"[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments." --Alexander Hamilton
Government & PoliticsThe Debt Ceiling and the Constitution"C'mon, man!" Joe Biden exclaimed Monday, "Let's get real!" On Wednesday, Barack Obama was so upset that he took his ball and went home, shoving his chair away from the table and saying tersely, "I'll see you tomorrow." The topic, of course, is the debt ceiling, which Obama and his pals at the Treasury Department insist must be raised by Aug. 2 to prevent default on U.S. debt. But this isn't your father's debt ceiling; it's $14.3 trillion currently, and Democrats want $2 trillion more. It's no wonder that tensions are running high. This is where ideological rubber hits the road and either builds America or tears it down.
The sticking points aren't new. Democrats want to raise taxes by as much as $2 trillion in addition to making cuts to various budget items, not least of which is defense. Republicans want cuts with no tax increases. Obama is so insistent on tax increases that, according to a GOP aide in the discussions, he declared, "This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this." He didn't yield as he demagogued Social Security, either. "I cannot guarantee that [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue," he shamelessly warned. Who's throwing grandma off the cliff now?
After that snit, he audaciously criticized Republicans' "my way or the highway" approach.
As for the cuts under discussion, they aren't genuine cuts like those average Americans are making -- buying less milk and fewer eggs, for example. Called base-line budgeting, Washington's cuts are merely reductions in projected growth, as in, "We're still going to buy more milk and eggs than we did last year, but not quite as much as we would have under better political circumstances."
To put it in perspective, spending over the next decade is projected to reach about $46 trillion, including $13 trillion in new debt. The haggling is over $2-4 trillion in cuts to that projected increase. Spreading $2 trillion over 10 years "saves" just $200 billion a year, or less than the interest payment on the debt, and even by reducing projected growth by that much, we still end up with an increase in spending. That, in a nutshell, is Washington-speak.
As for the status of compromise, it has succeeded only in Minnesota, where the Democrat governor and Republican legislature just agreed to end a government shutdown. At the federal level, Republicans have all but given up on a comprehensive reform package. As many as 60 House Republicans might vote against any increase to the debt ceiling, and Democrats control the Senate and the White House, making a deal without their support impossible. What to do?
McConnell's Plan
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) concluded this week, "[A]fter years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable. I was one of those who had hoped we could do something big for the country. But in my view the president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes or default." McConnell is absolutely correct. However, his solution is questionable.
He outlined a complicated legislative maneuver in which Congress would permit the president to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally in three increments totaling $2.5 trillion, provided that he offer equivalent spending cuts each time. Each increase would be subject to a resolution of disapproval from Congress. The president would almost certainly veto that, but he would also then "own" the debt increase, and Congress -- particularly Republicans -- could be absolved, in theory, of responsibility for raising the debt ceiling. The plan has caused a split on both sides of the aisle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both praised the deal, and Reid is working to make it reality. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), not so much. Many House Republicans indicate it's a non-starter.
The Wall Street Journal asks, "The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won't vote for one, then what's the alternative to Mr. McConnell's maneuver?"
"Ugly and unpleasant as it is," writes Daniel Foster of National Review, "not all retreats are capitulations. McConnell clearly thinks of this as a tactical retreat in the service of his overarching strategic objective: to make President Obama a one-term president."
On the other hand, there are constitutional concerns with McConnell's plan. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) puts budget responsibility directly in the hands of Congress, not the president. Technically, the deal would leave Congress with the authority to dictate the amount of the increases and to "disapprove" if they choose, but there's a real sense that one of the three co-equal branches of government is abdicating its constitutional duty for political gain.
Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation writes, "Depending on exactly how the legislative language is drafted, it well might violate the Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses for the making of law, the separation of powers regarding Congress's control over the budget and spending, [and] the legislative Recommendations Clause, and it might also be struck down as an attempt to grant the President the equivalent of a line-item veto. It is also unclear whether the unconstitutional portion would be struck down by the courts and severed from the rest of the statute (which would eliminate Congress's ability to veto the cuts) or if the entire scheme would be struck down. But, at a minimum, the proposal is highly dubious as a matter of constitutional law."
