Obama’s Debt Ceiling Strategy

Pass increased spending and give me more tax revenue.  Period.  Oh, and hands off my pet projects.

The House of Representatives will agree to a debt ceiling increase (want to agree, for good or ill), if President Barack Obama will agree to spending reductions equal to, or greater than, the increase in the ceiling.  Obama says he refuses to negotiate at all on the debt ceiling.  Just raise it.  Or he’ll be forced to shut down the government for lack of borrowing authority.

The House of Representatives, along with a bipartisan collection of Senators, want to reform our tax code and use any increases in tax revenue that might result solely to pay down the national debt (and so to mitigate any future need to raise the debt ceiling anew).  Obama says that tax reform must, by design, result in increased tax revenue, with that increase to be committed solely to support increased spending.  Otherwise, he’ll be forced to shut down the government for lack of revenue.

Many Republicans want to pass a budget for the coming fiscal year, or failing that a Continuing Resolution for the coming months, that contains clauses that defund Obamacare—a program that Obama has already admitted isn’t ready for adult use.  Obama has said he’ll veto such a budget, even if it means he must shut down the government for lack of spending authority or income.

Obama is perfectly willing to shut down the government and blow up our economy if he can’t have all of this.  Not one or two of them—all of them.

That’s the Point

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed concerning the California state government’s response to a state court finding that the state’s high-speed rail authority had violated the 2008 ballot initiative authorizing $10 billion in bonds for the 500-mile train’s initial construction, thereby hamstringing (temporarily) this white bullet train, Allysia Finley quoted Governor Jerry Brown (D) as saying,

It’s not a setback.  As we speak we’re spending money, we’re moving ahead.

Indeed. Isn’t that the point of this project that only a Democrat could love?  To spend money?

An Example

…of why Progressives and private pocketbooks—or public pocketbooks—are a bad mix.  This is former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, in the San Francisco Chronicle, on why public works projects are—deliberately—under costed when they’re foisted off onto the public, us folks who must pay for these things.

News that the Transbay Terminal is something like $300 million over budget should not come as a shock to anyone.

We always knew the initial estimate was way under the real cost.  Just like we never had a real cost for the Central Subway or the Bay Bridge or any other massive construction project.  So get off it.

In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment.  If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved.

The idea is to get going.  Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.

It just doesn’t get much more cynical than that.

 

h/t The Wall Street Journal

Keynesian Stimuli

If the point of Keynesian spending is to inject money into the economy to make up for diminished private demand, then an equally valid Keynesian stimulus would be to reduce taxes and leave the money in the private economy in the first place.

Which, in fact, Keynesians actually recommend: Galbraith, John K, The Great Crash 1929.  And as that Evil Republican (!?) John Kennedy actually did in the early ’60s, that Evil Republican Ronald Reagan did again in the ’80s, and that Evil Republican George Bush the Younger did yet again in the early 2000s.

Spend more, tax less—either one produces the deficit spending that is actually what Keynes thought appropriate.  Except that taxing less—eliminating the government as (inefficient) middleman in the deficit spending—produces the more efficient stimulus, to the extent that government stimulus can have any beneficial effect at all.  And spending more is how politicians buy votes.

Hmm….

Spend, Spend, and Tax

President Barack Obama offered, the other day, a “grand bargain” on taxes and spending that only a Progressive could love.  Obama offered to lower corporate tax rates (so long as he got to delete enough non-“green energy” subsidies to get a net increase in Federal revenues), if only he could use that increase to spend more (and not pay down our Federal deficit).

“I’m just going to keep on throwing ideas out there,” Obama told a crowd of supporters, challenging Republicans to offer counterproposals.

Never mind that those Evil Republicans in the House already have passed a large number of…counterproposals…over the last couple of years.  Those jobs bills, among all the other counterproposals, are languishing in the Democrat-controlled Senate.