“This isn’t what we had in mind.”
A conspiracy theorist might suggest that the debt ceiling crisis was created simply to implement this dictatorship-smelling thing. One can only wonder at how big-business/special-interests will salivate over such a system given how easy it is to influence politicians now with bribes… er, um… campaign contributions.
Debt ceiling negotiators think they’ve hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
Sounds like they want a House of Lords. Thought we fought a war over that/
The US needs to get it’s financial services sector and federal government fiscal house in order. The US public is tired of the extremists on both sides calling the shots.
The complete lack of spine by both sides of the mess means that the rest of the world will eventually be forced to fix the problem for you. That’s a tangible loss of sovereignty.
The US is a far bigger threat to the US than all the terrorists (real or imagined) and foreign governments combined.
Yes. You need a super congress. All wearing white wigs and waistcoats.
Fundamentally, the issue is that no one believes a word that Obama or Congress says; we only believe what they do. So, I’d be more than happy to “say” we’ll raise taxes but we won’t agree to actually do it until the Federal government balances its budget. Deficit = 0. When Congress proves that it can choose not to spend on something for which they have no money, then we’ll start entertaining the idea that we might need to raise taxes.
This idea of a Super-Congress is dubious. Six from “each” party? Independents simply get screwed? I have a better idea. Cut the size of the Federal government such that budget can be built by the people that we currently have in Congress. That means moving many functions away from the Federal government to the States.
#60–Animby==you are right. I did the math. Silly of me. So–freeze the budget or lower it, all “new” tax revenue to be applied to the debt. Certainly much better than the slow motion train wreck going on right now.
“If I were Obaman” I would have the OMB and CBO issue a joint statement on what the COST of failure to raise the debt ceiling would be to the American Economy and compare that to the cuts to the Service. That is but a rough equivalence with lots of unknown unknowns.
-OR- call the process unconstitutional and let the world know we would pay all debts and let the cuts fall to all domestic programs.
All the stupid fuckers getting any check at all from the Federal Government would find out in about 2 weeks just how INCREDIBLY RETARDED THEY ARE TO VOTE REPUBLICAN.
change will come as fast as god can turn you into a pillar of salt.
As with anything god does, its sad we innocent Anti-Theists have to suffer the stupidity of the true believers, but thats what being on space ship earth means.
Stoopid Dumbf*cking Americans.
>OR- call the process unconstitutional and let the world know we would pay all debts and let the cuts fall to all domestic programs.
Do you even understand the process? This is an available option right now for the President. The 14th Amendment argument has nothing to do with this. The talk of default is mostly posturing. There is the possibility that the government has to do some maneuvering to come up with money to pay off old debts, which they usually do by buying new debt in the same amount.
Mickey—you are being consistently confused. I can’t recommend Obama do something if its not an option.
You are being worse than silly. Inherently contradictory.
Really–stroke? electrolytes? Get it checked.
#68 Bobbo – We are (essentially) in agreement? Whoop-ti-doo! It’s kickback time on the front porch with a frosty lemonade (okay, mojito), feet on the rail and enjoy the summer heat. Instead of Abbott and Costello on the radio, we’ll listen to the new comedy hit show Barry n Boehner. I love when Barry says. “Eat your peas.” Cracks me up.
“Eat your peas.” Yeah. I almost fell off the porch with that one. “Folksy Obama.” I wish he’d let the white half of himself loose—or would it be the black half? Hard to tell which stereotype to use.
Just watch out when he says Let me be clear. He is now about to lie.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
#69
“The talk of default is mostly posturing.”
True.
“There is the possibility that the government has to do some maneuvering to come up with money to pay off old debts, which they usually do by buying new debt in the same amount.”
Selling new debt… so if you’re conceding that this isn’t very substantive how is it okay for the GOP to act in such a manner?
Can you see that posturing itself can be dangerous? Like #62, and many other right wingers as well, casually advocating political violence. It’s just not cool.