Call us crazy, but we think the Constitution trumps political concerns. Regardless of the worthy strategic objective of limiting Obama to one term in office, or of limiting blame in the polls, the ends don't justify the means. The debt was run up by politicians who have ignored their sacred oaths to support and defend the Constitution. Congress and the president must take their oaths seriously, and solidify the full faith and credit of the United States by cutting excessive and unconstitutional spending. The goal should be to lower the debt ceiling, not bicker about how high to raise it. Following the Constitution -- not skirting it -- is the proper path to arrive there.
(Comment here.)
Essential Liberty
"Republicans have been neatly set up to take the fall if a deal is not reached by Aug. 2. Obama is already waving the red flag, warning ominously that Social Security, disabled veterans' benefits, 'critical' medical research, food inspection -- without which agriculture shuts down -- are in jeopardy. The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It's time to act. Time to call Obama's bluff. A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger. ... Will the Democratic Senate or the Democratic president refuse this offer and allow the country to default -- with all the cataclysmic consequences that the Democrats have been warning about for months -- because Obama insists on a deal that is 10 months and seven days longer? That's indefensible and transparently self-serving. Dare the president to make that case. Dare him to veto -- or the Democratic Senate to block -- a short-term debt-limit increase." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"I do not want and I will not accept a deal in which I am asked to do nothing. In fact, I'm able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they've got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans." --Barack Obama
"If you read between the lines, which doesn't take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don't 'need' belongs to the government." --author John Steele Gordon
New & Notable Legislation
With talk of the debt ceiling dominating the headlines, both houses of Congress could vote on a balanced budget amendment in the next two weeks. Of course, a constitutional amendment requires the approval of two-thirds of both houses and three-fourths of the states. In the Senate, that means Republicans would need the votes of 20 Democrats, though at least that many have voiced support in the past. Not all balanced budget amendments are equal, but the one under consideration is better than some -- a "Cut, Cap and Balance" structure that would cut spending, cap it at a certain percentage of GDP to prevent tax hikes and "require" balance.
The Better Use of Our Light Bulbs Act, or BULB, failed to pass the House this week. The BULB Act was meant to repeal a nanny-state law that outlaws 100-watt incandescent bulbs as of Jan. 1, 2012. In addition to the well-known problems with alternative CFL bulbs, the federal government has no business telling the American people what kind of light bulbs they can have in their own homes. Republicans acknowledged that by bringing the BULB Act to a vote this week, however it was inexplicably introduced under different parliamentary rules, so it could pass only by a two-thirds vote. The final vote was 233-193. Remind us, again, of who controls the House. Republicans vow to try again, but they will need a much more cooperative Senate (and House GOP leadership) than is currently in place.
On the Campaign Trail
As the 2012 presidential race heats up, Republican contenders are now taking shots at each other as well as the Democrat incumbent. Minnesotans Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann ditched the famous "Minnesota nice" when discussing issues of experience for America's top executive job. Bachmann's recent rise in the polls in her birth state of Iowa have no doubt been alarming to Pawlenty, who really needs a win in Iowa to secure the nomination. So former governor Pawlenty politely pointed out that Bachmann has virtually no record as an office-holder and stuck to his "results, not rhetoric" script by noting that Rep. Bachmann needs more than just speech skills. "We're looking for people who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to conclusion," Pawlenty said. "I've done that, and she hasn't."
Bachmann nibbled but didn't immediately take the bait, instead defending her House record on standing up to cap-n-tax and ObamaCare. She did note, however, that Pawlenty once supported a health insurance mandate. She later went further, stating that executive experience doesn't matter if it comes with "more of the same big government as usual."
It looks as if the two Mormons in the Republican contest will be going after each other as well. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman attacked frontrunner Mitt Romney's record (or lack thereof) of producing jobs in Massachusetts during Romney's term as governor. Huntsman pointed to his own record as being first in the nation in creating jobs, while Massachusetts ranked 47th. Romney's campaign responded that he created nearly 50,000 jobs as governor, one of the best economic turnarounds in the country at that time. So there you have it -- GOP candidates poking each other for soft spots.
Finally, Barack Obama reported raising more than $86 million for his re-election effort in the second quarter, a new record. The total, however, is a combination of his campaign itself and that of the Democrat National Committee; $47 million was for his campaign specifically. He has a long way to go to reach his $1 billion fundraising target.
