McCarthy’s proposal will not pass the Senate, and would get veto’d. But if McCarthy compromises he loses his job. I see only one way we do not default, and that is a handful of reasonable House Republicans join with Democrats to pass a debt limit increase. I see the odds of this reasonable. By that I mean 50/50 chance of a default. Which is far from ideal!
There will not be a default. There will not be a cut in defense spending. The Shiny faction is trying to force the government to stop paying any sort of welfare. The government could act like the Shinier JCs I worked for, and cut pay for it’s own workers, but that would not be enough. Federal payroll is apparently only about $22M/month, or $264M/yr, nothing against the $1T/year deficits Shiny-land supply-sided it’s way into.
A number of years ago, I saw a video of a conference hosted by the Concord Coalition. One of the panelists said he had a discussion with one of the ardent supply-siders. He said the supply side plan is to run the deficits up, until there is a crisis, then shrug and tell retirees they can’t pay SS and Medicare anymore, and leave it at that.
So, what happens if all welfare spending is eliminated? The drumbeat will start anew, for more tax cuts for the “JCs”.
That hasn’t worked since the late 90s. Pay-go rules probably hasn’t been tried since then, because they did work. Remember “pay-go” rules? That is where the rule says “You want to throw another $1T at the “JCs”? Ok. Show us specific revenue increases and spending cuts to pay for it. No faith-based drivel the deficit will magically go away by itself”.
I would like to see someone challenge the constitutionality of the debt ceiling law.
Congress has already legally authorized the spending.
And the Constitution states: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The time to discuss fiscal concerns about the spending of money is when you are deciding what to authorize spending money on, not when it comes time for paying it.
I am rarely this surprised, or impressed. This was kept way more secret that I would have ever credited them. Bravo.
In a letter to fellow Democrats, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) outlined that strategy, revealing that the legislative vehicle Democrats intend to use was introduced in January — very quietly and without any fanfare — by Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.). And on Tuesday, during a pro forma session of the House, Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.), the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee, introduced a “special rule” designed to guide that bill to the floor if the discharge petition is successful.
This has been planned and kept secret since January, impressive! Reminds me of the rope a dope they pulled last year on the Inflation Reduction Act.
After years since Gingrich launched the GOP running this utterly shameless hostage taking shakedown backed by transparent lies and falsehoods it would be reasonable and even gracious if all the Dems did was kick the GOP hard in crotch by Biden simply announcing the debt limit as unconstitutional and no longer in force.
Throw the hot potato to the Supreme Court. There would be delightful amount of shrieking and screaming.
I think it would be horrible for the country. It is like saying yeah we need a web of infrastructure for a build out. The government budget offices have measured it all out but lets have 20% less infrastructure? That pretty much might mean 2% less GDP growth each year for the next decade. Why? So a few people who know nothing at all about econ, proven for the last 40 years, can claim a victory?
When in fact if the Republicans had full control the debt limit would be lifted. But the debt would not be for building our nation but instead for a tax cut. Shrinking our nation would be that option.
BTW if we want peace and quiet that should come with some people stopping the endless lying.
When was that? I’d like to know more about that. But was it his sort of compromise solutions forged with McCain and Lieberman? Because those were compromise efforts not absolutes. Those were for priming the pump in congress for other actions. Those were NOT the results. Voting in a congressional body for things that wont happen does not always count as a position even. Things are said and done for other reasons.
If you are talking about the sequester that was about a big compromise that I also supported. There were reasons for that. We were in between supply side econ and demand side econ. We needed the status quo.
Thanks for giving me the smidgeon of truth about this entire Biden thing.
My only comment is that McConnell is both a useful ejit and looking to be followed by useful ejits…present company excluded because we here have the time to discuss reality.
“It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.” - Biden 2006
McConnell was quick to point out the irony in his letter to President Biden on Monday.
“You explained on the Senate floor that your ‘no’ votes did not mean you wanted the majority to let the country default, but rather that the President’s party had to take responsibility for a policy agenda which you opposed,” McConnell wrote. “Your view then is our view now.”
Policymakers enacted the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts with the promise that they would “pay for themselves” by delivering increased economic growth, which would generate higher tax revenues. But even President Bush’s Treasury Department estimated that under the most optimistic scenario, the tax cuts would at best pay for less than 10 percent of their long-term cost with increased growth.
Evidence suggests that the tax cuts — particularly those for high-income households — did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.
In fact, the economic expansion that lasted from 2001 to 2007 was weaker than average. A review of economic evidence on the tax cuts by Brookings Institution economist William Gale and Dartmouth professor Andrew Samwick, former chief economist on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, found that “a cursory look at growth between 2001 and 2007 (before the onset of the Great Recession) suggests that overall growth rate was … mediocre” and that “there is, in short, no first-order evidence in the aggregate data that these tax cuts generated growth.”
As to this, Leap, just substitute Biden’s name for “some people” and we agree. Sure, most politicians lie…but I am 76 years old and have never seen such constant disregard for the truth by an elected President…as verified by FACTS after the lies…sometimes by his own staff.
Supply side econ was always to simplistic to be real. Supply side econ is not actually economics. Those simplistic answers in the ideology do not face any lies just because actual economics are discussed in their complexity.