Political Posturing Without A Spine (as featured on www.nuzcom.com)

Back in April (a lifetime ago in politics), Congress passed the budget for the year and then, when the common man began to breathe a sigh of relief that the government wasn't going to shut down, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner (bundle of joy that he is) said that the debt limit was going to have to be raised, otherwise the US AAA Bond Rating (our credit score) was going to go down the toilet and possibly put the economy, which is now generally agreed to be an anemic recovery, into a tailspin and then we're back where we started in 2008 or worse.

I remember thinking, well, they should raise the debt ceiling then.  They should question what the purpose of a limit is if they are just going to raise the limit whenever they want to.  Then I remembered that there is the GOP.  The party that doesn't question what a Republican president do, but when a Democrat is in there, all of a sudden, it doesn't matter what the previous president did, we have to focus on the current administration.  But for conservatism, a line of thought that spends so much time on history and studying the way things have worked, its convenient for them to either be amnesiacs OR for them to have suddenly seen the light!

So it didn't matter that the debt ceiling was raised about 7 times under the previous administration.  It didn't matter that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were never put on the books and now this president is responsibly putting them in the figures for the budget.  The rest of it didn't matter.  The only thing that matters now is cutting entitlement spending and not willing to make one single compromise.

The GOP, at first, said that under no circumstances were they going to raise the debt limit.  Then Boehner said that, actually, there were circumstances and that would include cuts in spending in the trillions of dollars BUT NO SPENDING INCREASES WHATSOEVER!  Not even closing tax loopholes, the money that the wealthy should be paying but are not.  NO, NOT EVEN THAT!!!

Hrm.

Then began the stalemate, with it's dramatic walk-outs, starting with Eric Cantor who walked out in the middle of the meeting and President Obama who walked out... at the end of the meeting, after setting the time for the next meeting... not nearly as dramatic as Mr. Cantor, but then again Obama doesn't act like a little child.

It didn't seem like anything was going to happen.  It seems now at this writing that the US is going to fail to pass the measures necessary to raise the debt ceiling, we're going to go into default on our debt and that we're going to be speaking Mandarin by the end of the year... well, maybe not, but the default is likely to happen.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R - KY) proposed that the Congress pass a resolution that would give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling to the president.  It would be subject to a resolution of approval or disapproval (which the president would be able to veto and raise the debt limit anyway).  I heard about this because I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio program.  Sean Hannity has a head so big that I'm positive that it affects the tides.

Hannity, in a rare demonstration of journalism (a profession that he professes to be an active member of), reported the initial suggestions that McConnell's proposal, he immediately said "I'm going on the record that I don't believe this."  Then he siad that if it was true, then McConnell, should "stand aside".  Not "step down" but "stand aside".  Which goes against the Reagan Commandment:  Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican, but that's hardly the point.

I mention this moment for two reason.  First, Sean Hannity is a blathering idiot and when he talks, its at the detriment to the GOP .  He's the conservative Jane Fonda or Barbra Streisand only without the Tony nominations (next year, Sean, next year!) In the last ten year,s, the Republicans have begun to rely too much on their non-elected officials to get their message out.  Conservative commentators have too much impact and for all the talk about the influence of liberal bloggers (not me specifically, but the collective hive mind) and the liberal Hollywood Elite, nary a word is spoke about AM Talk Radio, conservative websites and Fox News.  The idea that a Senator could have an idea (albeit a bad one, but an idea nonetheless) and be immediately politically threatened is disgraceful.
It shows a disparity within the GOP  that must be addressed before the party returns to full power.  And, because of the Two Party system, it's only a matter of time before they do.

The second reason is more obvious and is one that has already been discussed:  that the Republicans are less interesting in coming to a resolution and are more interested in creating an atmosphere that they feel can support their return to the White House.  it's political posturing on a level that is at least disingenuous and at most criminal.  If Reince Priebus, the RNC Chair, wants the FEC to go after Obama for filming a campaign video in the White House, then he should also speak to the fact that the GOP are blatantly holding up negotiations while they struggle to control the narrative.

There's the suggestion that the GOP are crazy.  I leave that for the New York Times Op-Ed page to discuss. However, if they are sane, then the only reason that the GOP would delay up to this point would be because they are trying to control the narrative.  They are trying to convince people that not only what they are doing is the right thing to do but that, regardless as to the outcome, they have won the overall debate.

It's cowardice, a failure of ideas, and a failure of Republican leadership.  The Tea Party may have bolstered the GOP in the past but if the Republicans can't come up with a real idea or admit to a simple compromise, conservatives have to find a new party.  Because when it comes to evolution and adapting to survive, it helps to have a backbone.

Obama Down Plays the Nuclear Option, I mean, the Constitution

A legitimate argument has yet to be presented against the 14th Amendment case.  Yet, President Obama, in his Twitter Town Hall Forum downplayed his use of the option.  "I don't think that we need to make it a constitutional issue." he said during the hour long session today.

Which is weird because I thought that all branches of government kind of had to deal with things that were constitutional or not.  

