“ Once the Democrats know that the debt ceiling will invariably be raised, they have no incentive to play ball. The end result will be another raw deal that is worse than doing nothing.” There is much hullabaloo in the media about John Boehner’s shot across the bow in the upcoming battle over the debt ceiling this fall. Specifically, Boehner warned that he “will again insist” on the” simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase.” The question is what Boehner means by insisting “again” on spending cuts greater than the debt ceiling increase. Does he view the failed Budget Control Act (BCA), super committee, and sequester of defense spending as a success? He has yet to denounce last year’s failure, so why should we look forward to a repeat performance? The first step in remedying our debt ceiling strategy is to acknowledge the failures of the past. When Republicans caved on raising the debt limit last year, we referred to the final Boehner proposal as a ground ball into a double play. Not only did Boehner fail to secure any transformational downsizing of government in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, he actually stymied our leverage in future budget battles. As we’ve noted, Mitch McConnell and House appropriators have already signaled that they will never cut one cent below the discretionary budget caps established in the BCA. Hence, the BCA served only to lock in the record spending levels of the Obama-era. The only real cuts that originated from that deal were the sequester cuts to the military that Boehner agrees we should now vitiate. So how would he do things differently this time? In retrospect, it would have been better to pass a clean increase of the debt ceiling and live another day to fight in future spending battles than to pass the BCA. The BCA ruined our leverage for the next ten years as Democrats and Republicans alike refuse to spend below those statist levels. Moreover, it has engendered a gratuitous schism in the conservative coalition by pitting spending hawks against defense hawks and forcing Republicans to go through the embarrassment of undoing their own scheme. Finally, the deal failed to achieve the primary objectives of averting a credit downgrade and slowing the national debt. The debt has increased another $1.3 trillion in the 9 ½ months since the debt ceiling was raised. That’s about $5 billion per day. After the hyped dollar-for-dollar cuts, there is not a single major program or agency that has been eliminated. The irony is that the debt has increased so rapidly following last summer’s deal that we are already talking about the next debt ceiling battle. Do we really want a repeat performance? Going forward, there are only two options: A) Republicans can telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never raise the debt ceiling without prior passage of something similar to Cut, Cap, and Balance – and that they would be willing to go to the brink. B) They admit that they are too scared to take this to the brink, and as such, agree to let Obama raise the debt ceiling. There is no option C, which would repeat the mistakes of last year. In other words, it is insane to tell the Democrats that you would never let the deadline pass, yet demand concession for the debt ceiling increase. Once the Democrats know that the debt ceiling will invariably be raised, they have no incentive to play ball. The end result will be another raw deal that is worse than doing nothing. This has occurred time and again throughout every budget battle and it’s time we end this insanity. We don’t need to hear the tough talk and bravado if there is no intent to carry through with it. Boehner noted at his speech before the Peter G. Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit that “we shouldn’t dread the debt limit. We should welcome it.” He punctuated that belief by calling the debt ceiling “an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.” Undoubtedly, the debt ceiling will provide us with yet another opportunity to expose the Democrats as the statist European-socialists who are apathetic to our debt crisis. However, there are all sorts of actions; some are good and some are bad. Grounding into a double play is worse than striking out. Sadly, based on our painful experience from last year, inaction might be superior to the action that will evolve from the ranks of the consultant class of the Republican Party. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
See the original post:
It’s Deja Vu All Over Again With Debt Ceiling Fight
Mitt Romney never once used the word “Mormon” in his commencement address at Liberty University this weekend, but he sure didn’t duck the question. Political reporters took his comments that “marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman” as as a dig at President Obama, who has just endorsed the ideal of gay marriage and been called our “First Gay President” by Newsweek . In truth, it was probably as much about forcefully saying something to evangelicals about modern Mormons, who long-ago put away polygamy. “People of different faiths, like yours and mine,” he said to the latest graduating class of the Southern Baptist-affiliated college, “sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose when there are so many differences in creed and theology.” Romney’s answer to that question was surprising, because it eschewed politics. “We can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common worldview.” And he offered as “the best case” for the truth of this statement the “example of Christian men and women working and witnessing to carry God’s love into every life.” The specific example that he recalled was the late Chuck Colson: Nixon hatchet man, convert, and preacher to prisoners. Romney said that Colson had been “assured by people of influence” that even after serving time for Watergate-related crimes, “a man with his connections and experience could still live very comfortably.” Those movers would “make some calls, get Chuck situated, and set him up once again as an important man.” Colson decided instead to throw his lot in with the captives and became “instead a great man.” That was the second dig Romney took at political insiders in the speech, but probably not the most risky. The first was a joke aimed squarely at himself and at the founder of Liberty, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. Falwell had visited the Romneys at their home in Belmont, Massachusetts, and the time came to pose for a picture. Mitt had proposed that Falwell be in the center of the photo, with him and Ann on either side. Falwell said no. Ann should be front and center: “He explained, by pointing to me and himself, ‘You see, Christ died between two thieves.’” The language of Romney’s speech was restrained and, as these things go, elegant. He artfully identified himself as a Mormon without using the word. He did use the words “God, Jesus, Christ, and Lord” a few times, but, from a writerly perspective at least, never in vain. Romney also picked a fight about American history that should shape his campaign in the months to come. “From the beginning, this nation has trusted in God, not man,” he said, adding, “Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution.” The Liberty commencement was almost an anti-political speech and therefore a radically political one. Business Insider headlined it, “Mitt Romney Just Gave the Biggest Speech of the 2012 Campaign.” The views that he put forward of religion, family, charity, and the preeminence of culture were not the usual mix of reheated platitudes and red meat that we’ve come to expect from the de facto Republican nominee. Perhaps that was because of the venue. He told the Liberty graduating class that their values would “not always be the object of public admiration.” The Brigham Young University-educated Romney added, “the more you live by your beliefs, the more you will endure the censure of the world.” He left viewers with the strong sense that, for the most part, he shares those convictions.
Yeah, yeah, I know that Ben Bradlee has retired from the Washington Post, but he is still revered there and his spirit still animates the place. Therefore it is surelyimportant news that I have been informed, on good authority, and even confirmed by the sister of the girl who was victimized by being shown the piece of paper in question — in other words, there will be no retraction needed from THIS report — that, in Third Grade, Ben Bradlee wrote a dirty limerick on a piece of construction paper and showed it to a girl named Marybeth. It made her cry. Tragically, the long-term effect was that it warped Marybeth’s morals so badly that she had to start using birth control at age 13 — and, worse, she had to pay for it herself! Because she had to use her baby-sitting money for that purpose instead of being able to save it to pay for college, she was forced to work as a secretary instead of becoming CEO of a non-profit dedicated to promoting compulsory unionization of sex workers. Secret Service agents have therefore been able to continue underpaying the ladies on 14th Street in Washington DC. But at least one of the sex workers ended up okay: The Obama campaign paid her a nice sum for her life story. Her name is Julia.
Read the original here:
Bad, Bad Ben Bradlee
Let me present to you the amazing amount of scrutiny that apparently needs to go into a Barack Obama campaign ad, just to understand what it actually means. Level Minus One . This is the scrutiny that is done by the creators of the ad itself (that is to say, none at all). Summary of said ad (second video at this Hot Air link ): this Brian Slagle fellow from Ohio was in the auto industry; he got laid off; but he has a job, now; and thank God for that nice Obama fellow, who made it all possible. Level Zero . This was the scrutiny done by ABC News . They discovered that the company that Mr. Slagle works for now (Johnson Controls) apparently frittered away a lot of its stimulus money then ; is actually laying off people now ; and is currently being investigated for employee health violations. As in, lead poisoning. In other words; it’s not that great a job, and there’s some question about whether its employees are better off with the company still being in business. I mean. Lead poisoning . Level One . This is the scrutiny done by The Weekly Standard : in short, actual fact-checking. It turns out that Mr. Slagle has been employed by Johnson Controls… since 2006. This information could be found via the arcane method of “looking up Brian Slagle on Facebook:” the information has since been removed, but TWS took screenshots, of course. Translation: Brian Slagle did not actually get a new job from Obama’s stimulus program. They want you to think that he did, but he didn’t*. All of which means that the actual message of the ad is “I had a job in the auto industry until about six years ago… and then I got a new job. Which is apparently one with a bad environmental and fiscal record, but that doesn’t matter! That’s because Barack Obama really, really needs me to get on the screen and tell you how great it is for me as a spectator to see the auto industry get bailed out. So I figure that I’m golden… oh, crud, Facebook. But… they promised me that Republicans couldn’t read !” Which, admittedly, doesn’t really sing as a campaign message. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *This is, by the way, what campaigns do when they don’t actually have anything useful to run on.
Read this article:
Obama’s new Ohio ad: just making stuff up at this point.
Jim Antle has nailed it. “One in six bundlers,” he tweets , “speaks louder than seven of ten African Americans.” Indeed, the subtext of Obama’s “marriage” announcement today is that candidate Obama is more afraid of losing campaign money from gay donors (and from Hollywood in general) than he is concerned about a possible erosion of support amongst socially conservative black and Hispanic voters. In fact, it just so happens that Obama has a fundraiser scheduled tomorrow with Hollywood lefties George Clooney, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Barbra Streisand. As the old church lady might say, “How convenient!” In other words, Obama’s saying, Jerry Maguire-like, “Show me the money!” And apparently, he’s gonna get a lot of it: an estimated $15 million in cool, hard cash with which to bash the Republicans.
Read more:
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
