The most infuriating part of the recent fiscal cliff crisis is that the whole construct was phony. The automatic spending cuts slated for Jan. 1 were just a threat devised by Congress to force itself to reduce the deficit. The tax hike set to take effect the same day was the result of an earlier ploy in which Congress had written the Bush tax cuts to “expire” after 10 years, thus masking the steep cost of making them permanent.
The cliff was averted. But the debt-ceiling crisis due to arrive in about six weeks is much worse, and, when you understand its purpose and history, that much more infuriating. It, too, is purely a creation of Congress. But it’s also the only example I know of where Congress actually solved a crisis, and then, for nakedly partisan purposes, abandoned the solution and ushered the crisis back in.
Comments
Well Joshua, I disagree, the problem is the deficit.Yes, it's been raised many times over the years but when does it end, 25,30,35 trillion. It shouldn't keep being raised because it's been raised before, time to get our fiscal house in order.
aaargh! Joshua just went through the whole explanation of the "debt ceiling" and "migh" acts as if he still doesn't understand it. You cannot just not pay your bills. The money is already spent. We owe it. It would be like me telling my creditors, "Well sorry the wife went over my debt limit on those charges. I'm not paying for that stuff." What are we a bunch of dead beats.
You want to argue over the deficit. Fight over the continuing resolution. Fight over the appropriations bills. You can't fight over whether or not you are going to pay your creditors. I don't like comparing the family budget to the govt. as they have little in common. But you pay your bills, I assume, we must pay ours.
As far as the deficit goes if the pols were more concerned about the deficit then the economy all they had to do or even do now is allow sequestration to take place. Voila, problem solved. But they won't do it because it will kill the economy. So quit with the grandstanding already. Work the deal out and quit the foolishness. With or without the TP morons.
you're right, i should have added that Yes, the bills need to get paid. But we also cannot continue our of control spending, and we need to reform entitlements before they crash and burn.
you're right, i should have added that Yes, the bills need to get paid. But we also cannot continue our of control spending, and we need to reform entitlements before they crash and burn.
"So as the next crisis unfolds, keep in mind that the true outrage isn’t the deficit. It’s that we’re being forced to go through this whole crazed process at all, and risking another recession." WOW, what a PHONY article this is...Also, Joshua, why don't you and the Globe report on the $1 Trillion COIN that the Treasury department would like to make to INSTANTANEOUSLY solve the debt crises. Other news media like the Washington Post, CBS News, and Fox News have reported that the Obama Administration has refused to rule it out. Globe is the ONLY newspaper that is NOT reporting about this. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57563428/whats-up-with-the-$1-trillion-coin/ By Leigh Ann Caldwell / CBS News/ January 11, 2013, 6:00 AM What's up with the $1 trillion coin?
Not paying the bills doesn't solve the debt crisis, unless default is a solution. Do you just say, "Well the bills are to high. Not going to pay them." Do you not get what this is about or are you just to overcome by the propaganda. I want the deficit reduced. But reduced "legally" in a conservative fashion by paying for it.
Raising the debt ceiling is NOT akin to "paying your bills", as some have suggested here. The debt ceiling process is what it is, and it remains one of the few checks the minority has against the spending that the president has done.
NEW PARagraph : few people realize this, but the senate has not passed a budget in 3 years. It has thus meandered through the process via "continuing resolutions", which have, in affect, taken the spending increases done in the name of stimulus, and made them the baseline. The debt ceiling process, as goofy as it is, is the only hope we have on reducing spending.
"Richmond" Now you can say the "debt ceiling" isn't paying your bills but just because you say it doesn't make it true. The raising of the debt ceiling is purely giving the Treasury the authority to sell the notes necessary to pay for what has been budgeted and already spent. Any agreed upon cuts would be future spending and would not lower the current debt ceiling one dime. You would still have to approve the debt ceiling to the current required level. Now I don't where you get your information but it is flat out wrong.
If you want to reduce spending it must be done as part of the budgetary process.
