Hypocrisy and the GOP: Increasing the Debt Limit

[dwer.livejournal.com]

So right now, the GOP is attempting to shove the US over the cliff of default by refusing to increase the debt limit without massive spending cuts.

Funny, they didn't seem to complain about such things before.

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

Now, I suppose you can make an argument for not increasing the debt limit, although I'm unlikely to agree with you. However, doesn't it bother our conservative friends on this board that this is -clearly- an example of the GOP doing something simply to cause Obama to fail, rather than any actual principles they might allegedly have?

Without raising the debt limit, the US will start to default on debt. That will devalue the dollar, crush confidence in the US both within and outside the country, and therefore impedes our leadership in the world when we're still involved in two wars, have bases around the world, and are participating in more than one "peace-keeping" mission via the UN or NATO. Whether or not those are reasonable things for the US to be doing, we're -already- doing them, and it seems to me that defaulting in the middle of these activities won't be very productive. Will the US be able to sign and ratify treaties? Economic agreements? Will foreign companies continue to invest?

(specific data culled from Think Progress.)

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone with a straight face can say that the GOP really gives a shit about raising the debt ceiling. It's 100% a political move to get cuts. That's how politics work: You filibuster one bill to get what you want for the other, instead of how they are SUPPOSED to work: Each bill is considered based on its own individual merit.

It's also telling that they refuse to let the tax cuts expire but are more than happy to cut entitlements.

As John Kennedy put it, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Since 1995, the total income of the 400 richest Americans has nearly quadrupled, yet the real tax rate they pay has been cut almost in half. America isn't broke – it's simply being gamed by superrich tax dodgers.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Agree 100%.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The most fascinating development: the debt ceiling could be considered unconstitutional, it violates the 14th amendment.

That post-Civil War amendment essentially says the public debts of the U.S. can't be questioned. That post-Civil War amendment essentially says the public debts of the U.S. can't be questioned. The relevant part reads: 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. [1]

The president could also bypass Congress and take other measures to make sure the U.S. doesn't default. And they couldn't do one thing to stop him.

=====================

[1.] NPR: Questions on Debt Ceiling. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/07/01/137549019/debt-ceiling-laws-constitutionality-gets-attention-as-deadline-nears)

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm sure. And, whether they could or could not stop him is likely of little importance, for if it's what's really wanted at the very top, the top above Obama and at the bottom of individual lawmakers' wallets, they won't.

Which is why this, like almost every other US political question or alleged debate, is almost entirely beside the point.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Then the treasury department, which is in charge of such disbursements, should be aware of that if they believe it.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

What does the law authorize in terms of debt spending?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I know this is a stupid question but...

What's the point of having a debt limit if you're just going to keep raising it?

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Obama should go before both chambers of Congress. He should reasonably explain why his words & vote about the debt ceiling as a senator are no longer applicable today. He should explain why spending borrowed money on Afghanistan & Iraq is good today and not back then. Also explain why his stimulus plan failed (according to his own goals). Also would like to hear why he hasn't done more to alleviate the fear of businesses being taxed as to why they're hoarding $2 trillion. Budget cuts MUST happen, so it should be done. Revenue generation DOESN'T have to happen, and thus can be debated later. Both are occurring in most households. The cancer must be removed FIRST.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Budget cuts MUST happen, so it should be done. Revenue generation DOESN'T have to happen, and thus can be debated later.

No.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

My comment is limited only to the observation that as near as I can tell, the US is always going to be "involved in two [or more] wars, have bases around the world, and [be] participating in more than one 'peace-keeping' mission via the UN or NATO," so that much, at least so far as the question of whether or not it is an opportune or inopportune time to default, is entirely immaterial to the discussion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If the debt situation in those years were worse than the situation now, you might have a point. Obama has accelerated the accumulation of debt faster than Bush did, it's very different situation.

With that said, yes, they should have done so earlier. I'm glad they're finally taking a stand now.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Perhaps obama can go before the American people and explain why he is the least transparent president despite his promises. Then he can explain why he has increased the debt faster than any president before him. Then he can explain his partisanship and unwillingness to meet with GOP leaders. And then he can explain his 79 golf outings and over 100 fundraisers. And then he can explain why making changes to his own tax breaks for private planes won't do anything to help the debt. There's much more as well.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Perhaps obama can go before the American people and explain why he is the least transparent president despite his promises.

Needs citation.

Then he can explain why he has increased the debt faster than any president before him.

Because he put out in public what Bush had hidden.

Then he can explain his partisanship and unwillingness to meet with GOP leaders.

His "partisanship"? Is the President to be non-partisan about this now? He's not meeting with GOP leaders because this is a Congressional problem. I realize the GOP wants there to be a fourth branch of the government, but it doesn't work that way in real life.

And then he can explain his 79 golf outings and over 100 fundraisers.

Irrelevant.

nd then he can explain why making changes to his own tax breaks for private planes won't do anything to help the debt.

Needs citation.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Interesting. You're surprised that different situations provoke different responses.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, I'm pointing out hypocrisy.

