The president had been speaking for nearly an hour, and his 2013 State of the Union address did not seem to be ruffling feathers overmuch. "But," he said to himself, "That will soon change." After having covered his plans for our nation in regard to economics, tax policies, climate change, defense spending, foreign policy, gay rights, abortion rights, and election reform, President Obama continued:
"Now I'd like to address the next political battle we'll be facing here in Washington: the debt ceiling. Our economy will hit the present ceiling in late February or early March, and the Senate Minority Leader and the Speaker of the House have both made it abundantly clear that they're going to use the debt ceiling as an opportunity to extract spending cuts from almost every facet of the federal budget except for defense. I've stated for some time now that we're not going to have that fight anymore. The last time we had this debate, it wound up costing the American people the first credit downgrade we've ever had, and while that particular downgrade didn't turn out to be catastrophic, a second downgrade may very well lead us to places we really don't want to go.
So let me be clear: we're not going to have this fight. There will be no long, drawn-out negotiations. There will be no late-night last-minute desperate deal-brokering to avoid the first default in our nation's history. What's more, I'm taking the decision out of my own hands completely.
He turned to address the Republican senators and representatives who were seated on his left, "I'm leaving that particular decision up to the House of Representatives."
The president paused until the murmurs punctuated by shouts and not a few curses died down before he repeated himself,
I'm leaving the decision strictly up to the House of Representatives under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, and we will see what decision you will make. I have asked the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to introduce a bill to raise the debt ceiling, and to keep the bill clean without anything at all added to it. Furthermore, I have signed an executive order, it's sitting right here in front of me, that states that the current president will not sign any bill into law raising the debt ceiling unless it's a clean bill without any amendments. Furthermore, if I were to sign such a bill, the executive order stipulates that the current president, that's me, remember, must resign within thirty days. As of now, I'm not allowed to sign anything but a clean bill.
Howls of protest erupted from the Republicans, while the Democrats were largely silent, shocked speechless that their president would put the nation's economy in the hands of the Tea Party-influenced Republicans in the house. Again, the president waited for the ruckus to die down and then continued, "So to those from the other side of the aisle, you wanted to be in charge, so I'm giving you the opportunity to make what is perhaps the most important decision of my presidency, without any input whatsoever from me. That's right, after this speech, I'm done with this subject. You'll either present me a clean bill to sign to raise the debt limit, or you will not. If you do not do so, then it will be your decision to force this nation into default. It's as simple as that."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dan(Miller)
Gracious goodness me or my! I seem to recall Senator Obama saying something just slightly different in 2006. I think it had something to do with leadership failure. Surely, there is no leadership failure now, with him in the White House! That couldn't possibly be!
Or is it, as suggested at the Snopes link, that President Obama has undergone a change of heart?
Our views do, of course, er, mature with age and he was younger then.
2 - Dan(Miller)
I am beginning to suspect that my comments, like those of some others, are not welcome here.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Dan, as long as you abide by the comments policy, as you always have, your contributions are more than welcome.
There have been technical issues recently which have involved many regulars being unable to post, but I thought they had been resolved. If you continue to have problems, please shoot Chris Rose an email with details of the IP address you've been trying to post from.
4 - Dan(Miller)
Thanks, Doc.
I wrote as I did because I had posted a comment and got the message that if it was OK it would appear eventually.
It's probably in the spam filter since it had three links.
Dan
5 - Dr Dreadful
Well, there are two anti-spam filters and hopefully the one yours is caught in is the one we comments editors have access to. I'll take a look and liberate it if I can.
6 - Dr Dreadful
Success!
Dear readers, please disregard comments 2-5...
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
Yes, Obama did vote against raising the debt ceiling back then. Of course, when he voted thus he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were more than sufficient votes to raise the debt ceiling - it was going to get raised in any case. This made his vote nothing more than a protest vote, just as many Americans vote for someone other than the Democratic or Republican party knowing full well that there's absolutely no chance that the one they voted for would get elected.
The House Republicans, on the other hand, know full well that if they vote against raising the debt ceiling, the nation will go into default (unless Obama does an end run using the $1T coin or the 14th Amendment). This means that theirs is NOT a protest vote - it's one with real-world consequences.