Government & PoliticsThe Debt Ceiling and the Constitution"C'mon, man!" Joe Biden exclaimed Monday, "Let's get real!" On Wednesday, Barack Obama was so upset that he took his ball and went home, shoving his chair away from the table and saying tersely, "I'll see you tomorrow." The topic, of course, is the debt ceiling, which Obama and his pals at the Treasury Department insist must be raised by Aug. 2 to prevent default on U.S. debt. But this isn't your father's debt ceiling; it's $14.3 trillion currently, and Democrats want $2 trillion more. It's no wonder that tensions are running high. This is where ideological rubber hits the road and either builds America or tears it down.
The sticking points aren't new. Democrats want to raise taxes by as much as $2 trillion in addition to making cuts to various budget items, not least of which is defense. Republicans want cuts with no tax increases. Obama is so insistent on tax increases that, according to a GOP aide in the discussions, he declared, "This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this." He didn't yield as he demagogued Social Security, either. "I cannot guarantee that [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue," he shamelessly warned. Who's throwing grandma off the cliff now?
After that snit, he audaciously criticized Republicans' "my way or the highway" approach.
As for the cuts under discussion, they aren't genuine cuts like those average Americans are making -- buying less milk and fewer eggs, for example. Called base-line budgeting, Washington's cuts are merely reductions in projected growth, as in, "We're still going to buy more milk and eggs than we did last year, but not quite as much as we would have under better political circumstances."
To put it in perspective, spending over the next decade is projected to reach about $46 trillion, including $13 trillion in new debt. The haggling is over $2-4 trillion in cuts to that projected increase. Spreading $2 trillion over 10 years "saves" just $200 billion a year, or less than the interest payment on the debt, and even by reducing projected growth by that much, we still end up with an increase in spending. That, in a nutshell, is Washington-speak.
As for the status of compromise, it has succeeded only in Minnesota, where the Democrat governor and Republican legislature just agreed to end a government shutdown. At the federal level, Republicans have all but given up on a comprehensive reform package. As many as 60 House Republicans might vote against any increase to the debt ceiling, and Democrats control the Senate and the White House, making a deal without their support impossible. What to do?
McConnell's Plan
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) concluded this week, "[A]fter years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable. I was one of those who had hoped we could do something big for the country. But in my view the president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes or default." McConnell is absolutely correct. However, his solution is questionable.
He outlined a complicated legislative maneuver in which Congress would permit the president to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally in three increments totaling $2.5 trillion, provided that he offer equivalent spending cuts each time. Each increase would be subject to a resolution of disapproval from Congress. The president would almost certainly veto that, but he would also then "own" the debt increase, and Congress -- particularly Republicans -- could be absolved, in theory, of responsibility for raising the debt ceiling. The plan has caused a split on both sides of the aisle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both praised the deal, and Reid is working to make it reality. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), not so much. Many House Republicans indicate it's a non-starter.
The Wall Street Journal asks, "The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won't vote for one, then what's the alternative to Mr. McConnell's maneuver?"
"Ugly and unpleasant as it is," writes Daniel Foster of National Review, "not all retreats are capitulations. McConnell clearly thinks of this as a tactical retreat in the service of his overarching strategic objective: to make President Obama a one-term president."
On the other hand, there are constitutional concerns with McConnell's plan. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) puts budget responsibility directly in the hands of Congress, not the president. Technically, the deal would leave Congress with the authority to dictate the amount of the increases and to "disapprove" if they choose, but there's a real sense that one of the three co-equal branches of government is abdicating its constitutional duty for political gain.
Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation writes, "Depending on exactly how the legislative language is drafted, it well might violate the Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses for the making of law, the separation of powers regarding Congress's control over the budget and spending, [and] the legislative Recommendations Clause, and it might also be struck down as an attempt to grant the President the equivalent of a line-item veto. It is also unclear whether the unconstitutional portion would be struck down by the courts and severed from the rest of the statute (which would eliminate Congress's ability to veto the cuts) or if the entire scheme would be struck down. But, at a minimum, the proposal is highly dubious as a matter of constitutional law."