I can see it now...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

American military personnel will have to hitch rides back from their shuttered bases because the military does not have enough liquid assets to get them home. The situation may even resemble the collapsed Soviet Union with remote bases cut off from news that the government no longer exists. On the upside, this will allow more countries to obtain nuclear materials from black market arm sales, thus democratizing the balance of terror.

Re: You can't argue: it's science.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, I'm pretty much in favor of social programs and keeping the government solvent no matter who is in power. And sure, it's absolutely democratic hypocrisy if they were holding the economy hostage when they did it -- oh, wait.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Well considering Obama's plan to spend, spend, spend the U.S. out of debt didn't work (while continuing to raise the debt ceiling), why not try something different?

By the way, what were the voting records of these four men when the debt ceiling vote came up under the Obama administration (because it has before)?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Obama's plan wasn't aggressive enough, and had too much money put into tax cuts. A real stimulus plan WOULD be something different.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

No one complained when Reagan ran the debt it. No one complained when Bush did the same. Clinton got the budget balanced, with Republican help, or however you want to see it, the budget was balanced. Bush spent us into the ground. Obama is following suit because he assumed it would work once again. Now the Republicans want to say no to just about everything except cuts.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Except military cuts.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

There's way more "I know you are, but what am I?" going on here than usual, and it's a bit wearying.

That goes for pretty much everybody here.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

But to address the actual OP, complaining about hypocrisy is fairly fruitless, because there's no end to the number of times you can point to examples on all sides, and get absolutely nowhere, and every example on the GOP side has a parallel on the Democratic side, Obama included (especially on the issue of the war on terror).

Furthermore, it occupies time better spent on thinking about where to go from here, or the merits or lack thereof of the actual issues at hand. Maybe because its easier to focus on that rather than have the more difficult and substantive conversations. Human minds tend to choose the path of least resistance. Sometimes that's beneficial, but I don't think that's the case when we routinely get hung up in hypocrisy. Yes, it's bad, but it's also heavily distracting. There are no saints in this arena. Repeatedly pointing it out is only going to produce the effect we've seen above. A lot of words and no real substance.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This assumes the Republicans care about fiscal conservatism in any senses beyond mere lip service, an assumption for which evidence is needless to say sorely lacking as much as Democratic commitments to reign in unauthorized wars launched for no real reason or necessity and Democratic commitments to closing down warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Yes, "Everybody does it", so why do we keep getting outraged when it happens? We should be exhausted from the cumulative upset by now. Yet we continually come back to it over and over again, like pointing it out is actually going to amount to more than arguing over which is better: Chocolate or Vanilla. Mushrooms or Pepperoni, or both. Star Wars or Star Trek.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Better to default now than wait till later when things will be worse, I sayy.

They've been promising to reduce spending and engage in higher standards of fiscal responsibility for nearly a decade now.

The dark descent into a financial black hole isn't likely to end without some higher degree of incentive, one might think.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Funny, they didn't seem to complain about such things before."

Yes, and most Heart Attack patients didn't care about their cholesterol level before their heart attack, that doesn't invalidate their concern about it now.

"Now, I suppose you can make an argument for not increasing the debt limit, although I'm unlikely to agree with you. "

I can make a great many, some I buy more than others but you are correct since there is absolutely 0 chance of my changing your or anyone else's minds with them I won't bother.

"However, doesn't it bother our conservative friends on this board that this is -clearly- an example of the GOP doing something simply to cause Obama to fail, rather than any actual principles they might allegedly have?"

False dichotomy, there are many more possible reasons for them to oppose raising the debt limit now than actual principal or the desire to cause Obama to fail. In fact the most likely outcome of their not increasing the debt limit is that it will cost them votes in the general elections because the Democratic party will demagogue the issue (as can be seen by this very post), the most likely realpolitik reason for not approving the debt limit is they know they will very likely be booted out on their asses in the primaries if they do.


"Without raising the debt limit, the US will start to default on debt."

Not necessarily. They could instead choose to immediately and drastically cut spending. The argument that not raising the limit automatically means default is a bald faced lie. It does mean that we will have to either default or make large immediate cuts to programs but the default still remains a choice.


"That will devalue the dollar, crush confidence in the US both within and outside the country, and therefore impedes our leadership in the world when we're still involved in two wars, have bases around the world, and are participating in more than one "peace-keeping" mission via the UN or NATO. Whether or not those are reasonable things for the US to be doing, we're -already- doing them, and it seems to me that defaulting in the middle of these activities won't be very productive. Will the US be able to sign and ratify treaties? Economic agreements? Will foreign companies continue to invest? "

All of this is irrelevant. If the US defaults on it's debt the entire global financial house of cards will come crashing down and everyone will have far bigger concerns than whether to sign a treaty with the US.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

things have changed.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we couldn't take another 4 years of "compassionate conservatism."

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

The GOP is interested in two things, get re-elected and keep the cash flowing in from their big corporate sponsors. End of story.
Oh and if they were really serious about cutting, how about getting us out of 3 wars that we are mired in. You want to talk budget, those are out of control.But that 1000 lb. gorilla is never spoken about.