My issue is the semantics. Calling it a simple mechanism to pay the bills suggests a false narrative. It is the White House which raised the spending to the current levels, and the senate has used the CR, rather than passing a budget, to support this. The debt ceiling IS one of the few means the GOP has to force spending reductions. Obviously, the President has no problem with the level of spending. He offered NO reductions thus far, in discretionary or entitlement programs. The debt ceiling is the only means the GOP has of holding him accountable.
Joashua,
We've already heard Obama make this case, we really dont need you to restate it for us.
The WSJ today has the complete statement in this subject - you should check it out - the Feds cannot Consitionally refute our debt, so it is deceptive for Obama (and you) to argue that is what the debt increase battle is about. It aint about paying for past debts - that is not an option. It's about paying for future expenditures, expeditures that have risen very year, year on year, to completely unstainable levels. If the Fed just went back to its budget actuals of 2007, the deficit for 2013 would largely disappear.
And dont just blame Congress for this mess, it's the Democratic Senate that has not passed one budget plan in the four years of Obama's presidency. Obama doesn't seem to care, he is happy to keep increasing annual spending, by leaps and bounds, in the choas resulting from his lack of leadership.
This comment has been removed.
The reason there was a 10 year limit on the original Bush tax cuts was that the Republicans did not have 60 votes in the Senate to pass it without a 10 year limit. They could have tried to pass it under reconciliation, but the Byrd rule says that no bill passed under reconciliation can last more than 10 years if it contributes to the deficit. With the 10 year limit in the bill, it was passed. Without the 10 year restriction it would not have passed. The 10 year limit was not so much a a ploy, as it was forced by the rules for reconcillation. It was the only way the Republicans could get it passed. The changes were to be phased in over time, but in 2003 a new bill was passed to make all the changes take effect immediately. That passed the Senate by 51-50, with VP Cheney casting the final vote.
Everyone has an opinion, with differing views.
A+ to ‘LifeLibertyPOH’ who appears to have the concept correct.
Must not pay attention to facts...must watch Fox news...must not pay attention to facts...must watch Fox news...
See what happens when you watch Main Stream Media, you start mumbling to yourself and repeating things over and over.
This comment has been removed.
"keep in mind that the true outrage isn't the deficit."
WOW! Ok, if your Significant Other went shopping, came home and announced "Oh Dear!, I just put us XX thousands of dollars in debt." and you knew there was no way you could afford to pay the bills without getting another job, would you be outraged about the deficit just created? Or would you start an incredibly stupid, complex argument about "Our debt ceilings, whether to pay bills, blah, blah, blah"?
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room!
How does the president keep getting blamed for all the spending when Congress had to approve it?
A 5% national goods and services sales tax on say $10 Trillion of our $16 Trillion Economy would produce approximately $500 Billion in additional revenue. If that additional revenue was dedicated to the largest and growing driver of the deficits and as such debt, Medicare, we'd take a lot of pressure of the federal budget, deficits and debt. If we live past 65 we are all going to be in the Medicare system, in one form or another, as such we should all want our Medicare system to be properly funded. It's a common sense solution I think we can all agree on. What are the options, we have to have a solution to this. If we want our seniors, who most all us will be someday or currently are, to continue receive great medical care and services we have to pay for them, there's no way around that fact. Medicare is not being properly funded now, it's the single largest driver of the deficits and debt. Some form of dedicated national goods and services tax combined with means testing and all the great advances in technology that will assist in eliminating fraud and waste and bring about more efficiencies will help right the Medicare ship and as such make the "debt ceiling" issues less of an issue. What makes me shake my head in disbelief is all the nonsense arguments that come from both the right and the left, that quite frankly poison the narrative, confuse the issues and they all lead to the same place, we want the best medical services whenever we want them but we don't want to really properly fund or pay for them. This way of thinking about this matter will not continue to work much longer. If we care about our seniors and the future we leave to future generations we have to address this issue like adults and not continue to use it as a lame political football.