I hope someone asks Jay Carney this:
You, Treasury Secretary Geithner, and other members of your administration have warned that failure to raise the debt ceiling by August 2 will have far-ranging, “catastrophic” effects, including plunging the United States economy into a depression. Nonetheless, you insist that Congress should pass only a debt-ceiling increase that extends beyond the 2012 presidential election; yesterday, you released a statement saying that your senior advisers had counseled you to veto a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. This despite the fact that short-term debt-ceiling increases (i.e., less than a year) are common, having been enacted dozens of times just since the Reagan administration.
Why is a short-term debt-ceiling increase unacceptable now when they’ve been routine and unremarkable in the past?
Presuming for a moment that your veto threat is sincere, shouldn’t Americans logically conclude that you consider winning reelection more important than forestalling an economic catastrophe and throwing millions more Americans out of work?
Do you expect most congressional Republicans to fall for your veto threat and cave? If so, will you please join my Thursday night poker games and bring those Republicans with you?
P.S. I’m glad I’m not Jay Carney. But then, if I were Jay Carney, I’d have never accepted such a fool’s errand as to be spokeshole for this president.
I’m not Jay Carney, but I’ll take a shot at answering.
“Considering that we hit the debt limit in April and now, four months later, we’re still arguing about raising it, any extension of less than a year would mean we would have to immediately start working on increasing the new limit. Also considering the amount of effort and political posturing accompanying this increase, the President fears that trying to raise the debt limit in an election year would be massively more difficult.”
“With regards to vetoing a short-term increase, the President is every bit as serious about that as are those Republicans who still, at this late hour, say that we shouldn’t raise the limit. Lastly, regarding your scare quotes around the word catastrophe, the government simply cannot cut spending 40% overnight. Prisons need to be guarded, air traffic controllers need to be paid, and even the IRS is critical if we expect to collect the taxes owed. Simply put, any failure to raise the limit would mean immediate and large cuts to current beneficiaries of Social Security, Medicare and military pay and operational budgets.”
No one is seriously talking about cutting the budget 40% overnight, so that’s a strawman. What we have now is a political battle between two worldviews:
1. We want what we want and we want it now. We’ve spent far more than we’ve taken in for a long time now so there’s no reason why we can’t keep doing it forever, or at least until the next election. We demand “shared sacrifice,” which means we get what we want and demand others pay for it.
2. The current spending is immoral. In order to satisfy our current desires, we’re mortgaging our children’s future and the future of generations yet unborn.
What you neglected to answer, Chris, is why all of what you said about the debt limit now wasn’t true 30 years ago. I lived through those times as an adult, and I sure don’t recall any less political posturing or wish to spin things for political advantage. I recall Democrats being just as eager to be re-elected then as now, and Republicans just as eager to see them out on their ass as they are now.
Do you think our fathers were so much more balanced, calm, and rational?
Or could it be that the genuine distinction between now and then is that spending and borrowing has increased fantastically more in recent years than it ever did before in peacetime? And if so — exactly whose fault is that?
the government simply cannot cut spending 40% overnight
Sure it can. I can identify 40% of the Federal budget that can go away without touching SS old-age pensions and Medicare. Without doubt, the military gets whacked, but it doesn’t have to be enlisted mens’ pay. Without doubt, Medicaid and disability SS and lots of charity stuff gets whacked — but granny doesn’t have to postpone her bypass. Without doubt, a great deal of government operations, payments to contractors, “shovel ready” highway construction, block grants to states, the $100k salaries of the 50 staffers per Senator, the ability of Hillary Clinton to fly 50 people overseas for a conference on Syria, et cetera and so forth get whacked — but air-traffic control need not go down, nor Federal prisons be opened.
Furthermore, let us recall Federal spending increased nearly overnight by 25% when Barack Obama took office. We are talking about going abruptly back to spending levels of 2000. That’s going to hurt, you bet, but thinking it’s the end of the world is delusional.
I think one of the greatest fears of the Democrats is that this event could happen and it isn’t the end of the world and the people realize My word! The Federal government is not, in fact, the heartbeat of the nation. That’s kind of what happened in Wisconsin, isn’t it? Government shut down for weeks and people hardly noticed. No wonder the Democrats and media caved. You don’t hear so much about Gotterdammerung in Wisconsin these days, do you?
Carl,
[[[Or could it be that the genuine distinction between now and then is that spending and borrowing has increased fantastically more in recent years than it ever did before in peacetime? And if so — exactly whose fault is that?]]]
I didn’t know the war on terror was over. When did it end? When will my son-in-law and brother-in-law be rotated stateside for their victory parades?
