, with additional savings coming from completely getting rid of some programs. Slash congressional salaries by at least 75%. Bring the troops home from the middle east tomorrow. Furlough thousands of federal employees. Sell some federal land, buildings, and vehicles. It’s totally doable without cutting off peoples’ social security and medicare completely. And again, the alternative (raising the debt ceiling) is much worse in the long run.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    GOP needs to go on television and tell the American people, “look, we’re out of money. Our credit sucks. Raising the debt ceiling is unreasonable and irresponsible. We are committed to making sure our soldiers get paid, that our elderly are taken care of… but this administration insists on using our own people as pawns while he sends your money to overseas oil companies and refuses to cut unimportant domestic programs.”

    It’s high time the American people were told the truth, in words they can understand.

  • josephk1972

    if we borrow 43 cents of every dollar, that means you’d have to cut 43% of spending. Starting in two weeks. All of the things you suggest are certainly doable but not in that time frame. I totally agree with you but as a practical matter, you can’t move 100,000 troops out of the middle east in a day. Its probably a year long process logistically, just think about all the stuff. But in the meantime cutting my grandmothers social security check in half isn’t a particularly appealing solution, short term.

  • The_Gadfly

    Okay, no further need to respond here you will never get it.

  • YnotNOW

    Ignore the 2012 budget for now, and then fight the debt limit along with the 2012 budget appropriations?

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Make the whole package a coherent strategy. Here is what you could do about the national debt is there wasn’t a tee-time this PM.

  • YnotNOW

    I would hate to wait until October to address the spending problem. With the debt limit, we have a focus on budgetary issues, and should not “punt” but use it to move the ball forward.

    Then we can ALSO continue to move the ball forward with the 2012 appropriations and additional debt limit legislation. Because we will have some momentum, and not be starting from scratch all over again.

  • YnotNOW

    I would hate to wait until October to address the spending problem. With the debt limit, we have a focus on budgetary issues, and should not “punt” but use it to move the ball forward.

    Then we can ALSO continue to move the ball forward with the 2012 appropriations and additional debt limit legislation. Because we will have some momentum, and not be starting from scratch all over again.