#67
“Fundamentally, the issue is that no one believes a word that Obama or Congress says”
Fundamentally the issue is that the GOP has gone insane, and Obama is too weak\complicit to stand up to them.
“So, I’d be more than happy to “say” we’ll raise taxes but we won’t agree to actually do it until the Federal government balances its budget”
This is exactly the same sort of logic the GOP is using now. We’ll go through the budget process, but refuse to sign the check. Imagine if you made promises to everybody you know in real life, but with hefty conditionals relating TO YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
It would go something like this: I want to borrow some money from you and I can/will pay you back.*
*I’m also trying to quit smoking… sometimes I get a little stressed and find my obligations unbearable. So if I don’t pay you it stems from my desire for a healthier me.
>I can’t recommend Obama do something if its not an option.
He doesn’t have to call anything unconstitutional to let the world know we would pay all debts and let the cuts fall to all domestic programs.
As I said, you don’t understand.
#75
It would go something like this: I want to borrow some money from you and I can/will pay you back.*
And therein is the lie. That’s just it; they won’t pay you back. They’ll pay you back and borrow even more than they borrowed the first time. Rinse and repeat. It’s akin to using a balance transfer on your credit card to pay that credit card.
This is exactly the same sort of logic the GOP is using now. We’ll go through the budget process, but refuse to sign the check.
I realize that it is tough for you to understand but the GOP is saying is more than this. They are saying they’ll refuse to sign the check unless you also commit to being fiscally responsible and balance your budget. There is no point in letting a bad gambler borrow more money.
The Federal government needs to demonstrate that it can balance its budget and anyone should consider giving it more money.
#77
That should be “…before anyone should consider giving it more money.”
“And therein is the lie. That’s just it; they won’t pay you back. They’ll pay you back and borrow even more than they ”
Well, which is it young feller? Either they won’t pay you back or they will. It can’t be both, at least not in consecutive sentences.
“I realize that it is tough for you to understand but the GOP is saying is more than this. They are saying they’ll refuse to sign the check unless you also commit to being fiscally responsible and balance your budget.”
Right, and if some guy sticks a gun in my face to grab my car he is saying two things. Not only does he want to take my car, but he also sincerely desires me to be healthier by causing me to walk more often.
You’re also hopelessly confusing the time pressures of two separate types of problems.
One is something that needs to get solved now, and one is often referred to as generational accounting. Note this time frame of each issue: several days, and several decades. Big difference there.
In life, apart from the political discussion, I think it’s okay to disagree and argue with people. Even in a fractious environment the notion of time order doesn’t have to get lost.
The GOP is NOT making a moral argument. They are attempting to get a do-over on stuff they previously agreed to.
Big O needs to tell them to shove it, and for the GOP to man up in an honest budget battle for the next fiscal year. That’s the big deal. It is the place for all of this stuff to come out. This is tactically sound for the GOP brand, but practical nonsense.
#79
Well, which is it young feller? Either they won’t pay you back or they will.
Borrowing money from a loan shark to pay the same loan shark isn’t paying them back. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. They are using balance transfers on their credit card to pay their credit card. There comes a day when the credit card company stops loaning you money.
One is something that needs to get solved now, and one is often referred to as generational accounting.
Oooooh.. So we never really ever have to balance the budget since that’s always our kid’s problem? Check.
There comes a time when you must solve today’s problem today instead of putting it on the next generation. Today’s problem is more than just increasing the debt ceiling. Today’s problem is a fundamental lack of will to stop spending more than we make. That’s happening month by month, year by year not just a generation from now. Today we have the problem of a bad gambler wanting to borrow more money to pay his bookie.
Your attitude seems to be that we can always put off the discussion about balancing the budget for another day. The problem is that day never comes. Going back well over 100 years, I think every President and Congress at one time or other has given lip service to the idea of fiscal responsibility and done little to actually make it happen.
Big O needs to tell them to shove it, and for the GOP to man up in an honest budget battle for the next fiscal year.