Larry J – well, we’re borrowing 40% of our operating expenses. No borrowing = 40% cut.
Carl Pham – Federal spending increased in 2008 due to the need to pay unemployment benefits. Regarding the rest of your BS, well, it’s BS. Megan McArdle ran the numbers and according to her math, yes we would shut down the government.
Chris Gerrib Says:
“Lastly, regarding your scare quotes around the word catastrophe, the government simply cannot cut spending 40% overnight.”
I think what Chris is getting at is that if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, that we will have incoming revenue to pay for around 60% of the monthly expenditures. Cutting X program or Y department would work in the medium to long term but in the short term it wouldn’t.
There would certainly be wind down costs associated with getting rid of anything not just in terms of money but also time.
Wodun – which is exactly what McArdle’s post shows.
shut down the government
Hold it a moment while we all tune our instruments. This sounds like a great song, but I’m afraid we’ll be playing it to an empty theatre as life goes on for most americans.
Presuming for a moment that your veto threat is sincere, shouldn’t Americans logically conclude that you consider winning reelection more important than forestalling an economic catastrophe and throwing millions more Americans out of work?
This is the question you dodged Chris. We are not expecting an answer.
Federal spending increased in 2008 STOP. End of sentence. It was due to spending. Period. End of sentence. Anything more is spin.
Please define BS.
shut down the government – if you look at McArdle’s post, you’ll see things like the FAA on the “we can’t afford” list. Shutting down the FAA means no commerical air flights. You’ll also see military operations budgets, which means no fuel for troops. You’ll notice this shutdown right away.
veto – I actually worded it carefully. If Tea Partiers are serious about default, then Obama’s serious about veto. If they aren’t then he’s not.
Federal spending – the 25% increase is caused by paying unemployment and related benefits, whether you like it or not.
“veto – I actually worded it carefully. If Tea Partiers are serious about default, then Obama’s serious about veto. If they aren’t then he’s not.”
So Obama is bluffing? 🙂
The Tea Partiers don’t want a default. They do want cuts.
The debt ceiling will be raised. It is only a question of what Republicans will get for it. The house can keep sending things to the Senate until the Democrats and Obama cave in.
The Democrats are digging their heels on because they don’t want to cut $100-$200b a year from a $1,300-$1,600b deficit.
This whole things is a farce.
wodun – if Carl Pham is a representative Tea Partier, I don’t think they understand the problem. Considering Harry Reid offered 2.2 trillion in cuts, it’s not really the Democrat’s fault here.
I understand where the 40% number is coming, but the only one pushing for that to happen is the team that hasn’t provided a plan but promised a veto. The same team the since 2007 increased the debt by about 40%.
But now both sides are talking cuts (their term Rand, you know it) of less than $2 Billion next year. A 3% across the board cut in spending would cut the deficit by $100 Billion dollars next year. Instead, these guys want a .03% cut in spending and another 2 – 5 years to worry about cutting spending again.
If we are going to play around with percentages, how many Americans took a greater than 3% cut in income last year?
Considering Harry Reid offered 2.2 trillion in cuts, it’s not really the Democrat’s fault here.
Really? Show us the plan, Gerrib. I want a link to Harry Reid’s plan. Let’s see it. Better yet, show it to Democrat lawmakers.
“Considering Harry Reid offered
2.2 trillion375 billion in cuts, it’snotreally the Democrat’s fault here.”FTFY.
shut down the government – if you look at McArdle’s post, you’ll see things like the FAA on the “we can’t afford” list. Shutting down the FAA means no commerical air flights. You’ll also see military operations budgets, which means no fuel for troops. You’ll notice this shutdown right away.
Chris, if you cared to notice, the FAA’s funding ran out last weekend but the planes are still flying. There are things known as priorities where non-essential services get shut down while the essential ones go on. Not everything the government does is essential, quite the contrary.
Leland – Reid apparently showed his plan to the CBO, which scored it at 2.2 trillion in cuts. As usual, the facts are not on your side.
JP Gibb – your link is broken, but see above.
larry j – right now, the FAA is running because we’re borrowing money to fund it. When we don’t have the money in the till, we will either have to shut down the FAA or short Grandma’s Social Security check. Again, see McArdle’s breakdown.
Reid apparently showed his plan to the CBO, which scored it at 2.2 trillion in cuts. As usual, the facts are not on your side.
Not my facts Gerrib. Read the link I provided. He may have shown it to CBO, but it’s his own party that claim they haven’t seen it. I haven’t seen it. I’m still awaiting your link to the plan. I mean, you are touting it, so I suspect you have seen it? Where’s the link? I read the CBO report for Boehner’s plan 1.0. So where’s your link to facts rather than talking points?
Ya know, back in April we were having the same conversation. Government shutdown discussions are great because they start with “ok, what’s the essential services that have to keep functioning?” And very few non-essential services get through that filter. Every time it comes up, I gotta ask, what’s with all the non-essential services in the first place?! Governments should do what is essential AND NOTHING MORE.
So, government shutdown you say? Bring it on.
Typical, never fails that I botch the link.
Back in the real world, the FAA has already shut down, and commercial flights are working just fine.
Reid’s plan counted not fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq a decade from now as $1 trillion of his cut, even though neither was part of any projected expenditures. I think he can go much further, if only we apply a little creativity. For example, I would cut our manned mission to Europa and Callisto, saving $2.3 trillion, and our oribtal outpost around Uranus, saving another $1.5 trillion. Those weren’t projected costs either, but they should count as cuts as much as his war savings. Combined with his existing proposal, that should put the federal government solidly in the black.
But now both sides are talking cuts (their term Rand, you know it) of less than $2 Billion next year. A 3% across the board cut in spending would cut the deficit by $100 Billion dollars next year. Instead, these guys want a .03% cut in spending and another 2 – 5 years to worry about cutting spending again.
Yes, and these are “cuts” from a “baseline” growth in the budget that is far faster than economic growth (probably over five times as fast!) Any Republicans who vote for this spending spree need to be primaried. As do any Republicans who go around parroting the hysterical lies about “default! default! We gotta raise the debt ceiling to avoid default!”
@JP Gibb:
Darn. If your link had worked the first time I wouldn’t have made the same argument about cutting never-budgeted space colonization programs and counting them as cuts.
Heh, he said, “Uranus.”
Well at least the CBO scores are sending Boehner back to rework things instead of fanning more smoke and erecting more mirrors like Pelosi and Reid did with the Obamacare legislation. This shows that the Tea Party has done enough to at least pull the House of Representatives’ collective head somewhat out of our asses.
No more blank checks for the Huckster-in-Chief and his union cronies. Time to get gov’t spending and regulations in line so that our businesses can get off the fence, put people back to work, and expand the economy so that is it more properly aligned with our debt burden.
What’s amazing is that someone would actually use a, “wow, you’ll wreck the economy if you cut the gov’t back that much. Doesn’t that just sorta kinda hint to the fact where the causes of our problems lie? Any gov’t that is so big that a few bad decisions by a small group of people are enough to send it all into a tail spin is TOO DAMN BIG! Even more bizarre is the notion that cutting it back is bad, but increasing it by exponentially equal amounts is just, in the immortal words of Buckwheat, “O-TAY!” I guess feedback loops, and bidirectional inputs/outputs only make dollars and cents when it’s your own money your trying to spend/save. But when your “graciously” spending other peoples money, why, your a monster for suggesting it might not be a good idea to blow it all with nothing to show for it and then ask for more. Like Gerald Ford said, “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….”
larry j – right now, the FAA is running because we’re borrowing money to fund it. When we don’t have the money in the till, we will either have to shut down the FAA or short Grandma’s Social Security check. Again, see McArdle’s breakdown.
You’re making the incorrect assumption that every dollar spent by the federal government is just as important as every other dollar. It isn’t. There are essential services and non-essential services. Maintaining critical functions like air traffic control are essential while other things like the Departments of Education and Energy (and countless others) aren’t. When faced with a severe (and short term) constraint like what happened in Minnesota earlier this month, you keep the critical functions going and send everyone else home. Notice that Minnesota didn’t completely cease to function. Neither will the federal government.
By way of analogy to strengthen my point, suppose you were forced to take a 40% pay cut. Would you look at everything in your budget (mortgage, food, utilities, insurance, entertainment, etc) and cut all of the payments by 40% or would you pay the essential items (e.g. mortgage, food and utilities) to the degree possible and completely cut non-essentials like entertainment, Internet access, and the like?
Megan McArdle ran the numbers
She may have, but not anywhere in that article you linked. All it is, is a list of assertions with no supporting evidence. Sort of like what you are doing, but you’re using her as an authority (see fallacy of authority.)
Let’s start with the BIG LIE. Not raising the ceiling equals default.
Default means not paying the interest on the debt. Never will that happen. It is only theoretically possible if Obama specifically orders it not to be paid, which is unconstitutional. Daily Revenue easily covers interest payments.
Shutting down the government (which Obama increased recklessly) is HOW SPENDING NEEDS TO BE CUT. Nonessential services have been added for years, well before Obama took office and both left and right are guilty.