(And, quick sidebar, how weird was it that he had a Twitter Town Hall Forum??  I mean, I'm not upset or frustrated, just perplexed.  It... it was... eh.  I don't have the energy.)

And Sen. Mitch McConnell said today that his side wasn't "absolutist".  "We have a better term for it -- common sense."  Now, say what you want about liberals being condescending, what McConnell said, that is condescending enough for Barbara Streisand.

Think of the debt crisis as this:  You have a credit card that you're way, way, way over.  You've been on time on payments, so you're credit is good, but you're getting to the point where you are going to make sacrifices.  Otherwise, men in black suits are going to break down the door and take you and your family away in silent helicopters to a compound in Nebraska.

You could a) stop spending money on the card in the amounts that you have, b) raise your income level or c) both of these things.  The "common sense" option is C!  You deal with the issue that much faster and you don't have to have it continual hanging over your head!  

But then you're spouse comes in and says "Don't get a better paying job!!!  Why would you do that?  You're going to stifle the growth of this house if you get a better paying job!!!"  And all you can really do is stare back and wonder how is it that you've been married for so long.  

"But we have to do something to deal with this credit card."

"Well, turn off a light switch when you leave a room."

"That's not going to help with the debt I owe, just the amount of bills that I would have coming in."

"If you get a better paying job, it's socialism."

Okay, it's not a perfect metaphor, but it's sound.  By insisting on spending cuts, the GOP are only fixing the issue of the amount of debt that will be owed, not the current amount of debt.  Obama/WH/Democrats/Rational people are trying to take a balanced approach, one that appeases the Right by making drastic (and I mean drastic cuts to spending) but one that shares the burden of supporting the government to those that afford to take a hit.

And it's not to say that having a balanced approach is always the right thing to do, but in this case, it makes good sense.  It's good economics, it's the only way that the debt is going to be taken care of any time soon and that must be the only reason why the GOP is so adamant against it.

But back to the Nuclear Option/14th Amendment/The Constitution:  Obama downplayed his thoughts on the option.  He didn't say "I will not cite the 14th Amendment to prevent the country from defaulting on it's debt." He's given the process another two weeks.  In two weeks, we will either have a balanced approach on the matter or you'll need a Geiger Counter to start walking through the halls of Congress.

On a side note, I'm going to starting writing this blog on a site called www.nuzcom.com.  Please go over and give the site a once over.  It's a good forum and has good writers about the place.  Check it out!

Shattering the Ceiling: The Opportunity Behind (or Under) the Debt Crisis

Normally, I would focus on the GOP campaign for the presidency, but the issue of the debt ceiling is on the forefront of most people's minds, so I'll focus on that.

Since 1939, before the major US involvement in WWII, there has been a "ceiling" on the amount of money that the US government is allowed to owe.  As of this posting, the "ceiling"$14.46 trillion. Most of the debt that the US owes is actually to the citizens and states in the form of government bonds.  About 47% of the debt is owed to other countries, like China (at about 14%).

For the past six months in the USA, the major question has been the debt ceiling, whether to raise it or not.  The GOP controlling the House at first insisted that the ceiling should not be raised under any circumstances.  Now, their argument is that they would consider raising the ceiling, but not without substantial budget cuts (always to education or public programs but never with an eye on wasteful defense spending) and absolutely under no circumstances with a cent raised in taxes.

The Democrats, currently in direct leadership from President Obama have argued that nearly anyone with half a brain on the issue knows that the best way of dealing with the debt situation is to take a balanced approach.  Substantial cuts, sure, but there has to be an increase in revenue.  The GOP have staunchly refused.  They won't even look at the possibility of closing tax loopholes for higher income tax brackets.

Think about that.  The law is already on the books.  The GOP bemoan that the tax on corporations in the US is the highest in the industrialized world (it's not:  Japan's stands at 40%) and ignore the fact that the rate is topped at 35% and that most corporations don't pay that much.  GM, Bank of America and Citigroup (the major recipients of gov't funding in the previous few years) paid no taxes and BOA got a tax return to the tune of one billion.  By closing loopholes, they simply making the requirements that are already expected of the corporations in the US.

The tragedy of a democratic republic is that, at some point, you're going to have to compromise.  To compromise means that you get something that you want, but you have to give something up in the meantime. Give a little, take a little.  Here with the debt crisis, the GOP have a chance to show that they are reasonable people who are capable of governing.  But they're throwing the chance away.  They are almost going out of their way to make it easier for Obama to get re-elected.

While all this back and forth is going on, an intriguing legal argument is coming up.  The 14th Amendment, which by and large deals with equal rights and the citizenship status of those in the US, but also deals with the question of public debt.  Originally, the clause was inserted to protect the Federal government from people looking to collect money that they had lent to the Confederacy.  In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court went a step further and said that the public debt extended to all the debt that the US government owed.  So, the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and, in another sense, those that pursue to maintain it are acting unconstitutionally.  Which may seem strange for the Republicans, the party that passed a measure that would require that all laws cite what part of the Constitution they draw their powers from, but the GOP have always been selective in their outrage.

So, the real opportunity for the GOP in this instance is to follow the writing of the Constitution and remove the debt ceiling entirely.