The rhetoric surrounding the debt ceiling deal could only come from the “Funkytown” that is modern day Washington, D.C.
Speaker of the House John Boehner said late Sunday night:
“We got 98% of what we wanted”
A question for the Speaker:
Just who is WE?
With friends like these we sure don’t need enemies.
One of the Republicans’ major talking points is that “we’ve” changed the conversation in Washington, D.C.[1. Note: Shelli also heard this phrase throughout Sunday evening on Fox News Channel from members of Congress, Fox anchors, and “Republican strategists” <— By the way, at this stage this moniker is an oxymoron.].
The two best ways of characterizing the conversation in Washington are given below, we’ll leave it up to readers regarding which style they prefer.
1) We need a little less conversation (actually a LOT less conversation)
2) You guys in “Funkytown” talk too much
The truth about Boehner’s 98%…
Apparently, Boehner is part of the “we” that wanted to give the power to the government to spend an additional $2.4 trillion without really cutting spending, to move any further debate on this topic past the next election, and to pin responsibility for the “deal” directly on the forehead of “tea partiers”. So that makes John Boehner part of the “we” that includes Barack Obama, et al.
HISTORIC INCREASE IN DEBT CEILING
$2.4 Trillion Would Be Largest Debt-Limit Increase in U.S. History
It’s not just an incomprehensible amount of money in terms of a single increase, it’s what happens to our debt to GDP ratio. “GDP refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period” (usually a single year).
Debt to GDP ratio for a nation is similar to an individual’s debt to income ratio. Traditionally, debt to income ratios factor heavily in determining whether or not a person can obtain approval for a mortgage loan, with 36% being the outer limit. In other words, a person can only borrow up to 36% of their annual income.
IF the Senate passes the current debt limit increase bill just passed late this afternoon by the House, the U.S. will cross the 100% mark in debt to GDP ratio.
In fact, if one calculates the U.S. debt to GDP ratio using the latest figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis for GDP ($15.0038 trillion[2. The key phrase in the BEA report: “Current-dollar GDP — the market value of the nation’s output of goods and services — increased 3.7 percent, or $136.0 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $15,003.8 billion ($15.0038 trillion). In the first quarter,current-dollar GDP increased 3.1 percent, or $112.8 billion.”] ), the existing debt limit figure ($14.294 trillion), and the amount of proposed increase ($2.4 trillion), the U.S. borrowing capacity would be approximately 113% of GDP.
NO REAL SPENDING CUTS
The language of the bill which was voted on by the House is inconsistent with representations of it made by media, most members of Congress, and other talking heads.
Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, we think, explains the issue of “cuts” very well:
READDRESSING THE DEBT LIMIT IS THEORETICALLY MOVED BEYOND THE 2012 ELECTION
Emphasis on the theoretical here. The $2.4 trillion increase is PROJECTED to carry us through 2012. But, all of it is based on all kinds of assumptions that may or may not come to pass. They include the following:
Tax revenues will be as projected; this assumes the economy does not get any worse than current models state. Based on history, these projections are likely way off the mark, and in fact, the March 2011 model on which they are based has been revised downward.
No new spending will be instituted. Has there ever been a Congress that did not institute ANY new spending for over a year? New spending, is in fact, already being planned. Just one example is “the doc fix”. Under the health care reform law, Medicare reimbursement to physicians is supposed to be cut by 29% on or before January 2012. However, a CBO report indicates that President Obama is already proposing what is commonly called the “doc fix”, which like other previous such fixes, would continue reimbursements at 2011 levels, rather than cutting them by 29%. Therefore, of course, this is spending not calculated in the projections.
TEA PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE
As of this moment, apparently, “the tea party” IS now GOP Congressmen who say they are members of the tea party or are members of the “Tea Party Caucus”. “Tea Party” according to this logic, is the “extreme” right-wing contingent who have all at once made a lot of trouble in debt deal negotiations and are responsible for the outstanding accomplishment wherein “we got 98% of what we wanted”.
There are a flurry of news stories portraying the debt ceiling debacle as a “Tea Party victory”…
From the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board:
“How the Tea Party Hobbits Won the Debt Fight”
But incoherent D.C. really needs to make up its mind. Last week, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board who now praise the debt ceiling bill as a “tea party triumph” last week attacked “the tea party”, labeling them as hobbits. And of course, “the maverick” John McCain, pounced, and read the whole thing on the Senate floor (Does anyone else believe McCain ever heard of a hobbit before that day?).