Call us crazy, but we think the Constitution trumps political concerns. Regardless of the worthy strategic objective of limiting Obama to one term in office, or of limiting blame in the polls, the ends don't justify the means. The debt was run up by politicians who have ignored their sacred oaths to support and defend the Constitution. Congress and the president must take their oaths seriously, and solidify the full faith and credit of the United States by cutting excessive and unconstitutional spending. The goal should be to lower the debt ceiling, not bicker about how high to raise it. Following the Constitution -- not skirting it -- is the proper path to arrive there.
(Comment here.)
Essential Liberty
"Republicans have been neatly set up to take the fall if a deal is not reached by Aug. 2. Obama is already waving the red flag, warning ominously that Social Security, disabled veterans' benefits, 'critical' medical research, food inspection -- without which agriculture shuts down -- are in jeopardy. The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It's time to act. Time to call Obama's bluff. A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger. ... Will the Democratic Senate or the Democratic president refuse this offer and allow the country to default -- with all the cataclysmic consequences that the Democrats have been warning about for months -- because Obama insists on a deal that is 10 months and seven days longer? That's indefensible and transparently self-serving. Dare the president to make that case. Dare him to veto -- or the Democratic Senate to block -- a short-term debt-limit increase." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"I do not want and I will not accept a deal in which I am asked to do nothing. In fact, I'm able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they've got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans." --Barack Obama
"If you read between the lines, which doesn't take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don't 'need' belongs to the government." --author John Steele Gordon
New & Notable Legislation
With talk of the debt ceiling dominating the headlines, both houses of Congress could vote on a balanced budget amendment in the next two weeks. Of course, a constitutional amendment requires the approval of two-thirds of both houses and three-fourths of the states. In the Senate, that means Republicans would need the votes of 20 Democrats, though at least that many have voiced support in the past. Not all balanced budget amendments are equal, but the one under consideration is better than some -- a "Cut, Cap and Balance" structure that would cut spending, cap it at a certain percentage of GDP to prevent tax hikes and "require" balance.
The Better Use of Our Light Bulbs Act, or BULB, failed to pass the House this week. The BULB Act was meant to repeal a nanny-state law that outlaws 100-watt incandescent bulbs as of Jan. 1, 2012. In addition to the well-known problems with alternative CFL bulbs, the federal government has no business telling the American people what kind of light bulbs they can have in their own homes. Republicans acknowledged that by bringing the BULB Act to a vote this week, however it was inexplicably introduced under different parliamentary rules, so it could pass only by a two-thirds vote. The final vote was 233-193. Remind us, again, of who controls the House. Republicans vow to try again, but they will need a much more cooperative Senate (and House GOP leadership) than is currently in place.
On the Campaign Trail
As the 2012 presidential race heats up, Republican contenders are now taking shots at each other as well as the Democrat incumbent. Minnesotans Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann ditched the famous "Minnesota nice" when discussing issues of experience for America's top executive job. Bachmann's recent rise in the polls in her birth state of Iowa have no doubt been alarming to Pawlenty, who really needs a win in Iowa to secure the nomination. So former governor Pawlenty politely pointed out that Bachmann has virtually no record as an office-holder and stuck to his "results, not rhetoric" script by noting that Rep. Bachmann needs more than just speech skills. "We're looking for people who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to conclusion," Pawlenty said. "I've done that, and she hasn't."
Bachmann nibbled but didn't immediately take the bait, instead defending her House record on standing up to cap-n-tax and ObamaCare. She did note, however, that Pawlenty once supported a health insurance mandate. She later went further, stating that executive experience doesn't matter if it comes with "more of the same big government as usual."
It looks as if the two Mormons in the Republican contest will be going after each other as well. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman attacked frontrunner Mitt Romney's record (or lack thereof) of producing jobs in Massachusetts during Romney's term as governor. Huntsman pointed to his own record as being first in the nation in creating jobs, while Massachusetts ranked 47th. Romney's campaign responded that he created nearly 50,000 jobs as governor, one of the best economic turnarounds in the country at that time. So there you have it -- GOP candidates poking each other for soft spots.
Finally, Barack Obama reported raising more than $86 million for his re-election effort in the second quarter, a new record. The total, however, is a combination of his campaign itself and that of the Democrat National Committee; $47 million was for his campaign specifically. He has a long way to go to reach his $1 billion fundraising target.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment