Here is a blog post at Weasel Zippers, via Instapundit, about how in 2006 AD all the US Senators who were members of the Democratic Party voted AGAINST raising the debt limit.
Of course they did. In 2006 the Republicans were in firm control of the US Senate, although not with enough votes to override a Presidential Veto. The Democratic Party and the Democratic Party Senators on Capitol Hill looked down on President Bush and viewed him as a mere shrub. Their vote against raising the debt ceiling, including the votes of Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Dodd (D-CN), Biden (D-DE) and Clinton (D-NY), were just protest votes. The Republicans, by themselves, had the votes to pass the increase in the debt ceiling. If it had been a real contest and ten Republican had voted Nay, then some Democrats would have had to "break ranks" and vote Yea.
This year is different. This year the Democrats in the US Senate have the votes to pass the increase in the debt ceiling. They even have the "tie breaking" vote, President of the Senate Joseph Biden. However, they don't have the votes in the House of Representatives, so thus they have to cut a deal. Apparently they don't know how.
Over at Keith Hennessey's Blog we have one man's breakdown of the factions at work. I am not sure of all the dealing myself, but this seems reasonable.
I also suspect that the clock is ticking and only when it gets close to 2 August will the various factions cut a deal—and Washington being Washington, the clerks on Capital Hill will be tweaking the wording of the legislation after the Congress has voted and maybe after the President has signed. That, ladies and gentlemen, is both an embarrassment and a step down the road to strong man government. To characterize it, worse that Senator Mitch McConnell's suggestion to give the President power to raise the debt ceiling at will, subject to a legislative veto, but not much worse.
Regards — Cliff
♠ One is reminded of Senator Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."
This entire affair has confirmed for me the worst of both major parties, (as if it needed confirmation), and shed ample light on their corrupt pursuit of power and political advantage in complete disregard for the interests of the nation as a whole. Both parties have looted the treasury without restraint over the past 10 years, and they have only paused to jockey their side into whatever they felt was better position against the other so to more greedily divide the spoils.
ReplyDeleteNow that the cookie jar is empty, cracked and broken, their sole goal is painting the other side as the more guilty party, and this sort of story is simply grist for that mill. It's ugly all around.
I'm with Ron Paul.
I am not as hard over on Parties as is Kad Barma, because I believe that all crowds eventually precipitate out into cliques. Parties just makes it obvious what the big ones are.
ReplyDeleteBut, that said, he is dead on in saying that "Both parties have looted the treasury without restraint over the past 10 years...".
Here is another view of that. From Columnist Michael Barone is the argument that the "natural" level of Federal spending has been around 20% and the two parties have now boosted it up to around 24% or 25% and that is causing some problems.
The rest of Mr Barone's article is about the President fencing off AMTRAC (Please don't call it high speed rail; it isn't). That said, I agree with the President here and not Mr Barone:
"Obama has rhapsodized about the pleasure of walking to a train station and taking a high-speed rail trip to another city." And so it will remain if the TSA doesn't mess it up with its "Security Theater".
Regards — Cliff
Your link, unfortunately, simply returns itself to these comments...
ReplyDeleteDid you mean Barone's July 16th column? http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/federal-expansion-real-issue-debt-ceiling-debate
I agree with the goal to pare back government spending to a smaller percentage of GDP. I also agree with the goal to more fairly distribute the burden so that those most (obscenely in many cases) profiting by the playing field created by our government should be paying the freight to maintain it. (This is not a court system where the losers should have to pay for the winners' expenses).
As such my opinion bears some resemblance to the rhetoric from each side, but none of the substance of their actions. Ron Paul is one of the few who have it right. If only his party would care to nominate him--I expect his candidacy so supported would be a winner against Obama, if only it could be allowed to stand for general election. Too bad the R's are screwing us with dangerous populists and unqualified demogogues against the semi-fascist excesses of the present Democrat administration...
Yes, that is the one. Thanks for providing the real link.
ReplyDeleteRegards — Cliff
I couldn't agree more with kad concerning our dysfunctional government driven by the desire for power and to make the rules.
ReplyDeleteBut that aside, we should look into the trend of spending as a function of GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z3.xls
I would make a couple of observations:
1) the percentage has grown over time, probably the result that more programs are born than are sunset. That provides some ammunition to those who want to cut spending, although I think each program should be judged on its merits.
2) during times of war, the spending percentage increased, most notably during WW 2. However, in all cases except this past decade, so did the revenues. This notably is the only time that "shared sacrifice" came with tax breaks.
So I would vote to reduce the spending as a function of GDP to the 20% range over a few years as we wind down the wars, while at the same time increasing revenue by eliminating tax loopholes like the one enjoyed by the multi-billlion dollar hedge fund managers.
Something got lost in the translation - maybe better to start with this:
ReplyDeletewww.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
And then go to table 1.3
The Democrates voted against it because they were still harkening back to the days of Clinton buddgets where they cut and had budget surpluses and didn't want anything to do with the Bush tax cuts, the spending for two wars and increased deficit spending. If they had known what the lack of oversight by the Bush Administration would lead to the bubble and the financial desperation of the last several years, they would have been louder. Its not like "a curse on both your houses." There are clear choices here and we have to have the courage to pick one.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the Tea Party is not one of the choices, so that sort of rules out the Republicans. Lets go for a big settlement: cut, cut and cut back on the too low taxes on the wealth and business and try to get it right, like Clinton did.
Re Lance. I just was chastised in another forum for not understanding that not getting a debt ceiling increase would result in the end of life as we know it. Why would that have not happened in 2006 if the ceiling had not been lifted. The word I had objected to was "irresponsible" regarding those who were resisting the President's views. A second person suggested "the adults" should be in charge.
ReplyDeleteWe are now doing theology. The problem with theology is that there is no room for compromise with the heretics (from either side to either side).
Joe—thanks for the link to the charts.
Regards — Cliff
To answer Cliff,
ReplyDeleteLet's use a Russian Roulette metaphor. We seldom get the chance.
In 2006, the trigger could be pulled and the hammer would fall on an empty chamber.
In 2010, the round will go through our noggin and circle the globe, splattering brain matter the whole way.
The effect will be sooooooooo bad, even rich folks will feel the pinch. That just can't happen, now can it?
Jack!
ReplyDeleteExactly. The question is, what damage and to what degree, short range and long.
I would like for folks to adopt a new way of talking about this. When they give debt reductions I would like to see three numbers—This FY/Next FY/Next 10 FYs.
And to all a good night.
Regards — Cliff