But of course, what establishment, career politician GOPers say is never to be outdone by the even more absurd “farther left”, who have portrayed “tea partiers” with even more extreme rhetoric:
“Sources: Biden Likens Tea Partiers to Terrorists”
While Biden and company engage in their hyperbolic attacks on “the tea party”, the farther left got almost exactly what they wanted out of this debacle. These verbal bombs only help persuade reluctant Republicans to vote for the mess, because, if my opponents like it, it must be good.
We believe that references to the classic Tolkein tome, Lord of the Rings, are way off the mark. We think the whole morass is much more aptly portrayed in the classic Br’er Rabbit and the Briar Patch, “[a]n old tale of psychological manipulation translated into modern English”.
Noting that “Funkytown” is within hours of raising our debt capacity to a level exceeding 100% of our annual GDP, it seems to us that the Progressives (Democrats and GOPers) who favored increasing the debt ceiling are like Br’er Rabbit and self-described fiscally conservative Republicans who voted (or will vote) for the mess are as foolish Br’er Fox.
As one summary notes about the classic fairy tale…
“Whatever you do,” cried Brer Rabbit, “Don’t throw me into the briar patch”, or how to get recalcitrant idiots to do what you want.
So, while “the tea party” (whatever that might be at this point), may be poised to take credit or condemnation for the debt debacle, the overarching point is, that Americans will have more to do in dealing with the bigger messes to come than simply picking a few metaphorical briars out of their backsides.
[jbox color=”white” shadow=”3″ width=”490″ content_css=”font-size: 28px; color:#575757; font-variant: small-caps; letter-spacing: 3px;” icon=”http://grassrootsne.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/book.ico”]References & Citations [/jbox]
Br’er Rabbit and the Briar Patch image from Liberty and In-dependence
Some interesting headlines seen on the Drudge Report:
It would not have been all that hard to implement a freeze in spending like my favorite congressman suggested. But not even that. GRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sandie,
GRRRRRRR!!!!! is absolutely right!
In addition to making the suggestion to freeze, your favorite Congressman had an additional suggestion which was also simple. Besides the obvious breathing room it would have given associated with the debt ceiling, it would have alleviated the very problems opponents were wailing about when inquiries were made about the suggestion.
Norlyn sent me a link to a World Net Daily article laying out Rep. Ron Paul’s suggestion regarding the huge amount of debt held by the Federal Reserve. Here is a quote from the article, which in turn is actually a quote from (ironically) the progressive Center for Economic Policy Research:
Objectors stated that the Fed refunding the $1.6+ trillion would cause inflation, undermine markets, etc., etc. which is, of course THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH.
There’s more in the article worth reading, which can be found here:
Why are we ignoring simple, painless debt solution?
I’m going to be including this information in an article comparing the Bailout / TARP of ’08 to this debt ceiling morass. I doubt it comes as any surprise to you that there are MANY similarities. I hope that one that does not occur is people forgetting WHO voted for this mess when it comes time to vote 2012. Obviously, many people quickly forgot who voted for that Bailout, as you are well aware.
Having said that, I’ll conclude the way you did…
GRRRRRR!!!!!!
Who you calling “Progressive” up there? […the Progressives (Democrats and GOPers) who favored increasing the debt ceiling…]
I’m somewhat familiar with Progressive notions and you have to look pretty darn hard to see anything remotely progressive in Funkytown. Ya see, Progressive action is inherently bound to the people. We The People, as it were. A Progressive policy will seek to improve the welfare of people because that is the point of being progressive. Sure, not all policies attain their stated goals, but, that’s a different discussion.
That focus on people is absent from Funkytown. Except for the bankers and walstreeters and their representatives in government, of course.
You are probably familiar with the Overton Window. It has been pulled so far to the right that progressive is no longer visible. So if you’re interested in accuracy, be careful where you use the P-word.
Carry on.
Oh, one more quibble: the debt ceiling itself is merely the messenger – a token, a measure of what Congress has previously voted to spend. But you knew that already.
I guess all those “bankers and walstreeters (sic) and their representatives in government” are all on Social Security and qualify for Medicare or Medicaid to pay for their health care. The debt ceiling had to be raised to continue the Progressives’ quest to make everyone dependent on “Big Government” services — the social welfare state. That’s the single biggest driver of our annual deficits and of our total debt into the future. I do agree that the bank bailout was a bad idea, but, again, that was driven by the Progressive idea that “Big Government” should be in charge of the economy instead of the free market. “Too Big to Fail” is definitely a Progressive idea, not a conservative one.
If you think the Overton Window is to the right, I’d like to know what you’re smoking.