You can claim "hypocrisy!" all day long, but the situation is different to the point that it becomes a matter of comparing apples to oranges.
8 - Dan(Miller)
Glen, I was delighted to read your confirmation that President Obama is not guilty of hypocrisy! Not even the smallest particle of a transitory illusion that he might ever have such an inconceivable flaw had ever even considered the remotest possibility of occurring to me.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
I'm glad you agree! See, we really can agree on some things - I bet we could even agree on what we think of Congress! But I'd really like to hear your personal opinion on whether you think it would be a good idea for the Republicans to refuse to raise the debt limit if Obama refuses to give them what they want.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn... wow!
I imagine there's a healthily-sized band of voting-age entomologists who are actually quite keen on head lice and cockroaches, but being less popular than The Donald takes some doing. It's a stunning achievement by Congress.
It's almost enough to make me want to get my US citizenship so that I can be proud of my elected representatives. Almost.
Cracking article, BTW, Glenn, if rather far-fetched. As Warren would no doubt agree, nothing wrong with the occasional flight of fancy here on Blogcritics! ;-)
11 - Glenn Contrarian
But Doc, it is still truly a point of pride that:
the elected body still managed to beat out John Edwards, lobbyists, telemarketers, the Kardashians, North Korea, Lindsay Lohan, playground bullies, Fidel Castro, meth labs, communism, gonorrhea and the Ebola virus.
For the life of me, with the possible exception of Fidel, I can't disagree with any of those....
12 - Dan(Miller)
Glen, re #9. You ask whether I think it would be a good idea for the Republicans to refuse to raise the debt limit if Obama refuses to give them what they want.
That strikes me as rather inverted. The Congress "gives" the President appropriations and may, in its discretion, "give" him a higher debt ceiling. My views on what should happen, and what will probably happen instead, are provided here.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
It's pretty obvious by your blog that you personally think that the Republicans in the House should show some 'testicular fortitude' and not raise the debt ceiling. Problem is, that debt ceiling isn't necessary to prevent additional spending - it's necessary to pay for what Congress has already spent. This results in what is known as a default. America has never defaulted before, and that is why regardless of our economic troubles, America's treasury bonds are seen as the safest on the planet.
This default that you would have the Republicans force on America truly is analogous to a household refusing to pay its bills for what it's already bought. So what happens when a household refuses to pay its bills? The credit score of the man and/or the woman gets downgraded...and they are forced to pay higher credit rates...
...and this is precisely what happened the last time the Tea Party's intransigence caused a credit downgrade: it cost the American taxpayers $100B...and that was just the cost of ONE downgrade from AAA to AA by ONE rating agency (Standard and Poors).
That $100B cost was from a relatively minor downgrade due to our political squabbles, and did not involve an actual default. A default, on the other hand, would cost the American taxpayer much, much more.
Here's the thing, Dan - America has been in significantly worse financial straits before and you know it. Our debt-to-GDP ratio was worse after WWII than it is now, and what did we do? We raised taxes, and by the end the 1950's we nearly had the entire debt paid off.
Furthermore, the Right's claims of Obama's "fiscal irresponsibility" is nothing more than a strawman. Why? Right now we've got a lower federal taxpayer burden than at any time since the Truman administration, our corporate taxes are lower than 1972, the pace of the growth of our government is lower than at any time since Eisenhower, AND (from Investors Business Daily):
Believe it or not, the federal deficit has fallen faster over the past three years than it has in any such stretch since demobilization from World War II.
In fact, outside of that post-WWII era, the only time the deficit has fallen faster was when the economy relapsed in 1937, turning the Great Depression into a decade-long affair.
If U.S. history offers any guide, we are already testing the speed limits of a fiscal consolidation that doesn't risk backfiring. That's why the best way to address the fiscal cliff likely is to postpone it.
While long-term deficit reduction is important and deficits remain very large by historical standards, the reality is that the government already has its foot on the brakes.
In other words, looking at the OVERALL numbers, Obama's MORE fiscally responsible than Bush 43, Bush 41, Reagan, OR Nixon. But of course that's not something that anyone on the Right would ever want to hear.
