Debt ceiling debate and delay

A wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread. This is what Obama, with his fiscal cliff plan, threatens us with.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The House debt ceiling bill is still waiting for a vote. Tea Party members, in and out of Congress, do not agree that it would be wise.

The debt ceiling debate in the House

Yesterday, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker of the House, announced that the House would vote on his measure to cut less than $1 trillion from the federal budget, and to raise the debt ceiling by a like amount. The Congressional Budget Office forced him to revise his measure, saying that an earlier version would have cut nothing.

The country waited for the House to vote. And waited. And waited. And is still waiting.

The problem for the Tea Party: neither Boehner’s plan nor the one that Senate Democratic Floor Leader Harry W. Reid (D-NV) wants, even promises to cut the budget by more than $2.2 trillion. Standard and Poor said last week that without cuts of at least $4 trillion over ten years, they would downgrade US government debt from AAA to AA. Raising the debt ceiling under that circumstance would seem irresponsible.

The House needs 216 votes to pass anything. Two House seats are vacant, and two sitting Members (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ) will be absent for medical reasons. At last report, 22 House Republicans still refuse to vote for the Boehner plan.

Reid, for his part, will not hear of Boehner’s plan. He boasts that every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus would vote against it.

A plagiarized insult in the Senate

Two days ago The Wall Street Journal published this editorial, saying that the Republicans face a “reality test.” It contained such gems as these:

The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . Barack Obama. The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell into GOP Senate nominees. The reality is that the debt limit will be raised one way or another, and the only issue now is with how much fiscal reform and what political fallout.

Yet the Journal also had to admit that:

It’s true that the Boehner plan doesn’t solve the long-term debt problem, but Mr. Obama won’t agree to anything that does.

Given that, the Journal offered no reason to accept the Boehner plan. This is especially true since the House already passed a plan that would satisfy Standard and Poor: the “cut, cap, balance” plan.

Nevertheless, the Journal ran with this editorial. And then Senator John McCain (R-AZ) read that editorial out loud on the floor of the Senate.

Tea Party reaction

Nick Purpura, Wall Street veteran, speaks out about the debt ceiling

Nicholas E. Purpura. Photo: self.

Nicholas E. Purpura, speaking from his home in Wall Township, NJ, was furious. “I have never seen such a Quisling,” he said of McCain. His opinion of Boehner is not much better.

Those so-called “cuts” are phony! They’ve cut nothing! And the real solution is so simple, even a child could understand it!

That solution:

  1. Lower, not raise, the debt ceiling.
  2. Eliminate the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, and several other existing departments and agencies whose missions are unconstitutional.
  3. Eliminate foreign aid to all countries except the Republic of Israel.
  4. Repeal the health care reform bill. (He and his friend Donald R. Laster Jr. are already litigating against that.)
  5. Reassign any affected civilian employees to the Department of Defense, to do clerical work that the Department now asks active-duty military people to do.
  6. Issue hundreds of oil and gas drilling permits. This, Purpura says, is the only real stimulus that the economy can use.

Other Tea Party activists are just as furious. Darla Dawald, National Director of the Patriot Action Network, left an audio-only message urging people to oppose the Boehner plan and stick to what the House has already passed. McCain’s reading of the Wall Street Journal editorial in the Senate did not impress her. Neither did this statement by House Democratic Floor Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

What I am more worried about is saving the world from the Republicans—saving life on this planet as we know it.

RoseAnn Salanitri, candidate for the New Jersey Assembly, declined comment on McCain, Reid, or Pelosi, except to say:

Do Reid and Pelosi really expect us to take their advice on our country’s finances, when they’re the ones that got us into this mess in the first place?

And:

The mainstream media are trying to call the Tea Party unreasonable. But is it reasonable to ask for a higher credit limit, while still living beyond your means?

She offered a practical example:

When you apply for a mortgage, any loan officer will want to see your debt-to-income ratio. And if it is too high, he will tell you to lower your overall debt before he will lend you more money. That is what we must do: lower our debt. Because our debt-to-income ratio is out of whack.

Other Tea Party activists said that the House should reject anything short of the “cut, cap, balance” plan that it has already passed.

Featured image: the classic Weimar-era illustration of wheeling a barrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.

Related:

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

5 Responses to Debt ceiling debate and delay

  1. Terrence says:

    As for Mr. Purpura’s plan, a child’s understanding is never the ideal goal. To lower the debt ceiling, rather than raise it, you would have to either raise taxes to retire existing debt, or default. Raising taxes would be preferable to a default, but I thought you were opposed to taxes being raised to reasonable levels. It’s cute that you try so hard to understand these issues, but I prefer it when you write about how medieval knights killed off the dragons, that stuff is way funnier. So basically I’m saying you should stick to what you know.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      You obviously put your blinders on before you could allow yourself to read any further than Point One of the Purpura Plan. Point Two is the linchpin. At least half our government is unconstitutional. The agencies involved have no authority under the enumerated powers of the Constitution. None. What. Ever. High time to eliminate them.

      And that doesn’t even involve firing people. You can reassign them all to the DoD where they can do clerical work, so that soldiers and sailors do not have to serve as “desk police.”

      Your whole argument assumes that every part of government is necessary to the existence of a sound society. I deny that. So do my sources.

  2. Terrence says:

    I read the whole article, and I don’t see how eliminating the Department of Education will solve our fiscal problems. It is a small part of government spending. Wouldn’t it make more sense to drastically cut defense spending? Our military budget grew after the Soviet Union collapsed. It is currently almost as large as the rest of the world’s military spending combined. Don’t hide behind the constitution when you clearly don’t accept it in its entirety. Your website has recently decried utilization of the 14th amendment as a violation of the constitution, even though section four states that the validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned? Your opposition is not to violations of the constitution, it is to public policy you are opposed to on political grounds. And why eliminate all aid except to the State of Israel? Or is the Republic of Israel you wrote about something else? The State of Israel has a high standard of living and should be able to support itself. If the state is not viable, then continued support is a waste of money, and if the state is viable, then it needs to stand on its own two feet. Your argument seems be that some form of corporate anarchy would be preferable to the prosperity we’ve grown accustomed to. Without government protection and support, we would enter another gilded age where barons of industry accumulate monopolies while the average American becomes little more than a slave. Our system is not perfect, but we’ve come a long way since the days where corporate strong-men would fire into crowds of striking workers. Please include in your response a quote from the Old Testament. That will probably shut me up.

  3. John says:

    “Eliminate the Department of Education”

    So Mr. Purpura is an anarchist who hates America and wants this nation to become a third world state that is incapable of competing with the rest of the world at large. That’s literally the only reason I can think of for getting rid of the department of education. Science in the engine of wealth and prosperity, and education is the only way to make new scientists.

    You’re a bunch of parodists, right? Because if this is your plan for solving our financial problems, you have to be a comedian. Or mentally unsound. Or both.

  4. […] Debate and delay […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.