As for your other quibble, the debt ceiling increase was necessitated by projections of our debt going forward through 2012. Since this administration has not seen fit to present and pass a BUDGET in over two YEARS and spending will, again, have to be extended on a temporary basis, what you’re saying makes no sense.
Matthew,
While I always appreciate your stopping by and making comment regardless of whether or not we agree on any subject, I must concur with Linda.
We aren’t possibly going to agree on the definition of the word Progressive. I highly recommend you stop fooling yourself regarding your beliefs associated with Progressivism as those who mouth the familiar words and phrases the true believers love to hear and who end up getting elected are absolutely counting on your support.
History bears out the truth about Progressivism; it’s not much more than a really crafty way of incrementally acclimating power to a small group of elites and the fueling the movement of government’s day to day operations into the hands of legions of unelected bureaucrats. The very phenomenon about which you speak “the bankers and walstreeters (sic)”, which is actually corporatism, has been enabled by a long list of Progressives.
Of course, prior debt is what was included in the $14.3 trillion debt which we already owe. But the $2.1 – $2.5 trillion increase (several amounts have been cited in news stories and bill summaries) is NEW debt which we did NOT have to acquire. There are a number of measures which could have been taken to prevent acquiring this new debt, including immediate spending freezes, reversal of Treasury and Fed policies (see my reply to Sandra in these comments), returning the $200 billion in remaining “Stimulus” funds, and suspending further implementation of the health care law pending litigation (at the very least).
Of course, I doubt you would agree with some or perhaps any of these solutions since many of them were sold as measures to “improve the welfare of the people”.
Again, I implore you to wake up and realize, if you truly care about the welfare of people, that the only way to do that through government is to protect the liberties of the people by minimizing the size and reach of government’s ability to interfere in their lives. People who believe that government can do much otherwise fail to understand both human nature and history.
Power is and always has been a corrupting force and that’s why government MUST be limited.
Again, I thank you for stopping by and taking the time to comment,
Shelli
Without a common language how can a conversation exist?
Just to help me get my translator-headphones adjusted: I’m assuming that Oprah and Bernie Sanders are safely in the Progressive camp. Is Tim Geithner a Progressive? How about Ben Nelson? Dwight Eisenhower?
Is it even possible for a Blue Dog to also be a Progressive?
Classifying these examples (feel free to add others) should suggest a common working definition. I’m sorry to obsess over this seemingly minor detail; I won’t pursue it beyond this comment.
Matthew,
Once again, thanks for stopping in. I admire your desire to pursue the conversation. I don’t think translator-headphones are necessary here, I just don’t think you’ll agree, that’s all. However, for the purposes of conversation, let’s take a look at some of the folks you listed:
Oprah: A confused woman who is absolutely in a class by herself. Difficult to classify. You will excuse, but her foray into the political realm seemed very racially based to me. She saw up to the point of not being able to overcome that issue, that her delving into politics was going to be bad for her business. Note that her ratings took a nose dive after that. Her dabbling in this arena was about as authentic philosophically as Palin’s “Mama Grizzly” nonsense. Notably, Palin supported a woman Republican every time one was available. Give me a break.
Bernie Sanders: A self-described Socialist. I don’t agree with very much of what the fellow says, but I think he is someone who has consistent and openly stated political beliefs. Note that Sanders voted against the Bailout of 2008 and, I believe, no on the debt ceiling. He is definitely not a corporatist that I can see and apparently abhors it.
Tim Geithner: Corporatist Technocrat
Ben Nelson: Progressive leaning toward Corporatist (think big insurance).
Dwight Eisenhower: Very liberal Republican / Progressive. History proves it. Check out his supporters. Northeastern liberal / progressive. Interstate highway system sold as necessary for national security now operating as revolving government give-away slush fund. There’s more I’d have to go dig a bit to find.
Off the top of my head…
Progressives:
Woodrow Wilson
Theodore Roosevelt
Herbert Hoover
FDR – but was more of an opportunist
Nebraska’s George W. Norris, William Jennings Bryan
The Unicameral structure IS a manifestation of progressivism
Note that we’ve been doing a lot of reading and research regarding Nebraska history. Linda has already written a couple of drafts and we will be publishing those soon, if you’re at all interested. In addition to our particular work recently, you might be interested to know that I worked on a documentary about Progressivism which involved a lot of research and required traveling around the country to do interviews with history professors, authors, and elected officials, etc. Side note: I even tried to set up an interview Bernie Sanders because we thought he was not a Progressive – we wanted his take on the Bailout. We obviously haven’t published much on the subject, we’ve been focused on specific Nebraska issues. I think I need to dig out my work and brush up, maybe publish some of this.