So...Dan - now that you have been made aware that a mere downgrade from AAA to AA cost the American taxpayer $100B, is a full-fledged default what you really think America needs? Is it really?
14 - Igor
@13-Glenn: good argument.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Igor -
Thanks - but I wonder if Dan will catch the economic caveat in the second sentence of the paragraph I pasted from Investors Business Daily, that stated that the only time our deficit has fallen faster was when we were falling into the second dip of the Depression.
Dan(Miller), as a fellow Navy veteran, should understand that the metaphor "Ship of State" also applies to the economy - it doesn't respond well to oversteering, to too-great attempts to force it in one direction or the other...and that's what a default would force on the economy.
16 - troll
Glenn #13 - do you have figures on what the downgrade actually has cost to date as opposed to the 2011 projections you linked to?
17 - Dan(Miller)
Glen,
If you think the economy of the United States is doing fine under President Obama, we disagree. We have excessively high Federal spending now, the Federal deficit is higher than ever before and continues to grow like Topsy.
As this 2012 edition of Federal Spending by the Numbers shows, total federal spending for fiscal year 2012[1] reached $3.6 trillion, or 22.9 percent the size of the entire U.S. economy. In the past 20 years, federal outlays have grown 71 percent faster than inflation. The average American household’s share of this spending is $29,691, roughly two-thirds of median household income. This relentless growth is projected to continue, pushing total government outlays to $5.5 trillion a decade from now, and to about 36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the next 25 years.
You say that the debt ceiling isn't necessary to prevent additional spending - it's necessary to pay for what Congress has already spent. Obviously, what has been spent has been spent; what has been appropriated but not yet spent has not yet has not been spent. To the extent that appropriated moneys have been spent without incurring debt, they are not part of the debt and the debt ceiling has little relevance.
Meanwhile, the private sector (being stifled by regulatory and tax uncertainty) is weak and the debt ceiling drama could (as noted in my previously linked article) provoke a constitutional crisis that we do not need should President Obama refuse, as he has said he would, to negotiate on spending cuts.
An Army veteran rather than a Navy veteran (Comment #15), I agree that over-steering is bad. Yet that is what our Federal, State and even local regulators appear to be doing to the private sector. Politically favored businesses (most recently in the fiscal cliff legislation such as "green" and motion picture businesses) are rewarded with tax breaks and subsidies. That distorts the market in politically favored directions. To ameliorate the problems, massive revisions to the Internal Revenue Code and the IRS regulations are needed as well as other reductions in Federal regulation of business. If you were to consider starting a new small business (or to expand one with forty-eight full time employees) would you think now a propitious time to do it? I would not.
The Executive Branch is only one of the Federal branches. Article I of the Constitution delineates the duties and functions of the Legislative Branch and Article II delineates those of the Executive Branch. President Obama needs to keep firmly in mind which duties and functions are his and which are those of the Legislative Branch.
18 - zingzing
dan, you know exactly what argument glenn will make to what you say, and what parts of the more complex truth he will leave out. to that, you will answer with your own half-truths that knowingly leave the bits of the truth which would unpleasantly make your point invalid. and thus we go 'round and 'round, talking a bunch of bullshit and not getting anywhere closer to understanding what is really happening, and therefore nowhere closer to a solution to the problems we face, because if we were actually to do so, it would prove what a bunch of know-nothing, proudly opinionated hypocrites we are. (and i'm not just talking about blogcritics, or america, i'm talking about the whole lot of us, who would rather argue ineffectually amongst ourselves than admit that our cherished beliefs could possibly be wrong.)
19 - Dan(Miller)
Zingzing, Robert Frost wrote
We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
As in many things, I suspect he was correct.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
you know exactly what argument glenn will make to what you say, and what parts of the more complex truth he will leave out
zing, I am sincere in all my posts - I don't post anything other than what I believe to be true. The proof of this lies in the several times - more than is the case with everyone else on BC Politics combined, it seems - that I've been willing to admit when I've been wrong, and have given sincere gratitude to those who showed me my errors. Dan may be right - I've got to research some more, and if he's right, I'll have to post an admission. It'll be far from the first time, and it won't be the last.
