There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.
Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.
Advertisement
On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.
Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.
When the 44th president took office, he made a decision that it was time for the already unsustainable levels of government spending finally to break the bounds of reality and frolic and gambol in the magical fairy kingdom of Spendaholica: This year, the federal government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, a ratio that is unprecedented. Barack Obama would like this to be, as they say, “the new normal” — at least until that 43 cents creeps up a nickel or so, and the United States government is spending twice as much as it takes in, year in, year out, now and forever. If the Republicans refuse to go along with that, well, then the negotiations will collapse and, as he told Scott Pelley on CBS the other night, Gran’ma gets it. That monthly Social Security check? Fuhgeddabouddit. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” declared the president. “Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
But hang on. I thought the Social Security checks came out of the famous “Social Security trust fund,” whose “trustees” assure us there’s currently $2.6 trillion in there. Which should be enough for the August 3rd check run, shouldn’t it? Golly, to listen to the president, you’d almost get the impression that, by the time you saw the padlock off the old Social Security lockbox, there’s nothing in there but a yellowing IOU and a couple of moths. Indeed, to listen to Obama, one might easily conclude that the whole rotten, stinking edifice of federal government is an accounting trick. And that can’t possibly be so, can it?
For the Most Gifted Orator in Human History, the president these days speaks largely in clichés, most of which he doesn’t seem to be quite on top of. “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” he sternly reprimanded the GOP’s Eric Cantor. Usually, if you’re bluffing, the trick is not to announce it upfront. But, in fact, in his threat to have Granny eating dog food by Labor Day, Obama was calling his own bluff. The giant bluff against the future that is government spending.
How many of “the wealthy” do you require to cover a one-and-a-half trillion-dollar shortfall every single year? When you need this big a fix, there aren’t enough people to stick it to. “We are not broke,” insists Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar and bespoke Communist. “We were robbed, we were robbed. And somebody has our money!”
The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his “green jobs” racket. How’s the “green jobs” scene in your town? Going gangbusters, is it? Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. By that, I don’t mean that an American government that raises $2 trillion but spends $4 trillion has outspent America, but that it’s outspent the planet. In my soon to be imminently forthcoming book, I discuss a study published last year by John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin. Its very title is a testament to where we’re headed:
“Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money In The World — And At What Cost?”
You make wonderfully valid points. I only caught a clip of Obama's presser but was struck by his admission the Treasury has the power to prioritize sending out SS checks. Perhaps so we don't have to peek at all those IOUs in the Congressional Post Office, er...lock box.
Thanks, Mark, for reminding us so painfully of Obamandias' "sneer of cold command" that requires us to eat our peas along the way to a "colossal wreck."
What a breath of fresh air! This is why I come to this website - to be encouraged and enlightened by conservatives who actually 'get it' - who actually understand and express the fact that the negotiations over the debt are somewhat ridiculous because we are at a point in this nation where we really do have to become serious about finanaces.
Unfortunately, for the last several days I have been very dissapointed whenever I have come here because most of what I have seen has been encouraging the mostly spineless republican leadership to blink rather than reminding those so called leaders that we are in a situation similar to that seen in the move 'Master and Commander' - our way of life is at stake and we really do need to have courage over the coming fight and 'Stand Fast!'.
In other words, we've been steadily eating our seed corn for years, thus having less to plant with each succeeding year.
Eventually, we will run out of it completely, genuine and/or on paper. Then we'll expect the rest of the planet to let us start in on theirs - or are we already doing that?
In either case, we'll eventually get a lesson in isolationism real enough to make a baker's dozen of Pat Buchanans happy.
Me, too. What was once a good idea to control exposure to emergencies, has now become little more than a betting parlor. The problem is that granny is actually providing the funds to insure wealthy speculator's losses. She just doesn't get to keep any profits.
C'mon, our greatest hour is around the corner. The great republican President, closings of departments, cutting taxes, economic boom, shining city on the hill for the rest of humanity. Have faith!
We do, despite your sarcasm. I am personally looking forward to the gyrations and contortions of Krugman, Reich and the others as they try to explain how and why the rebound happened when Republicans get it right, and how they will try to give credit to the stimulus 4 years later.
Just ran across this tidbit in the Washington Post this morning:
“You need to act quickly to restore confidence,” said Valdis Dombrovskis, prime minister of Latvia, a country credited with sticking to a tough round of wage and budget cuts during the 2008 crisis that helped restore it to strong economic growth. “To postpone the adjustment doesn’t lead anywhere,” he said.
As liberals often like to look across the pond for examples of how we should act, let's have a look, shall we?
Germany wouldn't go along with the spending madness, Latvia made the tough choices in 2008, and they are doing well; the others PIIGS and assoc.(representing the left in this country) continued to spend to the precipice and riot at the inevitable CUTS that had to come. Not undertaxed, overspent.
But the Dems use their self-inflicted crisis as an excuse to extract another trillion from us. Incrayable'! Or business as usual.
My concern is that the GOP seems unaware that Obama has ZERO interest in any real cuts. The whole charade is thinking he would agree to anything as reasonable as changing the inflation rate or year of retirement for entitlements.
He won't and never will!
It IS apparent that what he most wants is a shut down that he can demagogue to 2012 victory. Why give him what he wants?
The House should already have passed a 1Trillion bump and let the battle rage in the Senate then send Obama what he doesn't want. A smaller increase, no strings attached.
This will give the GOP the chance to have this fight again next year and remind people of Obama's refusal to publicly make ONE CUT. JUST ONE!
Ya know, I was just reading @ realclearpolitics, "The Debt Alarm is Heard" link to the NYT.
In it, there is much to do about Moody's and S&P warnings on our credit rating.
Like a lightning bolt from above (better late than never), Moody's and S&P are tanking their own reputations and are artificially sustaining the Credit Rating of the United States - if what I read is true.
". . . the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to."
As the spiritual says, "People get ready. There's a train a'Comin!" I say stand well back. To mix another metaphor, there's no savior on a white horse here, riding in the save the day. And to quote Betty Davis, "Buckle your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night."
Obluffer is nervous, because he doesn't even have a pair. Never has, never will. His whole career has been one big bluff.
Now is not the time for Republicans to fold. McConnell should just shut up.
The vast majority of people already blame Obama for our mess(es). He has trailed a generic Republican for the past two months. It is now a huge 47%-39% according to Gallup.
The House should refuse to raise the ceiling, pass a balanced budget for 2012 and send it on to the Senate. If it fails? Well, there is always the fallback of Continuing Resolutions. At least we will know who to throw out next time around.
McConnell is at the top of my list. I may even move to Kentucky just to vote against him.
The majority of people do NOT "blame Obama for our messes":
"According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the 'current condition' of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama."
Ouch! This is one reason why Republicans are in a weak negotiating position. The Bush economic meltdown was so spectacular that even voters can remember it. And although a "generic Republican" might beat Obama, I'm not sure a real one could.