First, Obama has again illustrated his extraordinarily poor leadership skills due to his inexperience. Boehner and Obama sat down and talked out a budget. A few days later Obama changed his mind about stuff to which they had agreed. Can’t do that in a negotiation. You have to stick to what you agreed or no one will negotiate with you. Boehner then bypassed Obama and went to the Senate where they put together a bi-partisan deal and Obama pissed on that too.
Frankly, at this stage, I’m not convinced that Washington is capable of solving this crisis. The Democrats, Obama and the Republicans all seem equi-distant from each other. IMO, it’s time for a Constitutional Convention and I can tell you that topic #1 will be a balanced budget amendment. This dubious thinking you can spend your way out of a recession has to stop.
#76–Mike==ok, THAT makes sense, I agree. Your original post is so confused I thought you were making a point different than what I have already said several times.
Thomas–Congress wants to teach “the Federal Government” to be financially responsible? Ha, ha. Totally schizophrenic view of Congress/Fed Gov isn’t it? Its CONGRESS that is being irresponsible. Not the Federal Government however you may be fantasizing whatever you think that it.
You are approaching Mickey territory in being all fubar.
Once again, this phony-baloney twelve man jury, Apostles, ripoff. That’s the only reason I can think of that it’s 12 of them. Who’s the secret 13th member? Jesus or Kissenger?
Isn’t this just all part of the plan to wipe out the middle class? First, make them dependent on things like Medicare, Social Security, etc. And then after devastating their savings and retire benefits, thru inflation. Pull the run out from under them, by stripping away the remaining, gov. funded safety net they have. While continuing to assure that the rich, won’t suffer any tax increases. Who don’t need such safety nets. But probably have enjoyed Medicare and SocSec payouts, anyway.
“Borrowing money from a loan shark to pay the same loan shark isn’t paying them back. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. ”
Don’t forget that our loan sharks give us some pretty damn good rates.
“Your attitude seems to be that we can always put off the discussion about balancing the budget for another day.”
Not really, I think the question of fiscal imbalance should be part of the regular budget process. There are months for that, and decent continuation measures are available.
“There comes a time when you must solve today’s problem today instead of putting it on the next generation. ”
I agree completely. The problem of the day is not to increase our interest costs, and the interest cost of everything pegged to Treasuries for NO REASON. The discussion about the long range tomorrow, which is a great discussion, can be had after fixing today’s problem.
“Obama has again illustrated his extraordinarily poor leadership skills due to his inexperience.”
I agree, but I’m guessing we think he failed for different reasons.
“You have to stick to what you agreed or no one will negotiate with you.
Yes, and that is the crux of the problem. We can’t make long-term arrangements and then hang the system on a technicality.
“The Democrats, Obama and the Republicans all seem equi-distant from each other. ”
That doesn’t sound too good for Obama in the next election. First sitting Prez to lose in primary?
“I’m not convinced that Washington is capable of solving this crisis.”
Ditto.
Both my #83 post and this one refer to Thomas at #80
“They are robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
How? We are talking about the Treasury paying back Paul’s bonds by selling new bonds to Peter. Paul gets paid, and Peter chooses to invest.
“There comes a day when the credit card company stops loaning you money.”
Very true, but we are talking about a different thing. The GOP has been calling credit card company and telling them to get stuffed.
Default could be an option, but right now it is moronic.
Don’t blame me, the Super Congress did it!
My suggestion to the members of the legislative branch who don’t want the responsibilities that go with the job: Resign.
The bastards should be impeaching Obama over the illegal war in Libya, instead they are glad they didn’t have to go on record as the war mongers they surely are.
And can’t we just rely on Reid to do exactly the wrong thing! They should be setting an upper limit on how many citizens a “representative” can represent and expanding the size of the house membership to accommodate the need.
Under the current system, the US produces enough sociopaths to fill all seats. They are the best campaigners and most strongly attracted to power. We need to increase the number of representatives until the numerical majority are sane and decent. That is, not elitist douche-bags.
I mean in the next cycle – after the collapse of western civilization.
The debt ceiling was raised last year by a trillion dollars. They had a chance to raise it again when Democrats controlled Congress, but Harry Reid said no. He said he didn’t want Republicans blaming high debt on them, the way they blamed it on Bush. So he wanted Republicans to raise the debt ceiling, and be coowners.
#81
Congress wants to teach “the Federal Government” to be financially responsible?
Never said that. Congress is clearly a (if not the) major contributor to our mess. What I’m suggesting is that we need to force the issue via a change in the Constitution.
#83
Don’t forget that our loan sharks give us some pretty damn good rates.
Doesn’t matter when you are talking about trillions of dollars loaned.
Not really, I think the question of fiscal imbalance should be part of the regular budget process. There are months for that, and decent continuation measures are available.
They have had months (years, decades) to correct the problem to solve during the “regular budget process”. This current crisis is the cumulation of years of not getting it done. The Federal government has to decide whether it will live within its means today (not five or ten years from now). If it will, then the solution is easy: cut spending to match existing revenue. There is no need to raise the debt limit if you live within your means. The problem is that the President and most in Congress do not have the will to do this.
“You have to stick to what you agreed or no one will negotiate with you.
Yes, and that is the crux of the problem. We can’t make long-term arrangements and then hang the system on a technicality. M
Forget long term arrangements. This was a short-term agreement between Obama and Boehner and Obama reneged.
(#84)
“They are robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
How? We are talking about the Treasury paying back Paul’s bonds by selling new bonds to Peter. Paul gets paid, and Peter chooses to invest.
The Treasury is issuing bonds to pay bonds. That’s a ponzi scheme. Further, they are having one part of the government buy bonds (effectively buying from themselves and claiming it to be revenue) to pay other debts.
Here’s one suggestion that Boehner could give to the President. We raise the debt limit $1 T right now on the agreement that we lower the debt limit by 3% every year starting with 2012. In 33 years, we should be debt free. Of course, Obama would never go for it because he doesn’t want someone to stop him or his party from spending like drunken sailors even if they don’t have the money.
“Doesn’t matter when you are talking about trillions of dollars loaned.”
I think it matters quite a lot. Why is it bad thing to run up a lot of debt? In practical terms eventually we will look like a worse risk and lenders will charge us more. So in an effort to stave that off the GOP is engineering a problem that will have the same effect. I’m stumped.
“They have had months (years, decades) to correct the problem to solve during the “regular budget process”. This current crisis is the cumulation of years of not getting it done.”
So because of decades of overspending, including lots of GOP waste, the GOP is forced to crash the country’s finances? That is fucking insane!
“Forget long term arrangements. This was a short-term agreement between Obama and Boehner and Obama reneged.”
Oh, so it’s a personal tiff. That is a much better reason.
“There is no need to raise the debt limit if you live within your means.”
I’m leery of drawing too close a parallel between national finance and personal finance. I can’t print my own money… well I could, but I’d get arrested.
I would liken this situation to purposely not paying the mortgage because you are pissed off at the wife. Too silly.
“The Treasury is issuing bonds to pay bonds. That’s a ponzi scheme.”
Not quite. I’ve never heard of a ponzi scheme producing anything besides financial returns ( or the sudden SHOCKING lack of returns). There are a lot of things the government does that add value to society and the economy. Not making receipts honestly in a massive organization leads to questions of revenues/expenses, but doesn’t suggest it’s a scam.
Enron is the famous modern day ponzi scheme. It was notable for being a “black box” to analysts. Nobody could understand how it made money… answer: it didn’t.
#88
Why is it bad thing to run up a lot of debt? In practical terms eventually we will look like a worse risk and lenders will charge us more.
Wow. What kind of bizarro accounting world do you live in? Let’s start simple. There are many reasons why racking up debt is bad:
1. Interest on the debt becomes a larger part of the budget
2. Tax revenue, which is money taken out of the economy (out of tax payer’s pockets) is used to pay for something that has no tangible benefit to the tax payers.
3. You become beholden to the banks and owners of the debt. See Greece. For an earlier lesson, see 15th-16th century Spain.
4. You saddle generations with debt created now for projects they’ll never see. That means a larger percentage of their tax revenue will go towards paying down debt instead of on expanding infrastructure or economic growth.
It’s one thing to take out loans for projects which will provide long term benefit such as new roads or new dams. It’s another thing to take out loans to for fixing a few pot holes and keeping a few low wage jobs around a few months. Whenever the government spends money it is take money out of the economy and putting it back into the economy via a filter of bureaucracy. If the multiplier of spending is greater than 1, then more economic growth is created than is lost. A multiplier less than one means that more economic growth is lost than is created by government spending. Any spending where long term economic growth is not greater than the amount spent is a waste of tax payer’s money. All of the stimulus has been in this category. None of it is to provide long term economic growth. That means our posterity will be paying loans on potholes that were fixed, once, a generation prior and have likely had to be fixed numerous times afterward. For this, they get to pay billions in interest.
So because of decades of overspending, including lots of GOP waste, the GOP is forced to crash the country’s finances? That is fucking insane!
No. Lot’s of government waste including plenty if not more from Democrats. What party controlled Congress when the stimulus bill was passed? How many Democrats voted in favor of the wars? Multiple times?
“Forget long term arrangements. This was a short-term agreement between Obama and Boehner and Obama reneged.”
Oh, so it’s a personal tiff. That is a much better reason.
You don’t get it. This is the Speaker of the House and the President. If the Speaker cannot trust the President to negotiate in good faith, he can’t negotiate with the President at all. Not keeping your word after the other party negotiates in good faith is a sign of incompetent leadership. No one will work with you if you do that. What you get is what we have now: a stalemate and dysfunctional government because the President doesn’t know how to lead. His lack of any shread of management experience is on display for all the world to see.
I’m leery of drawing too close a parallel between national finance and personal finance. I can’t print my own money… well I could, but I’d get arrested.
So, why not simply print the debt away? All of it. 100%. Zero debt by flooding the market with dollars. There is a very good reason not to do this and thus printing money is not the solution.
Living within your means, from the perspective of the government, has nothing to do with printing money. Very simply, it means expenses are less than or equal to revenues. That’s it. Just make expenses less than revenues. Most every State is required to do this. Why not the Federal government? The Federal government hasn’t managed this trick since Eisenhower.
Not quite. I’ve never heard of a ponzi scheme producing anything besides financial returns ( or the sudden SHOCKING lack of returns).
Ooooh. So the people that invested with Madoff never lost anything? I seem to remember something about 50 B disappearing overnight… How good were those returns when including the crash?
Not making receipts honestly in a massive organization leads to questions of revenues/expenses, but doesn’t suggest it’s a scam.
So, you are fine with the President not acting in good faith but the government as a whole cannot?
Regardless, the Federal government sells bonds to pay bonds and counts it as revenue. It is akin to using a balance transfer on your credit card to pay your credit card. If you buy a 200K house, you are not 200K richer because the bank loaned you this money. The expense of the house offsets the loan. That is, unless you are the Federal government where you don’t count the debt generated by selling bonds.
What the country really needs to do is debate the Great Society all over again. We have to decide as a nation if we want our entitlements, and if so we must take the steps needed to secure them financially.
“What kind of bizarro accounting world do you live in?”
I live in the REAL world. Individuals and organizations often encounter problems that they need to acquire financing for. If you take the position that the government needs to operate like a sole-proprietorship or family, then I’ve got to stop now. Go look at financial filings for a company a that is a SMALL FRACTION as complex as the Government: research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
What the GOP is doing now is screwing with the machinery of government because they don’t agree with FDR. I think FDR’s New Deal is the best strategic move in the history of government anywhere. Sure you’d disagree with that…
more to come
#91
If you take the position that the government needs to operate like a sole-proprietorship or family, then I’ve got to stop now.
Baloney. First, I never said that the government has to operate like a sole-proprietorship or a family. Second, why is it that almost all State governments can live by a balanced budget but the Federal government cannot? Third, the Federal government has clearly proven it cannot be trusted with money. Whenever they get revenue, the do not pay down debt. They do not invest in long term projects (other than defense). Instead, they piss it away. Fourth, many expenditures by the Federal government are ones that shouldn’t be in the purview of the Federal government in the first place.
Why is health care even discussed at the Federal level? Medicare nor Medicaid should have never been allowed to be implemented by the Federal government. That’s something the States should provide to their constituents. Similarly, IMO, Social Security (which frankly isn’t in trouble and neither is Medicare. More on that later) is something that should have been provided by the States.
Neither SS nor Medicare are in trouble. Both bring in more money than they take out. By the time most people get to the age to qualify for either, they will have contributed more than they will take out on average. The problem, again, is that the Federal government took the money taken in by both programs and spent it. Not only did they spend it, they spent that and then some by a large margin over decades. The real problem is that the Federal government which “borrowed” the money from SS and Medicare doesn’t have the money to pay it back. That’s a prime example of why they shouldn’t have access to it.
The more you centralize a system, the greater the crash if (when) it becomes corrupt. The Founder’s knew this which is why the States had all the power. If a handful of States become corrupt, the problem is far more localized than if the Federal government becomes corrupt and screws us all.
What the GOP is doing now is screwing with the machinery of government because they don’t agree with FDR. I think FDR’s New Deal is the best strategic move in the history of government anywhere. Sure you’d disagree with that…
The primary problem with the New Deal wasn’t in the ideas, it was in the implementation. The Federal government, by design, was never meant to have the power to implement the features of the New Deal. In reading the arguments made during the ratification of the Constitution, it is amazing how many ideas would have prevented us from getting into the situation we are in now. One big one was that the Federal government wouldn’t be able to tax people directly. Instead, they would tax the States (apportioned by population) and the States would figure out how to get the tax revenue. Unfortunately, that was overruled and here we are.
There is no question that politically, the New Deal is what kept FDR in office for four terms. The equation is simple: appeal to the mob by spending other people’s money. Caesar did the same thing. It is why politicians love Keynes. They get to spend during tough times and look like they are helping the little guy with no recourse nor consequence to the debt they generate. That system cannot last indefinitely.
As I’ve said before, it’s time for another Constitution Convention.
#92 “Why is health care even discussed at the Federal level?”
The Federal government CAN get involved in public health matters, even over the objection of states. Walter Reed, US Army, helped figure out that mosquitoes transmit Malaria. The USG ordered southern states to undertake malaria suppression efforts(mostly to dump diesel fuel on water cisterns to prevent mosquito eggs from being fertile).
Southern states, the never ending Civil War still going on in their malaria fevered little brains, claimed the same ‘States Rights’ that you cite now. They didn’t believe any mosquito theory, and were going to do whatever they were already doing(forgot exactly what, but it didn’t appear to combat malaria).
Then trains full of dead, dying and infected people started rolling into the lower mid-western states. The nation was not going to be imperiled because the South was still fighting the Civil War( it never ends!).
That’s why the USG has a role in health care. Communicable diseases don’t respect neat concepts like boundary lines between taxing authorities.
“The Founder’s knew this which is why the States had all the power.”
That is is flat wrong. The main lesson is that they didn’t trust anybody. Set everyone against each other because the fight between them is going to produce a better result than any one king.
Representatives from the Colonies didn’t get together because they had 13 separate problems, they were there because they had one problem 13 times.
Maybe that’s a better way to think about it. We don’t want waste in government, right? If there is a problem that needs to be addressed, why do ANYTHING 50 times that can be centralized?
Possibly a model for this is the Joint Forces idea in the military. Rather than have one service dominate an operation, have a unified command take units from the different services that work well together.
From the state gov’s perspective the Feds would look like a programming api.
Of course I guess we could just dismantle the Federal government, and let states(who can’t cover current expenses right now) figure out how to take on these new responsibilities.