(I like blogging. No, I do! I'm just busy...)
Now, I know WSJ has some restrictions on who can see these articles; if you can't see it, you could read another article on the same subject. I skimmed this article, and it actually looks like it has some interesting things to say as well, probably enough to get you up-to-speed on what I'm talking about.
In the WSJ article, there was a quick paragraph I found interesting:
"Any plan to tie policy changes to a debt-ceiling increase will again put Republicans on a collision course with President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats, who have said it shouldn't be used as leverage for ancillary policy demands."
I find this interesting. I sort of understand what they are saying; policy, in theory, shouldn't be set based on backing the other guys against a wall and making threats. On the other hand, the only reason the Republicans have the chance to use this power is because the Democrats keep putting us all in a position where it can happen again. Furthermore, what the Republicans are trying to do (In their own, not necessarily effective way) is not to change policy--it's to get us out of the immense fiscal hole that we are digging for ourselves! Policy changes are, by definition, the only way to cut down on the spending.
White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized the idea of attaching policy changes to the borrowing increase, saying it could lead to a default on the nation's obligations. That prospect "is always a bad idea," Mr. Carney said at a Thursday briefing, "and we wouldn't expect that kind of action to be taken."
I just thought it was funny that they threw this paragraph in. I mean, duh! Why does Mr. Carney think this is a tool that the Republicans can use? It has a scary threat of default on the other end, and every single person thinks that default is a bad idea. This is more a criticism on the writing, I guess, but I found this brief paragraph to be blatantly, painfully obvious.
For House GOP leaders, the debt-limit issue presents a difficult calculation. Public anger at the October government shutdown has reduced their interest in pushing a fight over it. Republicans also don't want a fight over the debt ceiling to distract voters from the rocky rollout of the health-care law, which the party sees as key to capitalizing in November's midterm elections.
This tactic bothers me a little. I mean, the "rocky rollout" is going to continue regardless, and people are going to notice; the party hardly needs to focus national attention on it. We are all already watching. Furthermore, the budget is a pressing, immediate issue, with serious consequences for the health of the entire nation; putting it on the backburner to focus on an election seems almost like betraying the public interest (that is, you and I who elected them) to benefit their personal interest (keeping their day job). Now, I know the counterargument, that they need to win elections to get more Republicans in Congress so they have the power to enforce more cuts, but still...I find it worrisome to put a monumental problem like our debt off by ten (10) months, when there is potentially a lever available to do something about it now, before it's too late.
Don't get me wrong; I feel like the WSJ is fairly liberal and harsh on the Republicans, so my tone in this piece is pretty defensive of the Republicans. I don't consider myself a Republican anymore, and I think they are equally responsible for the mess we are in now, but that is a discussion that will have to wait for another evening. I simply think they may be in a position to do some good right now, and it would be sad to see them let that go by the wayside.
I know it's a dry, political piece, but I still welcome any questions, comments, or debates, provided they remain civil.
Civil question: who was most at fault for the recent government shutdown, Republicans or Democrats?
ReplyDeleteThank you for the civil question. Here's a civil answer. ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't think of the shutdown as a "fault", necessarily; I think it was a good thing, that should have led to a cut in government spending (And didn't). I believe the whole shutdown mechanism was a good attempt to protect us from ridiculous amounts of government debt, but it failed the second Congress realized they could vote in a higher limit.
I think it's actually hard to assign blame; both sides have compelling reasons to be "at fault". The Democrats think they were right to not let themselves be held hostage, and the Republicans think they were right to try and force just a little bit of fiscal responsibility into the budget. I like fiscal responsibility more than I dislike political tactics, so in that case I sided somewhat more with the Republicans. Ultimately, though, I find the whole thing to be extremely petty; the whole shutdown accounted for, at maximum, 17% of government spending, whereas our deficit is more than 40% of spending.