That’s Easy

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians claim they want to prevent a future [debt ceiling] standoff by trying to defuse the borrowing limit as a weapon.

Congressman Brendan Boyle (D, PA), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said there is an increasing number of Democrats who want to fundamentally change the debt-ceiling process, with many colleagues recognizing it is “just insanity to keep doing this over and over and over again.”

Boyle also said this, as though it were a bad thing:

Because we have been fixated on this issue for months and months, we are dramatically behind on all the rest of the legislative work that Congress has to get done.

Actually, the only things Congress has to get done, and it would take very little time were Party to stop being obstructionist, are to pass a budget and then lower personal and corporate income tax rates across the board and pass the dozen separate appropriations bills that give effect to that budget.

As I wrote during an earlier debt ceiling fight,

Getting this profligacy [in spending] under control—eliminating that profligacy—is the only way to get rid of budget deficits, and the elimination of those deficits—not their reduction, but their elimination—is the only way to avoid having to repeatedly increase the amount of our borrowing, the only way to eliminate the “need” to repeatedly raise the debt ceiling….

Eliminating debt ceiling fights should be perfectly straightforward to do. However, those politicians are congenitally incapable of reducing spending. They still can’t even say the words “cut spending.”

Gone is Gone

In the court case that has Disney suing Florida over the State’s cancelation of some Disney-created development deals, Republican Governor Ron DeSantis had moved to force the then-presiding US District (Northern District of Florida) Judge Mark Walker to recuse himself.

Walker had seemingly demonstrated his bias when he remarked in a couple of unrelated cases that the Disney-Florida situation was an example of “state retaliation.”

Walker in the end did recuse himself, but not over his apparent bias. Instead, he raised a separate ethics matter: a close relative owns 30 shares ($2,700 worth at the time) of Walt Disney Company.

The size or dollar amount of the third-degree relative’s financial interest is irrelevant. Even though I believe it is highly unlikely that these proceedings will have a substantial effect on The Walt Disney Company, I choose to err on the side of caution which, here, is also the side of judicial integrity—and disqualify myself.

Whether the reason claimed by Walker for his recusal is rationalization (the appearance of a conflict of interest is small compared to the apparent bias claim) or serious, he’s off the case. And that’s to the net good for the case and for both parties.