President Obama has now announced that he will veto the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” bill to raise the federal debt ceiling that passed the House of Representatives yesterday. In its place, the president offers . . . nothing.
With the clock ticking down toward what the administration calls “fiscal Armageddon,” the president still has not put an actual plan for increasing the debt ceiling on the table. True, he has held innumerable press conferences and briefings at which he has declared his willingness to compromise and “make difficult choices,” and even angered his own base by suggesting entitlement reform. But when it comes to actually spelling out what those compromises, choices, and reforms would be, the president is suddenly absent.
Advertisement
Take his most recent press conference. The president was asked which Medicare reforms he supported. There’s lots of options on the table, the president responded. Well, yes, but which options does he support? There’s lots of options on the table, he says again.
One option that’s not on the table is anything that looks like Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform proposal, which was part of the 2012 budget that already has passed the House. Here we see the pattern again. The House has passed a budget. The president doesn’t like it. The president’s alternative? He doesn’t have one.
The president did announce a budget back in February, but he has since disavowed it, and the Senate voted against it 97–0. The president also delivered a budget speech in May. But as the director of the Congressional Budget Office noted, “We don’t score speeches.” The president still has not submitted a new budget proposal to Congress.
Of course, he’s in good company. Senate Democrats haven’t produced a budget in two years. This year, in fact, for the first time in memory, even the Senate Budget Committee couldn’t come up with a budget proposal. After all, time spent proposing a budget is time that can’t be spent denouncing Republican “intransigence” for standing in the way of a deal.
Even if we don’t know what the president is for, we certainly know what he is against. And when it comes to “Cut, Cap, and Balance,” that’s just about everything.
The House Republican plan is surprisingly moderate. First, it would impose $1.5 trillion in budget cuts over the next ten years. That’s less than the federal government will borrow this year. Second, it would cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP by 2020. That would still allow the federal government to spend 1.5 percent of GDP more than it did when Bill Clinton was president. And, finally, it would send a constitutional balanced-budget amendment to the states for consideration. The amendment would require that the federal government live within its means except during times of war or when supermajorities waive its provisions. In many ways, it is less strict than the balanced-budget provisions in place in every state except Vermont. In fact, the Republican proposal doesn’t even amend the Constitution by itself; that would still require 38 states to approve it.
But the president will have none of that. He opposes a balanced-budget amendment because it would “deprive policymakers of the flexibility they need to govern.” In other words, it would require less spending.
Of course it follows that the president also opposes the “cap” part of “Cut, Cap, and Balance,” because it “could result in significant cuts to education, research and development, and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future.” In other words, it would require less spending.
And the president doesn’t like the spending cuts either. They would “undercut the federal government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families, and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future.” In other words, they would require . . . you get the idea.
Maybe we do know what the president is for. He wants to spend more. He wants tax hikes in order to pay for that additional spending. And, to borrow a phrase, he’s willing to “hold a gun to the head of the American people” in order to get it.
The majority of the American public, according to polls, characterized the Republicans as being 'intransigent' because they insisted on no tax hikes. Obama refused to agree to any deal that did not have tax hikes. Somehow he was not labeled 'intransigent'. Well, it looks like obama will get his demand met and the deal with have tax hikes and some spending cuts. American people---please explain this to me.
Not too hard, actually. The equation looks like this: Liberally biased media + generations of teachers' union operated government schools of liberal indoctrination = sheeple incapable of critical thinking able only to parrot back what the media tells them to think.
You should take a look at your statement and tell me honestly that that is your form of critical thinking? Because to me it sounds like a worn out conspiracy theory that goes something like this: blame "liberalism" for everything that you believe to be wrong.
In answer: because this crazy notion that is common in public, civil discourse that is concerned with the public, civil good, that there should be shared pain - that we all make sacrifices to contribute to the solution to what is a common problem shared by all Americans, and because the perception that closing loopholes in the tax code - in other words flattening the tax code - that this was a Republican idea until Obama got behind it.
Now the GOP and Tea Party wearing their bad faith on their sleeves by taking ... get this ... ready ... set ... a rigid uncompromising position on tax RATES, well that leads ordinary people to believe that the the GOP is intransigent.
If House Republicans let ONE tax increase through, theyn THEY'RE through. They had better know that. For that matter, that will probably be the end of the Republican party and you WILL see the Tea Party become a formal political party.
Think twice and thrice before letting any new taxes through, House.
Explanation:
Government including Congress has passed budgets and legislation that require revenue or borrowed money. The Republican Congress is now using what was traditionally a rubber-stamp process of approving debt to hold a gun to the head of government. Congress, the Senate and the president are trying to find a way out of this impasse. The president and others have sharpened their pencils and developed plans to cut a lot of expenditures, IF a little additional revenue is raised, thereby addressing Congress's supposed concern with the debt. The Republican Congress refuses to negotiate anything but what it wants, namely radically reduced expenditures (radical = extremely different from before, and having a huge impact on many Americans). Congress is unwilling to concede anything with the other two thirds of government to avoid a disastrous situation. Conclusion: Republicans are intransigent.
Explanation: Obama has increased our debt and debt trajectory more than any other President in history, and thus HIS need for a deb limit increase IS qualitatively different from any other President's, and thus the approval is no longer, nor should it be, "pro forma."
It is Obama who is holding the gun to the heads of the American people by refusing to accept sensible cuts in exhange for a debt limit increase.
Please. The president has no budget, the senate has no budget and it works in their best interest to drive us off the edge of a cliff. Are you really that niave?
It is clear the democrats are hard-over on the Texas Lawn Dart approach.
=====================
"The free money pipeline’s getting cut off one way or another, sooner or later. The only question is do we want to try and dead-stick this bird in, or do we just let it fly out of control and do a Texas Lawn Dart?"
:...when it comes to actually spelling out what those compromises, choices, and reforms would be, the president is suddenly absent." Yep, that's our President "Present".
The House should immediately pass a bill raising the debt ceiling $150 billion conditional on $150 billion in cuts. That will get us another 30 days. Live to fight 30 more days. And quit listening to the old guard tell them when to pass or not pass legislation. Turn Dr. K's plan into a bill, pass it, and send it to the Senate and the President also. Fight back! Push hard against the spendaholics. Buck and kick against the addiction/insanity.
Yes to your approach, but not until Reid is forced to vote on the cut-cap-balance bill enacted by the House. Get Reid's entire caucus on record for 2012. Shut down the Senate if he refuses a vote.
Timing on plan B (Krauthammer or its variations) is important. Still too soon. We need several consecutive days of kicking Reid and the Dems to the curb for having NO plan.
Actually, I like the "no plan" option. See, with that plan nothing gets funded, programs shut down, and we can restructure government. Just make sure you have precious metals, stones, food, water, cigarettes and a service you can barter with until we can reassemble a less intrusive government for other Nations to deal with. It's really not as bad nor as long lasting as you may think...Theoretically, our national defense and resources should allow for a quick turn around. Granted, I'd rather do that without the collapse and panic - but when routine maintenance is ignored, there usually is a catastrophic correction required.
