Debt Ceiling: What did you expect?
By Brian Kirwin | Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 | Catch-All, PoliticsDemocrats control the White House. Democrats control the Senate. To the Monday Morning quarterbacks who all have better plans than the one passing Congress this week I say “What did you expect?”
We only control one-third of the process, and guess what? Virginia is responsible for that. Virginia voted for Senator Jim Webb, Senator Mark Warner and President Obama.
Debt ceiling increases usually pass with hardly a whisper. This one almost had international markets quaking at the thought of an American default, because our debt is at such a high level. That we extracted any concessions at all is a miracle.
The projected cuts are only cuts in increases, but that they are in there at all with Democrats holding 67% of the say is amazing to me. Couple that with “no tax increase” and this agreement is a huge win for House Republicans.
Did anyone really think the government would let itself default? Despite the enthusiasm of those who would cheer that, NO….N-O, no elected official would let that happen and expect to be re-elected. A debt ceiling increase was going to pass.
The real issue is that the Senate hasn’t passed a budget this year or last year. The budget is where you can truly cut spending, and the Democrats won’t even produce one. That’s the big issue we are forgetting in the heat of a debt ceiling summer.
One more thing….
If you think there should be more sanity in the federal budget, STOP ELECTING DEMOCRATS!
Stop telling me that Mark Warner is really effective or Jim Webb is really conservative for a Democrat. The bottom line is, when it’s time to stop talking and start voting, they vote how their Democrat leader tells them to vote. They vote the same as Al Franken!
So you didn’t like Jim Gilmore, George Allen and John McCain. You cackled about Sarah Palin. You did nothing but complain about your own side during their elections while the Democrats and the media piled on.
And now you aren’t happy with what Warner, Webb and Obama gave you?
What did you expect?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
30 Responses to "Debt Ceiling: What did you expect?"
So Brian, who should be re-elected, Forbes or Rigell?
Who was “I got my ass in line”, Rigell representing, when he has no idea of the cuts that will be imposed?
Brian,, first you start with the Big Media Liberal Democrat Lie…by talking about government default,,, Uncle Sugar takes in revenue every day,,, lots of fees, fines and withholding submittals…. no chance of a default,, plenty of money to pay interest on debt and finance the entitlement programs,,, and lets face it,,, Aug 2 is/was a somewhat arbitrary date,,, there is no way in heck given the numbers involved that anyone couldn’t point to today as being “Default” day….. but when you base decisions on lies and political rhetoric you get bad results,,, and what we got was a pittance of a promise to cut some spending next year,, big whup
and what did I expect,,, I expected every House Republican to repeat the above over and over and not be rushed to a losing deal,, sadly many republicans lack cajones, starting with that Bohner guy,,,
Beam Me Up DEAR Leader,,, the Day of Reckoning may be postponed but it will Occur and I’m Taxed Enough Already…
Brian- You are dead-on correct. Given a movement leftist president and movement leftist Senate majority, this deal was a huge victory for the Republicans (and America) and a huge defeat for the Obama democrats. That’s Democrats from Vice President Biden down are so hysterical that they are calling the tea party “terrorists” and calling the deal the work of “Satan.”
We conservatives have become so accustomed to losing and so accustomed to being let down by our Republican elected officials that we can’t recognize a victory when we achieve one. This was a major victory. Obama and his Democrats wanted a “clean” debt ceiling increase that would have allowed him to continue to increase spending with reckless abandon. We said no. Then he wanted to couple spending cuts with tax increases, and again, we said no. In the end, we got $3 trillion of cuts (albeit from baseline), and chance to put Democrats on record violating their pledge to support a Balanced Budget Amendment, no tax increases, and a complete change in the mindset of the American people about government spending.
Yes, this was a huge victory for the Republicans and a huge defeat for the Democrats. Now the only question is whether the conservatives will cede the issue to Democrats be acting defeated and allowing them to act victorious.
It is ironic that the “victory” some republicans claim has come at a significant cost; that is, at the beginning of this debacle, the republican mantra reigned supreme. But then an interesting thing happened; the public got educated. Now, the negative effects of recovery through cuts alone is not supported by public opinion and in fact, the President’s balanced approach of cuts, increased revenue, with an eye toward growth in GDP, is now what the majority of americans prefer. Yes, some wild eyed extremists threatened the nation with default, recession, business failures, high unemployment, but in the end, they got concessions but at what cost? The tide has turned against their simplistic approach.
BK says “Stop telling me that Mark Warner is really effective or Jim Webb is really conservative for a Democrat.”
Thank you Brian. I think that is the first time I’ve read that in a main post at BD. And Ken is indirectly right. However, it should be realized that Obama and the Dems lost the PR fight mainly due to unforced errors. Obama is even less effective than Carter. With a more agile Prez the Repubs would have lost even though on substance they are right. The real Repub problem is that they are too comfortable with the process that has got us here to respond articulately. Thus they tiptoe around more effective approaches such as zero baseline budgeting or true freezes. In addition they can’t even bring themselves to cut the $200 billion that even GAO identified as outright waste and duplication. That could have achieved real deficit reduction and Dems would have had no counter.