Cutting out what never should have been there in the first place is not a world ending event.
We are militarily strong enough to take some cuts without too much risk but we need to be careful. Enemy nations attack because they can. We have to always maintain enough strength to disuade them not only from attacking us but anywhere in our sphere of influence like Taiwan.
Social security shouldn’t even be considered in this debate. All working people pay into a trust fund right? Trust. Fund. I’ve got my 40 quarters in. They may have lied about it (well, no may about it.) But that money is owed to us and has trillions of dollars in bonds securing it. If not, it should be privatized immediately because otherwise the American people are getting screwed royal (no surprise there.)
The real BS is politicians using taxpayer funds to grease their own elections. That’s what behind all the smoke and mirrors.
I do disaster recovery planning at work, and I routinely divide tasks and departments into “essential” and “non-essential.” A non-essential department is one that is not time-critical. In other words, if we’re down on Monday, what they do can wait until Tuesday. And that’s exactly what the Federal government does with “essential” vs. “non-essential.”
Take the FAA’s example – if we don’t build runways for a week or two, in the grand scheme of things that’s not a big deal. However, at the end of the day we still have to build runways, because they wear out.
The federal government doesn’t build runways.. never has. If you’re going to throw out examples, at least make them realistic.
The problem Chris is not if something can be put off, but can we do without it completely. If it’s new (like after 1778) the answer is probably yes. Since FDR we’ve added a lot of baggage and changes that never should of happened. Much of which we could do without.
You can always find a justification for things. That is not quite the same thing as saying that their existence is justified.
More to your point. If things can be delayed, why do we have to borrow now to pay them? I’d really like your answer to that one.
Trent – wrong! From the FAA article linked above: and the issuance of stop-work orders for dozens of airport construction projects across the country. The facts are not on your side.
ken anthony – we don’t – we could raise taxes. Or we could decide to borrow now, raise taxes later, and not put (from the link above) 4,000 people out of work.
The real question is why Reid didn’t assume that we wouldn’t be in Libya in 10 years and use that as part of his cuts. Why is it more likely that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be over but not Libya?
Construction needs to be stopped ostensibly because there is nobody in the FAA who is available to inspect and/or monitor the projects (or, in theory, able to authorize the federal subsidy payments for the projects, since construction companies don’t work for free). The FAA is not directly in the construction business.
Also, if unemployment benefits (which have already been extended well beyond reason) need to suffer to balance the budget, that is directly attributable to Obama and the almost continuous extension of those benefits. Someone who has been collecting UE for 80 weeks has to stop getting a cheque because the government is out of money? It’s debatable whether or not that person should even have been receiving a cheque at this point anyway.
raise taxes
Wrong answer. You get 18% because behavior changes and you end up with 18% or so regardless of rates (or are you confusing raise taxes with raising revenue?) You’ve read this blog long enough to have read the research posted here.
borrow now, raise taxes later
We should be paying down the debt, not borrowing more.
put 4,000 people out of work
Bingo. We have a winner. What part of smaller govt. do you not understand?
Let them get jobs in the private sector. Or better yet create an average of perhaps a dozen jobs each. That’s almost 50,000 new jobs.
And the Bush tax cuts have been so effective at creating jobs…
Chris, I don’t see how the Bush tax cuts advance your argument now. At some point one must conclude that Obama is not up to the task.
Ok, Gerrib doesn’t want us to see the CBO analysis anymore than Harry Reid does. I think I see why. Here are the links:
CBO Analysis Boehner’s plan
CBO Analysis Reid’s plan
I’m starting to see why Boehner uses rhetoric of tricks and gimmicks. Starting immediately and through 2021, Boehner’s plan shows less spending then Reid. Yet, Reid’s CBO score shows more deficit reduction off the bat. Here’s how:
The Reid plan places caps on Iraq and Afghanistan that Boehner’s plan doesn’t. Now spending on those wars is discretionary spending, so if Obama agrees with Reid’s plan, then he can simply spend less (Indeed Obama has already said this). Or Boehner can just accept Reid’s caps in those areas and get the same benefits. Those benefits give Reid a “greater deficit reduction” over Boehner (assuming you believe the US is spending more in Iraq and Afghanistan in say 2018 because of Boehner’s plan rather than Reids) of $800 billion by 2021. In addition, the caps immediate effect is to show a $30 billion savings for fy 2012 in the war resulting in $200 billion more savings by 2021 in less debt interest. So in short, $1 Trillion of Reid’s additional savings comes from cuts in Iraq and Afghanistan war funding simply by claiming caps.
