It is rather obvious to anyone with any common sense that there are two reasons why we have a debt problem: (1) We spend more than we could afford--or were willing to cover. Instead of paying cash for our unnecessary expenditures, we put it on our credit card, borrowing money to give big tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and borrowing more money to fight a war in Iraq which we needed not fight. (2) We did not bring in enough revenues through taxes to pay off the credit cards, that is, to cover the payment of our debts. So we have a debt problem because we have both a spending problem and a revenue problem. And it doesn't matter how many times Republicans say it is only because we have a spending problem; it is not not true.
Liberals on the far left have reason to be disappointed with the performance of President Obama during the first two and a half years of his presidency. He was so absorbed in the nation's need--and call--for bipartisanship that he too often began negotiation at the likely position of compromise, resulting in his eventually compromising to the right of center. He did not allow Congress to arrive at that center themselves, with some timely help from him when necessary to fine tune the agreement.
On the debt-ceiling dilemma, the President told Democratic members of Congress not to draw a line in the sand, despite Republican having announced their line in the sand of no tax increases. Even so, Democrats and Republicans likely had found a middle ground of sorts with three or four to one weighings of spending cuts to revenue increases. There was a chance that more spending cuts could have been achieved had Republicans agreed to an additional $400 billion in cuts which had been suggested by the Senate's Gang of Six Committee. The President asked the Speaker if those additional revenues were doable with House Republicans. The Speaker did not respond.
But freshmen tea party Republicans weren't even going to agree to even the original revenue increase $800 billion in revenue increases. And when Republicans turned down the $800 billion increase in revenues, the Speaker blamed the rejection on the President's "moving the goal posts" and "demanding" $400 billion dollars of revenue. Neither the reason for the rejection nor the claim of the President's "demanding" a revenue increase was true.
If there are sufficient Republicans who are committed to the government defaulting in paying back the money Congress borrowed, then Congress cannot reach any agreement. The House and Senate will never agree on something that can pass both chambers. What happens then?
The Constitution has the answer: The obligation of the nation's debts to be paid cannot be "questioned." But if Congress cannot agree to pay expenditures it approved, the President must save the nation from default before the condition become a catastrophic. The 14th Amendment apparently gives somebody the responsibility--and the authority--to pay the bills. Who is that if not the President of the United States? And if it is the responsibility of the President, would it not be derelict in the performance of his duty for the President not to raise the debt ceiling? Would it be an impeachable offense?
But for how long would Obama have the authority to raise the debt ceiling: one week, one month, one year, until after the next elections, or is it a blank check to raise it at the president's discretion? Obama must not allow political blackmail to succeed. He must exercise the 14th Amendment authority if necessary, and let the Supreme Court explain for governments of the future why a president can or cannot do so. A vote of disapproval by the Court would encourage political blackmail and is itself perhaps unimpeachable offense.
The nation and the world now know what to expect should Republicans ever gain control of Congress and the presidency. They know what is likely to happen should Democrats not control the presidency and both chambers of Congress that includes a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And they also know, now, why Republicans were so persistent in characterizing Obama as a Fascist: It was to deflect attention to their own efforts in that direction.
Unfortunately, the present political climate in Washington makes possible the unthinkable: government officials having the power to deliberately manipulate the political climate in ways that influence financial markets in ways that assure the success of their or their supporters investment bets. Politicians can scare the markets into a decline, enabling them, those related to them or to whom they are indebted to make money as markets go down and as they turn around a go up. It is understandable why some politicians don't want government big enough to regulate and oversee.
Your will notice that Republicans never mention how poor and middle class Americans will be affected by tax cuts that are too large and tax revenues that are too low. They never explain how spending cuts will increase the number of jobs.
The present political debates are not about whether we spend too much or tax too little. It is about something much more: It's about what kind of people we are or choose to become as Americans.
On second thought, the tea party Republicans are not as significant part of that future as they appear. Their threats to not vote to raise the debt ceiling and severely damage the American and world economies unless they get their way clearly identifies them as a non-factor in future elections. Remember, all of the spending cuts that will go into the final bill were negotiated with any tea party members of Congress, only regular Republicans. Tax cuts without revenue increases is a conservative position, but tea party members don't care about a Republican victory; they are only care about their receiving the credit for whatever out come results, and making political blackmail work.
The final Democratic position, in this debt-ceiling debate, is where a party which wants to be the big-tent party should be: slightly to the right of center--and Democrats and Republican would be meeting there even without a tea party.
Ronald C. Spooner
Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net
Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment