James Taranto has some thoughts on the fading/faded powers of Barack Obama:
A lot of people have been making fun of the president for supposedly saying, “Don’t call my bluff,” as if he’s admitting he’s bluffing. That seems to us a bit pedantic. Surely what he meant was something like “Don’t think you can call my bluff.”
What got our attention about this exchange as reported by Cantor is the president’s threat to take his case “to the American people.” Would those be the same American people who aren’t paying attention and don’t understand all this complicated stuff?
This seems to us an empty threat not least because since his election, Obama has a poor track record when it comes to taking his case to the American people–who still overwhelmingly oppose ObamaCare, give him poor marks on the economy, and think the debt limit shouldn’t be raised even though it pretty much has to be. He always ends up wishing he’d done a better job “explaining” his position, which at least sounds more humble than saying the American people don’t get it.
Of course, even if that’s what he meant, he’s still implying (in fact clearly stating) that it’s a bluff. And he’s right.
[Update a few minutes later]
Charles K. — “Call Obama’s bluff.”
[Update a couple minutes later]
Eric Cantor — “This is not a game.”
[Update a while later]
“Sounds like Obama won’t even call his own bluff.”
the debt limit shouldn’t be raised even though it pretty much has to be
Why is this false assumption always presented as a fact?
The only reason the govt. has to borrow is if it increases spending. That’s a choice. Decrease spending and they don’t have to borrow.
Why is this such a tough concept?
Probably because in there warped minds making less of a spending increase than they plan is a cut, even if the actual spending goes up.
Freeze spending along with some actual cuts and you don’t need to borrow.
What’s the problem?
The current (2011) federal deficit is projected to be approximately $1.27 trillion. Is it your proposal that the federal government, once it runs out of funds, simply stop functioning? The only way to acquire the missing $1.27 trillion is to borrow it. The legal limit placed on the Treasury Department to borrow any more money is what is called the “debt ceiling,” and it’s been reached. There isn’t any middle ground here. If your proposal is to “cut spending” to overcome the current fiscal year deficit, then all spending for the remaining fiscal year must be stopped once the funds run out.
That’s the problem, and that’s why your “solution” is as unworkable as it is silly.
Ken,
I think you misunderstand: the debt limit applies to total accumulated debt, not instantaneous deficit.
If you earn $1000 per month and spend $1500 per month, your personal debt does not remain fixed at $500 per month but increases by $500 every month – presumably in the form of an outstanding balance on your credit card. And if that card is already maxed out, you will need to negotiate with your bankers for at least a $500 increase in your credit limit each month, or Very Bad Things will start to happen.
It is not necessary for spending to increase, for Bad Things to happen. If you keep spending exactly the same amount you always have, you still fail. If you cut your spending by 20%, you are still spending more than you earn, your debt is still increasing (now at “only” $200/month), and you still need to talk to your bankers about increasing your credit limit.
That is where the United States stands right now, except the numbers are about two hundred million times larger on both sides of the equation. We are now in circumstances so dire that even if we cut spending by 20% immediately and across the board, we still need to ask our various bankers for an increased credit limit. Or we start bouncing checks.
The US Treasury has a finite authority, set by Congress, to go to the various bankers of the world and ask for more credit. That authority has been reached. Our credit cards are maxed out. That we might arrange to spend less money next month than we spent last month is irrelevant, because we absolutely are going to spend more money next month than we earn next month. And Congress has not yet allowed the Treasury to ask for an increase in the national credit limit.
W/re Obama “bluffing”:
It is pretty clear that the man’s phrasing was shorthand for “Don’t call my hand, which you falsely believe to be a bluff”. And yes, it’s a clumsy, silly gaffe and we can all point and laugh in a sort of “Ich bin ein berliner” way, but a verbal gaffe does not mean that the man is actually bluffing.
Really, he probably isn’t. Blowing through the debt limit would cause catastrophic damage to the US economy, yes, but the sort of spending cuts being demanded by the hardline Republicans at least would cause very substantial damage to some segments of the economy – segments at the heart of Obama’s political base. It’s not obvious which he would prefer.
Blowing through the debt limit would cause damage that most people would demand be “fixed” by immediate, massive government intervention. Drastic spending cuts would limit the ability for government intervention. I know which of those Obama would prefer.
And, at present, blowing through the debt limit and all the catastrophic consequences thereof, would be blamed entirely on the GOP and guarantee Obama and the democrats a lock on the 2012 elections. It does not matter that the actual responsibility is shared; the public perception right now is that this is all Republican obstructionism.
I admit to being somewhat baffled as to why the GOP chose to make its stand over the debt limit, when the 2012 federal budget would have been a much more defensible battleground.
It could also be “clear” that it was a Freudian slip, depending on how one’s inclined to read the “clear” inkblots.
Also,
it certainly looks like a game of chicken from over here…
I think you misunderstand
Where in my comment did I mention time? Yes, it took time for them to get us into this mess and it will take time to get out.
If you earn $1000 per month and spend $1500 per month, your personal debt does not remain fixed at $500 per month but increases by $500 every month – presumably in the form of an outstanding balance on your credit card.
Your example is one lacking responsibility. Adults don’t do this. Children do this. You’re telling me our government is being run by children.
In the Adult world you don’t get to borrow any more, they cut your card in half. Some of your income must then actually pay down the debt meaning you not only can’t continue spending $1500 per month, you can’t continue spending $1000 per month. Somethings got to give.
Yes it’s painful. That’s what happens when children are running the country. Now tell me what it is I don’t understand?
Someone had to break it to you, Ken. I know how much they meant to you. I…I’m sorry.
If your proposal is to “cut spending” to overcome the current fiscal year deficit, then all spending for the remaining fiscal year must be stopped once the funds run out.
Wrong. We have income. All we have to do to not borrow more is not spend more than that income. Are you misstating these facts deliberately or due to ignorance?
Tell me it isn’t so Titus!
And, at present, blowing through the debt limit and all the catastrophic consequences thereof, would be blamed entirely on the GOP and guarantee Obama and the democrats a lock on the 2012 elections.
BS. I’m reasonably certain the majority of the people who voted last November will show up to vote next November. And they aren’t going to be voting for Obama.
“All we have to do to not borrow more is not spend more than that income”. This, at least, is correct. It is also quite different than your previous, “The only reason the govt. has to borrow is if it increases spending”, and it is not clear that you understand the difference.
Whether the government increases spending, decreases spending, or keeps spending the same, it will still be spending more than that income. In order to not spend more than that income, spending (other than the debt payments themselves, of course) would have to be cut roughly in half. In the next two weeks.
People who believe there is any possibility of this happening, also believe in Santa Claus. It is not childish to acknowledge that, however we got here, we are now in a place where the United States of America absolutely, positively will spend more than its income next month, or it will default. Gedaliya overstated his case, but he was closer to the truth than you are.
Wrong. We have income. All we have to do to not borrow more is not spend more than that income.
Ok, so all we have to do then is find $1.27 trillion in “cuts” this year.
I’m sure the other commentators in this thread are as interested as I am in what your plans are to accomplish this goal.
Give or take a few billion, 2011 military spending is about $700 billion, Social Security another $700 billion, Medicare about $500 billion. and Medicaid $300 billion. These expenditures add up to about $2.2 trillion. Therefore to make up the 2011 deficit alone, you’d need to cut each of these programs by (approx) 50%.
Is that your plan?
You make some valid points John. It’s still a lie that we have to borrow. It’s a choice and because of decisions made by (not adults) over the last two (democratic controlled) administrations we are where we are today.
Instead of facing the facts, we have politicians trying to figure out how to place the blame. That’s really simple. All of them are to blame.
Gedaliya overstated his case, but he was closer to the truth than you are.
So you’re saying I told a bigger whopper than…
Is it your proposal that the federal government, once it runs out of funds, simply stop functioning?
Please, point it out.
“the public perception right now is that this is all Republican obstructionism.
Uh, The Dem’s were saying the same thing about the Republicans prior to the Gov’t shutdown in ’95-’96. But the Republicans only lost 9 house seats in the midterm elections. The big bonus was post shutdown when we had 4 balanced budgets in a row. No, in these situations it is usually the President that gets the majority of the blame. We will not default unless the gov’t decides to not shut down. A shutdown will most certainly happen before a default will occur.
gedaliya, I haven’t presented a plan. My mistake, I thought that’s why we elected these ‘adults.’ I guarantee I could come up with one that doesn’t required raising the debt ceiling (notice I didn’t say borrow because moving money around doesn’t require raising the debt ceiling.)
If I did offer a plan it would immediate shut down many government depts… the TSA would be the first to get the axe. Airlines can decide for themselves how they want to handle security and consumers (the one’s that should have the power to decide in a healthy economy, would do so.) The dept of Education gets an F-… gone.
I would not be popular, but I am an adult.
the TSA would be the first to get the axe. Airlines can decide for themselves how they want to handle security and consumers (the one’s that should have the power to decide in a healthy economy, would do so.) The dept of Education gets an F-… gone.
Fine. We agree. Throw in the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and a few others, and you’ll be at about $120 billion total…10% of the needed cuts if we aren’t to borrow another penny this year.
What’s next?
I guarantee I could come up with one that doesn’t required raising the debt ceiling…
I guarantee you can’t. You can’t even come close.
When your debt is rapidly growing to amounts worth more than your bank can even cover, it doesn’t much matter if you negotiate a new credit limit or not. The borrowing will soon stop because no sane person is going to loan you more money.
Some argue that we should close who government departments, but why close them when we can sell them as assets? Surely some country would buy our EPA. China and India come to mind. Health and Human Services. What country wouldn’t want to bid on that?
If all these agencies cost so much to build and run, surely they have market value. Otherwise we’ve just been wasting money to waste money. Doesn’t Obama always call his tax hikes “investment” in our future? If it’s an investment then it’s time to cash out our accounts and reap the profits, because currently we’ve got a cash-flow problem.
Not saying this is the right plan, but I’m past close with it…
Revenue… $2.16T From income(42%), Social Security(40%), corporate(9%) and other(9%)
Expense… $3.60T so $1.44T (40%)in cuts.
Medicare & Medicaid ($793B or 23%)
Social Security ($701B or 20%)
Defense Department ($689B or 20%)
non-defense discretionary ($660B or 19%)
other ($416B or 12%)
interest ($197B or 6%).
First I would add $100B to pay down the debt… new Expense: $1.54T.
Interest, pay it.
Other, gone. New Expense: $1.124T.
Discretionary, gone. New Expense: $464B.
Defense, -$89B. New Expense: $375B.
SS, -$101B, progressive with a lower cap. New Expense: $274B
Medi, -393B. New Expense: (-$119B)
That $119B would either also go to pay down the debt or placate the loudest whiners.
Pain for everybody. Because they got us here and there’s only one way out.
If my numbers aren’t right, just adjust them equally by whatever percent would be right.
Good one, George.
There is a fascinating parallel between the apocalyptic hysteria coming out of D.C. these days and the nonsense coming out of California earlier this year. Harold Camping convinced himself and then tens of thousands of other people that Judgment Day was coming on May 21st .
It turns out Camping had been in very poor health. He’s over 80 and recently had a stroke, so there’s a good chance that it would, per more typical Christian doctrine, soon be judgment day for him personally. He projected this onto the world as a whole, and declared on the radio network he heads that it would soon by Judgment Day for everybody. He had all sorts of sophisticated-sounding Biblical arguments to back this up.
Federal employees, seeing their jobs at risk, now project their own troubles into an apocalyptic, world-wide disaster. Their friends and neighbors in the press join in. Since August 3rd (or whatever, the day keeps changing) is judgment day for them, they want to project their troubles onto the world and make it judgment day for us all. They’ve constructed all sorts of plausible-sounding accounts of this apocalypse that break down when critical thinking and some knowledge of government finances and the Treasury market is actually applied: including the fact that the creditworthiness of the feds in the eyes of bond investors has gone _up_, not down, as the debt ceiling raise has become less likely.
Here’s the secret that makes my plan work. I would give the money directly to the patients or their guardian and they decide what bills to pay.
SS would go into private accounts…
http://blogs.forbes.com/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/
If my numbers aren’t right, just adjust them equally by whatever percent would be right.
You want to cut Medicare and Medicaid 50%? Absurd. Impossible. Silly. On top of that, you’re going to reduce SS by $100 billion in one swoop…on top of the complete elimination of “other” and discretionary spending totaling $1.1 trillion? Who are you kidding? You’d throw the nation in chaos.
You’d be lynched.
You can make up any numbers you want, but unless you can overthrow the US government and confiscate the 250,000,000 firearms now held in private hands (and rule by dictatorial fiat), your “plan” is nothing more than a phantasmagorical exercise in self-deception.
Medicare is the easy one. Give half the $12,000 they paid this year directly to me and I’d negotiate lower payments to the hospital.
Yes, SS could be fixed in well, two swoops. First, you do not cut a penny from those getting the least amounts. Those getting more would bare a higher loss (I would lose $200/mo.) 2nd swoop. All SS revenue every ten years would buy an annuity immediately providing a monthly income… no waiting for some arbitrary age. Forty years of work means four checks each month (later being larger than the earlier for the average work pattern.) This would eliminate the need for other payouts like unemployment and even medical insurance. Meaning eventually we cut medicare 100% and eliminate it completely.
I didn’t cut much from defense because I really wouldn’t want to be lynched 🙂
Actually, I’d cut more but I do realize the need to do it over time. The fact is if I were in charge we never would have gotten to this place at all.
SS is suppose to be self supporting and my plan would make it so. I wouldn’t allow govt. to raid it. That money would belong to the taxpayer themselves. That would remove half the deficit.
Medicare could be completely private. That would take care of the other half.
Then you could keep your discretionary spending and other.
You said I couldn’t come up with a plan… you never said anything about a necktie.
Here is the problem I have.
I don’t care what the tax rate is, as long as government grows at a faster rate than the private economy then result has to end badly.
Its the 300lb man with shortness of breath that will diet next week, because right now he’s hungry. (Hat tip to Carl)
The cuts that Ken described are the ONLY non collapse solution possible, it will be bad, cause upriseings, riots and people will starve and die from lack of medical care.
Yet government has to shrink, shrink by 40%, so far no one has even been able to make it stop growing.
Yes uprisings riots, people starving are all bad…. the problem is we have passed the point where we can prevent that. If the whole thing collapses in a hyper inflationary collapse the result will be WOORSE than the 40% cut result.
I for one have have given up on politicians and deeply skeptical that any resolution other than a hyper inflationary collapse is possible.
You say Kens cuts aren’t possible, next year the cuts will need to be bigger, when will real cuts ever happen?
SS is a ponzi scheme that makes Madoff look like an amateur.
Another way to look at we are standing on the deck of the titanic.
The boat is sinking and we only have enough lifeboats for 1/2 the people. We can stand here and argue that we need to get everybody into the lifeboat, or we can figure out what groups to save.
If we stand and argue about everybody into the life boats (all programs are preserved) then everyone drowns the whole government collapses when suddenly the ship is gone and no one is in any life boat.
People are in denial, they say that can’t happen here, throughout history its happened over and over.. and it will happen again.
Re: being lynched. I regret that I have but one life to give to my country.
Paul Ryan’s plan is workable and politically viable absent Obama and a Reid-controlled Senate, both of which are very real possibilities only 18 months hence.
Mr. Breed’s apocalyptic musings echo those of Al Gore. Doom-and-gloom! Then End is Nigh! The Worst Is Yet To Come!!!!
Feh.
So what do you, gedaliya, see as the result of govt. growth faster than can be supported?
Just a reminder: All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s. This is a significant factor in the budget deficit.
So what do you, gedaliya, see as the result of govt. growth faster than can be supported?
Bad stuff, for sure., but you’re begging the question. The real issue not what will happen if nothing is done. The real question is, what is the most political viable course to ensure the worst-case scenario does not occur. To wit:
1. Defeat Obama in 2012.
2. Take control of the Senate in 2012.
3. Pass the Ryan budget, including a ten year plan to privatize Medicare and transform Medicaid into a block-grant program to the states.
4. Reform (partially privatize) Social Security over the next 50 years.
5. Pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
All politically doable and realistic, as well as having the desired effect, i.e., to put our national fiscal house in order.
Just a reminder: All federal, state and local spending combined are a higher percentage of GDP than at any time since the Second World War. This is a significant factor in the budget deficit.
Just a reminder: The recession contributes to lower taxes because many incomes have stagnated or fallen, and fewer retail sales mean less sales tax.
But, lets raise taxes. It will make things fairer, and we’ll all feel better.
/puke
Also the article Chris quoted compared our taxes to :
Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and France.
None of these has a sustainable system. Compare it to countries that are actually growing and we would not be on the bottom.
It also says things like:
For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955,
Yes they pay almost nothing, part of the problem is the tax system is more progressive than any of the other compared countries and punishes the job creators more then elsewhere.
Typical – I provide facts and a link, everybody else provides BS.
McGehee – when the denominator of a fraction (GDP) goes down, the numerator (government spending) is bigger by comparison. Also, the only sector of government spending that is growing is for unemployment benefits and related compensation.
Curt Thomson – All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s means that taxes as a percentage of income are flat. It says nothing about income growth or lack thereof.
Paul Breed – Canada’s economy is growing. You can go to the same site and see that the UK and German economies are growing as well. I question your statement about the US tax structure being more progressive then the compared economies – please prove it.
the us will go bankrupt if the republicans don’t stop playing political games and putting special interests of the superrich before the good of the country. if obama caves in to the repubs the us is toast. we need drastic tax increases for the rich.
Except Josh, they could take all the wealth of the rich and it wouldn’t make a dent in the problem.
“Also, the only sector of government spending that is growing is for unemployment benefits and related compensation.”
Noooo.
Even in better times, Greece could not afford the per capita social spending that Germany does, such would have been economically unsustainable. Dire consequences would follow if the EU were to force such universal per capita social spending across EU country borders. So why is the US considered be any different with regard to economically disparate states?
With low federal tax, any state can be high or low tax – as they so elect to be. With high federal tax, every state is forced to be a high tax state, whether they like it or not.
So a question I have, could the federal government simply pass off its social spending programs (social security, medicare, etc.) to the state governments? If so, the federal government could quickly fix its deficit without raising taxes and the state governments could raise or lower taxes and expenditures as they so democratically decided. It seems to me that the federal government could solve its financial woes by simply delegating its social spending to the state governments – and that this would be more economically efficient and more democratic, giving each state a greater right to self determination. Admittedly many state governments would be forced to shape up – or see their citizens migrate to better governed states, still, their citizens would have more options.
There is a fascinating parallel between the apocalyptic hysteria coming out of D.C. these days and the nonsense coming out of California earlier this year. Harold Camping convinced himself and then tens of thousands of other people that Judgment Day was coming on May 21st .
It turns out Camping had been in very poor health. He’s over 80 and recently had a stroke, so there’s a good chance that it would, per more typical Christian doctrine, soon be judgment day for him personally. He projected this onto the world as a whole, and declared on the radio network he heads that it would soon by Judgment Day for everybody. He had all sorts of sophisticated-sounding Biblical arguments to back this up.
Federal employees, seeing their jobs at risk, now project their own troubles into an apocalyptic, world-wide disaster. Their friends and neighbors in the press join in. Since August 3rd (or whatever, the day keeps changing) is judgment day for them, they want to project their troubles onto the world and make it judgment day for us all. They’ve constructed all sorts of plausible-sounding accounts of this apocalypse that break down when critical thinking and some knowledge of government finances and the Treasury market is actually applied: including the fact that the creditworthiness of the feds in the eyes of bond investors has gone _up_, not down, as the debt ceiling raise has become less likely.
…what is the most political viable course to ensure the worst-case scenario does not occur. To wit:
1. Defeat Obama in 2012.
2. Take control of the Senate in 2012.
Probably right, but the problem is upon us now, Aug 3rd. By 2012 we will all be looking at “it’s GWB’s fault” with nostalgia and longing. Only, “it’s BO’s fault” will have a lot more legitimacy. As Paul said, how much bigger will the problem be given another fiscal year?
4. Reform (partially privatize) Social Security over the next 50 years.
We don’t have 50 years. Obama is saying we may not have more than one month.
5. Pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
This will have zero effect. They will continue to play games and claim it’s balanced with all sorts of financial fictions.
Some viewpoints here are far too narrow:
It’s not just a case of cutting. It’s also a case of selling, of efficiency, of economic growth, and of psychology.
“gedaliya Says:
Fine. We agree. Throw in the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and a few others, and you’ll be at about $120 billion total…10% of the needed cuts if we aren’t to borrow another penny this year.”
Where are you getting your numbers?
Here are some from the government itself:
Dept of Agriculture:
FY2011 $148B
http://www.usda.gov/
Already your $120B is exceeded ad by one department.
Dept of Education:
FY2011: $69.9B
http://www2.ed.gov
Energy:
Fy2011 request was $28.4B plus it got $34.7B in Recovery Act money for a total of $63B
DOE webpage.
Labor:
FY 2010 $104.5B
That’s $400 billion right there this year and every year GONE from the budget.
That’s just a start. ALL of that goes. Flat tax reduces the IRS to almost nothing, Commerce ($12B), Health and Human Services($4B), Homeland Security ($50B), Housing and Urban Development($48B), Interior, Labor,Transportation($79B) …
Everything except for State, Defense, Treasury, AG. Vet affairs can be subsumed by Defense.
Easily half a trillion per year gone from the budget.
Privatize that which must be kept.
The psychological impact of all that would be tremendous: no one will notice they are gone (except the workers there); everyone would know you are serious because you are taking political hits in eliminating stuff that people say you MUST keep; the regulatory burden drops WAY down thusly making businesses more efficient.
Next: sell off government assets – the mineral rights ALONE should balance the budget. Pass a short term deal to buy time for this.
Next: Implement the Ryan plans on the killer entitlements which keep granny totally safe but tells the 20-somethings that they better start thinking about their future. This will ease the fiscal problem for the future immensely. This too will massively modify the psychology – you have done something SERIOUS to help the situation. Moody’s will look upon you kindly if you actually DO something.
You do just those and the markets will skyrocket. Tax receipts will skyrocket. Business will be booming.
Cuts, efficiency, economic growth, psychology.
As far as 2010 goes, we MUST defeat Obama – the Senate is far less important. Look at it this way:
Suppose Obama wins and the GOP holds the House, and wins the Senate by a margin too thin to stop filibustering and too thin to prevent Veto overrides:
We lose. The Presidential Veto is extremely powerful and very difficult to override. Everything Obama has set into place remains.
gedaliya Says:
” You’d throw the nation in chaos.
You’d be lynched. ”
That’s the sort of thinking that prevails in DC and prevents a real solution. If DC worked together to really describe the problem there’d be no lynchings. But DC is not interested in real solutions and persuasion.
The fabled 300 pound man saying, “You CAN’T take away my twinkie! I HAVE to have it! And I have to lose 200 pounds – this 100 calories means nothing!”
Two of the reasons Obama and Geitner have to be either the most evil or grossly incompetent leaders ever they if they break any contractual obligations in response to Congress choosing, as is their right, not to raise the debt ceiling, which has been, is now, and should be expected to re. main indefinitely into the future, until Congress acts otherwise, the law of the land:
(1) The federal revenues are far greater than the currently existing federal contractual obligations including for interest, wages, and contractors.
(3) The federal government owns more than $700 billion in land and well over $400 billion in mineral rights. And indeed they would own far more still value in mineral rights if they allowed it to be extracted.
Everything Obama has set into place remains.
Not exactly. Some of it could be de-funded and starved.
Where are you getting your numbers?
I got them here.
I am using FY2010 numbers because, of course, the FY2011 budget hasn’t yet become law….but in any case, my addition was wrong. The real total for the departments of Agriculture (26), Education (46.7), Homeland Security (42.7), Commerce (13.8), Energy (26.3) and Transportation (72.5) is $228 billion (I said 120). This is 18% (as opposed to the 10% I said earlier) of the $1.27 trillion (projected) deficit for this year.
The rest of the money would have to come from drastic, immediate (in the realm of 40%) cuts to the budgets of Defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
And that, as I said, is completely unfeasible politically, which is why we’re going to borrow the money instead.
It’s going to take time to put our fiscal house in order, but the first meaningful steps won’t occur until after the election of November of 2012.
…sell off government assets – the mineral rights ALONE should balance the budget. Pass a short term deal to buy time for this.
Leasing lands with recoverable mineral ores will bring in vastly more sums of revenue, continuing over many decades, then those acquired from what would amount to a bankruptcy sale to head off financial ruin.
It’s simply silly.
“is completely unfeasible politically, which is why we’re going to borrow the money instead.”
So instead of selling land, furloughing workers, and the myriad other options for achieving a balanced budget, you consider blatantly breaking the law to be more politically feasible? The debt ceiling is no mere political football, it is the law of the land.
the first meaningful steps won’t occur until…
…and what exactly is the guarantee? Let me help… I guarantee the problem will be much worse a year from now if they don’t take adult actions now with no guarantee they will do the right things later.
One day we will wish they took action now the same way we wish GWB had taken care of the issue earlier. We’re going over the cliff. Difference is the cliff is getting taller.