Category Archives: morality

Debt Default Redux

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) continuing his meme of refusing to negotiate, says

We not only have a shutdown, but we have the full faith and credit of our nation before us in a week or ten days[.]

Never mind that this could have been settled much earlier in the year, but for Democrats’ and President Barack Obama’s intransigence:

Reid and other Democrats blocked numerous attempts…to approve House-passed bills reopening portions of the government.

And there’s that whole “Presidential” series of “veto threats against GOP spending bills” thing.  The “GOP” part is the kicker.

In the end, it’s clear that, having gotten the government shutdown for which the Democrats have fought so hard, they’re now bent on default.

Again, I ask, why?  I also ask against this backdrop: from Section 8 of our Constitution we have

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….

Paying the national debt isn’t just one of only three purposes for which the Federal government is permitted to “lay and collect Taxes;” it’s the first purpose.

And from the 14th Amendment we have

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 Federal government collects in tax revenue roughly 10 times the amount of money required to make the payments on the national debt as they come due.  Suggesting that that’s in danger, that debt default is a risk, is dishonest.

Make It Burn

Posted on by
Reply

Make the Federal government’s “shutdown” burn as many Evil Republicans as possible.  Use the Federal parks, among other government tools, to do this.

President Barack Obama’s Federal Park Service has closed all of our nation’s parks.  No one is allowed in.  Three come to mind as illustrations.  The War Memorial in DC is one, closed to our WWII veterans who wanted to visit it, in part as part of their annual Honor Flight proceedings.  However, just as they did other barriers on the north coast of France some 70 years ago, these veterans stormed the Democrats’ domestic barriers with the aid of some of those Evil Republican Congressmen and went in, anyway, and had their planned visits.  Over several days.

The Obama Park Closure also includes Mt Rushmore, which is closed.  South Dakota’s Governor Dennis Daugaard (R) offered to use state employees to keep Mount Rushmore open.  No.  Sit down, and shut up, Republican.

The Grand Canyon also is closed by the Obama Park action.  Governor Jan Brewer (R) also offered to use state assets, including state funding, to reopen and keep open the Grand Canyon.  Local businesses have committed private moneys—some $350,000—to pay for operating the Grand Canyon.  Some 2,200 people have been furloughed by this closure, and not just park employees: nearby hotel employees and those of other nearby businesses that rely on Grand Canyon tourism included in that number.

The Feds’ answer to Arizona’s offer, including private money?  No.  Sit down, and shut up.

During the government “shutdown” in 1995, the Feds accepted Arizona’s money to the tune of $17,000 per day to support keeping the Grand Canyon open.  Not this time.

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin (R) wonders

Why wouldn’t the federal government let local communities or states assist in keeping some of these things open?

Tusayan (a town near the Grand Canyon and one which has committed $200,000 to support operations in a reopened Grand Canyon) Mayor Greg Bryan asks

If it is a policy, we need to ask, when did it take place?  When was it put into place?  It was obviously not in place in 1995 when the funds were provided[.]

I wonder.  I also note that the Obama Democrats in the Senate voted down, at the end of the week, a House bill that would have funded the Parks Service, even though, in accordance with those Democrats’ diktat, this bill included no other items—it was a “clean” bill, as demanded.

Debt Default

Posted on by
Reply

One of President Barack Obama’s reasons for refusing to negotiate his demand to raise the debt ceiling centers on his premise that the debt ceiling is about existing debt obligations, not future ones.  He’s right, in a limited way.  What he chooses to elide in that, though, is that existing debt exists because of past spending exceeding past revenues: see, for instance, his Stimulus Bill in 2009; his trillion-dollar deficit budget offerings in each year of his administration; the Democrat-run Senate’s refusal even to consider a budget until this year, with that budget offer containing billions of dollars in deficit; and the government’s continued spending in excess of revenue, even in the absence of a budget.

Of course spending reductions need to be part of the present debt ceiling raise negotiations—that’s the only way to reduce/eliminate future borrowing (and on the side, to reduce/eliminate the need for future debt ceiling raises).

There’re plenty of Federal revenues coming in with which to pay the Federal government’s borrowings and to keep those debts current.  That was the case in 2011, when the Obama administration and Senate Democrats tried to mislead us about debt “default,” and it’s the case today, even though we’re two years further into Obama’s failed recovery.

The Democrats in this government threatening default if the Republicans and Conservatives don’t agree to lift it without spending limits are

a)    deliberately dishonest in their misleading claims about “default”
b)    breathtakingly ignorant about meaning of defaulting on borrowings
c)     holding our economy—and us Americans who exist within it—hostage against their getting their own way

Or all three.

But Obama, his Senate Majority Leader, and the latter’s seconds and deputies all refuse to negotiate.  Again.

Government Funding

Posted on by
1

When I got up this morning, I found in my inbox the following email (reprinted in its entirety, including the link he provided for his short floor speech) from Senator Mike Lee (R, UT).  He makes some valid points; please read his email carefully.  After that, I have a couple of minor points.

We shouldn’t have to fund everything in order to fund anything

Why won’t Democrats take “yes” for an answer on Vet funding

Today, in an effort to move forward and end the government shutdown, I asked for the Senate to pass a bill that had already been passed by the House to fund veterans’ benefits.  The motion was quickly shot down by Democrats who provided little explanation for their opposition to funding veterans’ benefits.

Following proper regular order, Congress would vote on and ultimately approve a dozen or so separate, segmented appropriations measures to fund each area within the federal government.  Each program or function area would have to stand on its own merits in order to get funded.  In a big government that spends between $3.5 and $4 trillion a year, and it’s important that we break spending decisions into pieces.  Unfortunately, over the last 4 1/2 years, we’ve been funding government on the basis of back-to-back continuing resolutions. The problem with these measures is that they basically require us to fund everything or fund nothing at all.

The Republicans in the House of Representatives are quite wisely saying that we should start funding bills within those areas where there is broad-based bipartisan consensus.  I agree  that we should immediately start funding the government in those areas where there is obvious and overwhelming support including programs like veterans’ services, national parks, cancer research, and the National Guard and Reserves.

Republicans and Democrats came together in the House and approved bills overwhelmingly. I think we owe it to the country to show that we can do the same thing in the Senate.  In a matter of hours the vast majority of the government could be funded.  It was the president himself who asked Congress to fund a list of priorities in a speech to the nation a few days ago.The House of Representatives has courageously delivered a series of bills that will do exactly what the president asked.  Now President Obama and Democrats in the Senate are having a hard time taking “yes” for an answer.

I continue to work around the clock with my staff and my colleagues in both houses of Congress to fund the government and protect the people from the harmful effects of Obamacare.  I am confident we can do what is best for Utahns and for the future of our country.

Now, my lesser points.  First, finally, Republicans are talking to us directly.  This is good.  Second, look at the tone of his email, and compare it with the tone of the emails many of you may have gotten from Democrats—usually fund-raisers (none of that in Lee’s email).  If not, the folks at Power Line get missives from Democrats and reprint them.  Which party actually is making an argument for their case, and which cannot and so is limited simply to attacking the other party?