Does anyone here really believe we should be fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan past 2013 or 2014?
I will say this, Boehner is stupid not to claim the same cap/cut benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan as Reid. Do that, put the new plan out there, and take the wind out of the sail of the Democrats.
Jiminator – the Bush tax cuts did not produce job growth before the recession. Then we lost a ton of jobs during the recession (under the same tax code). We had a stimulus, and we went from loosing jobs to actually adding jobs (albeit not fast enough). Based on those facts, it’s hard to argue that tax cuts create jobs.
Chris Gerrib Says:
July 28th, 2011 at 5:38 am
And the Bush tax cuts have been so effective at creating jobs.
Sure, Chris. Letting people keep more of their own money is a bad thing but spending almost a trillion dollars on “stimulus” is guaranteed to keep the unemployment rate below 8%, except that it didn’t.
“Jiminator – the Bush tax cuts did not produce job growth before the recession. (…) We had a stimulus, and we went from loosing jobs to actually adding jobs (albeit not fast enough)”
False.
Bush signed JGTRRA at the end of May ’03, and by December unemployment dropped from 6.3% to 5.7%. It dropped even more between ’04 and ’07, reaching a low of 4.4% for several months.
Obama signed ARRA on 2/17/09 and unemployment went from 8.2% to 10%. Only in 2011 has there been any real downward trend, and even then, only by 0.5 – 1.0%
Here here to Jiminator, Larry and JP.
Opening the browser, I see the new Democrat’s trial ballon going up. So the President should invoke the “14th Amendment”, because section 4 says (shortened) “the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned”?
Perhaps Democrats should continue reading to section 5:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Pretty clear that the President doesn’t have the power Democrats want him to have.
Leland, the Democrats are well-within their rights to make up shit as they go along because we aren’t on the south side of a north-bound plow anymore! Bottom line — the facts are not on your side! /gerrib
Yeah, but the Consitition was written over 100 years ago (even the 14th Amendment) and is so hard to understand….
And let’s have some facts on who is the spendy spendy team here…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
Ezra “The Source for the Constitution is too old for me to understand” Klein is Dave “talk of a blonde hair blue eyed gunman killing kids makes me giddy” On’s go to for facts?
I’m not surprised.
But I’ll let a commenter there tear down
DaveonEzraWaPoNew York Times (seriously, that’s the original sourcing) data:Obama saved in Iraq by following the BUSH withdrawal plan – he pulled out not a single day earlier.
The 2008 Stimulus was 158 billion – where do you get 700+ (that’s a lot of unspecified ‘other’ there). Further – putting that on Bush when it was a Democratic congress that sent it too him veto proof is something only a political hack would do.
Put the drug benefit in the same category, Dem’s sent it to him to sign. [Aside, I’d give that to Bush based on his memoirs]
You mention Bush’s tax cuts as ongoing – you don’t put Obamacare cost is the same category?
Those same cost (Obamacare) are not part of the projected – what’s up with that?
Okay lets get to the real deal, Bush, two wars – and putting TARP on him (even tho Obama got the money and twisted it to his purposes).. deficit is:5.07 in eight years (plus ongoing as you so ably state on that side)
Compare to 1.44 trillion in TWO years – do a little math and who has the spending problem?
There’s no point in trying to defend Bush on this issue. First, it is certainly true that the pre-Tea Party Republicans were irresponsibly profligate, even if less so than the 2006-11 Democratic Congress. Second, as long as Democrats are fighting the last war Republicans will win the next. Let them build their Maginot Walls in peace.
What is funny is how much money the FAA shut down is costing. First there is the lost revenue from the FAA not being able to collect taxes. Of the airlines quickly raised their fares so the savings don’t go to the public.
Second the FAA is still running up a bill on the equipment that is idle due to the shut down.
So the shut down is adding to the debt 🙂
Those same cost (Obamacare) are not part of the projected –
Eh? What’s that you say…. hmmm… nope… they’re in there sorry. Thanks for playing tho’.
Bush passed TARP, can’t hang that on his successor unless you give Obama a pass on the million jobs a month the economy was losing in Jan ’08…
The 2008 stimulus bill “and other charges” was the way it was put.
However you dice it, the tax cuts are the elephant in the room. Almost $2 trillion while fighting a war.
The reality is, once you exclude spending you can’t get away from induced by the recession like unemployment benefits, and you extract the tax cuts that were in the Obama stimulus package, Obama has technical shrunk government nett spending by a fair bit.
And yet, the tax cut fairy still hasn’t made any jobs appear.
Colour me shocked. Shocked I say.