Given that pretty much all of us on BC Politics are intelligent, then how can any one of us continually claim that one is right and the other guy's wrong? Hell, even Warren's right sometimes, and if he's right and I'm wrong, I'll admit it - I will not allow what I personally think of him to keep me from admitting when he's right!
Think about it, zing - pick a common BC Politics resident - Clav, Doc D., Baronius, troll, yourself, or any of the lot. How often do you see any one of them or yourself admit error? Not too damn often, is it? So how can that happen when Clav and Baronius (and Dan M.) are quite intelligent and educated, as are Doc D. and yourself, but out of the lot of you, I've seen maybe one mea culpa every several months, and NEVER on a major issue.
But I have done so - just ask Cindy. I'm 0-and-2 when it comes to major debates with her! The key is that I have no qualms about such an admission and I freely give her the credit she deserves.
Dan's quote from Frost applies to any man who admits error rarely or never - and this applies to almost all of you. I, on the other hand, am neither overly prideful nor insecure, and that quote does not quite so strongly apply to me.
You can question my beliefs and (what I believe to be) the facts that I bring to the table, but to accuse me of deliberately leaving out parts of the truth is tantamount to accusing me of insincerity, of obfuscation, of deceit.
Lastly, did you post your accusation because you really believe that I deliberately leave out parts of the truth? Or did you do so because you wanted to stick with the "we're all human and we all have the same failings" line in order to seem non-partisan in your post? I strongly suspect it's the latter, and I hope you can see the false equivalency for what it is.
21 - Zingzing
Glenn, I think we're all guilty of it, and you're no more innocent than anyone else in any way that matters in the end, although I agree that you're one of the more likely amongst us to admit fault. There's parts of every divisive political debate that makes a strong position untenable, but we all downplay those parts in our arguments in order to do... something... but just what that is, I'm beginning to feel, is just dragging our damn feet.
The fault of every political "solution" to any problem is easily identifiable; for example, (to shit on my own positions,) getting rid of guns in our society will mean that criminals will gain an edge, abortion kills babies, a green economy will create havoc in our current economy, stopping rampant military spending will weaken our defense, etc, etc, etc. these things are true.
That I think the other side of those arguments are more important doesn't really matter. We all talk right past each other, not only here, but in our country's political debate, and in our countries' political dealings with each other. I know political debate is important, but I think we (humans in general) are very bad at it, mostly because we're incredibly dishonest and constantly try to pull the wool on each other, even though everyone can see the bullshit flying. There has to be some point where we stop simplifying shit down to whatever fits our opinions and start dealing with reality and I think we've all gotten very far away from that in the way we deal with and make political arguments. We've gotten to the point where we all seem to think that opinion is truth, while facts play second fiddle, just cherry-picked to fit in, all other facts ignored on a scale of convenience.
Politics is the most depressing comedy sometimes. I just happened to be in a bah humbug mood about it when I wrote that comment, and you just happened to be the one on the other side of the comment that I read at the moment I snapped. Even Dan was an innocent bystander in that. Sometimes I just get sickened by the whole charade. No offense intended to either of you. I'm just as guilty. And no, I don't have any alternatives (that aren't vile) to suggest.
Maybe it's just impossible for a complex society to be well-adjusted within itself and with the world at large. We've always got to have our foot on someone's neck, no matter what the issue. Sigh.
22 - Zingzing
Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up thinking that political gridlock just creates slow change that we've all argued to the point where that slow change has become acceptable, and that's the way things should be. But today it just looks like so much yammering and melodrama and we should be better, or at least not so fucking stupid.
23 - Cindy
Or you may wake up and wonder if what you have noticed serves any purpose.
24 - troll
with all this honesty going on I guess that I should try again...re #13 Glenn - have you any info on what impact the downgrade actually has had on treasury bond yields - the factor used to generate the 100B projection?
25 - Igor
Most of our financial distress stems from the unnecessary fruitless wars in the middle east and the unnecessary fruitless tax handouts to the rich. Both products of the late unlamented George W Bush administration. And the wars go on! And the tax gifts to the rich go on!
Now some people are so crooked they want to cut Social Security (which has never cost the USA one red cent) to pay for those trillion dollar mistakes.
At the very least we should end the Iraq and Afghanistan expenses and end the tax giveaways.