Richard, you sound like James Trafficant. I’d worry.
You know, I used to be of the “better a bad Democrat than a bad Republican” camp.
No longer. This budget cycle in Washington has completely cured me of that fantasy.
Buckley was right. Nominate the most conservative candidate who can win.
Mike, does that mean that the little old ladies are feeling safe again and aren’t feeling threatened by Grover Norquist and those Tea Party extremists?
“I see Debt people…”
http://tinyurl.com/43z9qxp
Mike, the outcome had more to do with current numbers than the demands of the public. Brian has a great point there.
You talk about Tea Partiers bringing default, high unemplyoment etc. Richard kinda touched on this. It could have been done without default. A REAL correction to the root cause of our problems could have been had. That is where Brian K.’s point comes in. The best deal will be refused. The problem won’t be addressed in a real manner.
Default? Unemployment? The Tea Party? Really?
What is the unemployment RIGHT NOW?
How many Americans are on food stamps…..now?
You blame the Tea Party for a potential default? Who voted for all the spending? Who brought us to the point of even talking about default in real terms???
It certainly wasn’t the Tea Party. They are a reaction not the cause of this problem.
Yes, the tea party approach, that is cut, then cut some more, will cause more pain without the potential for a faster recovery. Fact is, large immediate cuts will depress economic activity, not stimulate it. We have already seen the effects of this fact in states and cities around the nation that have cut employees to balance their budgets, and have depressed economic activity as a result. So now that they have gotten most of what they wanted, they now own the lack of recovery foing forward. If we are worse off in the Fall of 2012 than we are now, astute voters will know the cause.
Mike — why do you want to keep spending my money?
The Tea Party approach is not “cut and cut some more”. The Tea Party approach is to not spend the country into oblivion to satisfy your political friends or win the next election.
In your response you have a legitimate point. If you want the least pain possible and a fast as possible return to fiscal health, you are right, devastating cuts will hurt more than needed. The reactions to deep recessions, depressions, and currently failing cities and states bears that out.
However, if you wait to do anything until your “too big to fail” super power is downgraded on credit and defaults. If you wait to become responsible until your house is about to be foreclosed on. If you WAIT to do anything about pensions and medical only after you learn your city/state is near insolvency………
Mike…..severe cuts and downgrading of standard of living will be forced on you. Not by the evil Tea Party. By irresponsible actions.
The best way to go is to do what is needed. The longer you wait the more pain you will endure. It will only get worse. Certainly prioritize cuts and temper them with forethought, but you lose that choice if you wait too long.
If we thought our govt was serious about fixing things and not pretending, the Tea Party would back down considerably. So far that benefit of the doubt isn’t justified.
“recovery”… What are we “recovering” from now that we are in fiscal oblivion? I would rather Obama set a goal to “recover” back to 2007 since he seems to have adopted almost everything else George Bush did.
Well Britt, the President’s Plan was not to do nothing. It was a bold Plan that reduced the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years by reducing spending, increasing revenue, reforming entitlements, and gradually timing these changes to ensure we did not fall back into recession, yet the House and the tea party wing of the republican party walked away. Now frankly, how are they going to defend that reluctance to cut more, not less? How are they going to defend that the plan they held out for was less aggressive than the President’s. How are they going to go back to their districts and defend the fact that they got a trillion less in deficit relief than the President’s Plan. Frankly, they can’t defend themselves because it was never about the deficit, it was always about defeating this President, and now that is clear for all to see.
Mike, your comments don’t do you justice. Everybody knows that had the President been serious about entitlement reform, reducing spending, etc, that fiscal conservatives would have been most welcoming. What you are writing is just nonsense, just because it gets said over and over doesn’t make it the least bit true.
Well Temporary, John Boehner himself has confirmed exactly what he and the President had been prepared to do, so to deny that the President was serious is a fiction of your imagination. In fact, it appears that Boehner almost lost his Speakership over his initiative as Cantor then appeared to be leading the caucus. So in the run up to the next election, the far right will be challenged at every turn to explain why they did not accept the best deal out there, which is the one put on the table for $4 trillion in deficit reduction by the President.
Mike has said that before to other commenter’s, but his hypocrisy as typified by leftist Democrats and the ongoing failures of this President using a narrative for the destruction of our nation, our economy and what is left of our moral fiber. There is no logical or sane discourse but a lot of parrots like Mike who are squawking the same blame, malaise, and fear which they hope will foster urban unrest and eventually, a Martial Law restriction of our freedoms.
Hey Mike, have you looked at your 401K today?… hope you are happy!
Mike, I hope that is the kind of strategy that opponents of fiscal conservatives hope to use in the 2012 election cycle, I hope that they will try to convince the electorate that the President is for making cuts, entitlement reform, etc, but he just can’t get fiscal conservative support for the idea //tee hee//.
You think that conservatives are divided, hell, if Democrats try to push that point of view the Democratic party is going to suffer some kind of schism that results in a new kind of Democratic dissociative identity disorder.
So tim J, are you actually saying that offering $4 trillion in deficit relief is…”hypocrisy as typified by leftist Democrats and the ongoing failures of this President using a narrative for the destruction of our nation, our economy and what is left of our moral fiber…” but adopting $3 trillion in deficit relief is just fine?
I’m saying that “revenues” i.e. increased taxes and voodoo accounting to include counting “savings” from standing down two wars in the $4 trillion over 10 years is leftist hypocrisy at its finest. The $3 trillion is just a down payment on now over $16 trillion that must be cut, capped and balanced when responsible Tea Party citizen statesmen take the Presidency and the Senate in 2012.
Firstly, Mike, if you want to say plans offered by Boehner were inadequate, I would likely agree with you. Was the Compromise better? Reid’s preference better? 4 trillion as a sum certainly is more than 3.
Here is my problem with all the offerings and your arguement:
Everybody knows.
We have been here before on a rhetorical & gamesmanship level.
When you claim to save trillion over a course of time that exceeds your presidency
When you pass a “promise” for not you to keep, but “the next congress” to keep as you kick the can down the road and run for congress again…..
I call that cowardice and betrayal! The cuts don’t start until when? What? You don’t even know what the cuts will be? A lot will be decided by a committee? A “blue ribbon panel if you will? Hahahahahahahahahahaha! …….please…..
Until it becomes real steps it is all make believe. Just like crying wolf, our government has cried, “I have finnally come to my senses. I will demand fiscal responsibility!”, way too many times.
We are continually lied to and decieved. When there is even a ray of hope or a hint of change by either party. I am ready to recognize it.
I would rather not doom our country out of vanity or political competition. We don’t need to follow the USSSR along the path to “former superpower”.
Well Britt, if we are discussing legacies, what could be worse than what Presdient Bush left President Obama. The bill the Boehner and Reid worked out, that was adopted, uses the same 10 years you are condemning the President for using. Perhaps we are deceived and lied to, but the President’s proposal for $4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years is so similar in detail to the Bowles Simpson Plan, to that recommended by the Gang of Six, and of that recommended by the Alice Rivlin group, that to call it deception is a bit overstated. Fact is, the grand plan put forth by the President was the best choice, and those on the far right who refused to embrace it and will continue to condemn him and the Plan will be held accountable by the voters for their timidity and their poor choice.
Dow down -265 after 8 straight days of losses. And Obama said this deal would save us from Armageddon? Let’s see… who can we blame this on?
Yes, that is what happens when the greatest nation in the world succumbs to blackmail from the extremists on the far right, formerly known as the republican party.
Ah, just like a bass to a shiny lure.
Mike, again you mention something that I believe to be true among arguments I disagree with.
I totally disagree with the notion that this was the best deal possible. Just because it was agreed to by two partisans doesn’t make it ideal.
Where I do agree with you is that Republicans have practiced Smoke & Mirror Budgeting as well. You will only hear my agreement if you state that Bush’s 2nd term was horrible and he was guilty of massive spending. Pres. Obama has more than passed the point where he can blame everything on Bush. Obama owns it now. Yes, I condemn the action of Obama for THE SAME REASON I condemned Bush for doing the same.
I say deception based on past observation of the patterns of politicians. That and the “pain” has yet again been postponed. The can kicked yet again. I will retract my statement of outright deception if real cuts are made and responsibilty demonstrated. Late is better than never. Until then I don’t buy it.
Lol. Always love a bass fishing reference, Tim.
Framing the debate: It’s kind of funny, in a very perverse kind of way, to note how the debate turns on big-sounding numbers that don’t mean a damned thing.
Fact #1: the cash flow deficit will be $1.6 Trillion or more for FY2011. You are talking about cutting an average $100 Billion per year over ten years, with some soon-to-be-ignored promise to cut another $150 Billion over those ten years. The cash flow deficit will continue to be nearly $1.5 Trillion per year for the foreseeable future. This is the new normal; get used to it, right up until the dollar loses reserve status.
Fact #2: the accrued deficit is, and has been for some number of years, on the order of $5 Trillion annually. This is the increase in the entitlement liability of the U.S. government. No one even bothers to talk about this. It’s like it doesn’t exist. But it does. And the dems who won today will be back for more when those entitlements come due. They’ll be back with more telephone blasts on Washington. Count on it. The voters want free stuff. And so they shall have it. Naked greed wears a donkey suit, too.
Fact #3: For those who understand this reality and invest accordingly, today was predictable and a great day in the markets. And so, the OP is correct in this much at least: no other outcome was even remotely possible, and that is actionable information.
More, from Bloomberg:
“Fed May Weigh More Stimulus on Slow Recovery.
The FOMC will meet Aug. 9 in Washington after the government marked down its measure of economic growth to annual rates of 0.4 percent in the first quarter and 1.3 percent in the second, casting doubt on the Fed’s June outlook of 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent growth for this year. A gauge of U.S. manufacturing, a main engine for the expansion, slumped last month to the lowest level in two years.
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in congressional testimony in July that the Fed may take new action if the economy stalls, including beginning a third round of bond purchases.”
DO you think it’ll take Barry very long to spend all of the $2.5 Trillion the repubs handed to his reelection campaign?
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.