Don’t Fear the Debt Ceiling
To average Americans, the debt ceiling controversy sounds like this very frightening thing, in which failure to raise the debt ceiling is equivalent to a default. (Obama has done plenty to equate these two concepts in the public’s mind.)
Nonsense. If Obama defaults it will be by choice. Our tax receipts far outstrip our debt service payments:
IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue.
It’s not that we won’t have money to pay bondholders. It’s that we won’t have money to pay bondholders and maintain government at the bloated, absurd, and unsustainable levels that Barack Obama loves so much.
If we fail to reach a deal on the debt ceiling, Obama might have to make some tough choices about what parts of the government to cut. Government might shrink. (God help us all!) And he doesn’t want it to. He doesn’t want to make tough choices. He doesn’t want to make any choices. He wants to keep on keeping on.
But, although we look like the likely ones to back out of this game of chicken, Obama will have to blink first if we don’t. Because he will not — repeat not — be forced to stop paying bondholders, which would indeed ignite a global panic. If he does that, it will be by choice.
The linked article makes clear that nobody in the bond market thinks there will be a default any time soon:
If the giant bond funds like PIMCO and Blackrock which own hundreds of billions in Treasurys of all maturities were truly concerned about a cataclysmic event like a default, an orderly liquidation of portfolios would already be underway and 10 year rates would be going up and not down. Another barometer of bond market jitters is the interest rate spread between our 10 year Treasury note and the German 10 year bond referred to as the “Bund”. If the world was expecting turmoil in our treasury market then that spread would be expected to widen because investors would sell the falling Treasurys (rates go up) and buy the flight to safety instrument, in this case the Bund’s (rates go down). Over the last couple of weeks that spread has held steady, and in the last three or four sessions it has actually contracted by 6 or 7 basis points. The same exercise with the 10 year British instruments called Gilts yields similar results. A bond trader’s job is to analyze credit, and the markets are speaking loudly that right now there is ZERO worry of a U.S. government debt default.
If people in the know actually believed that Obama would fail to pay bondholders, despite taking in 5.5 times the amount of money he needs to pay the bondholders, U.S bonds would be rated “junk bond” status and giant bondholders would be dumping them. It ain’t happening because we ain’t gonna default.
Which is not to say we won’t hit the debt ceiling. It’s just to say that hitting the debt ceiling and defaulting are not the same thing.
BY THE WAY: One thing I like about the fact that this is coming along at the same time as the shutdown is the amusing way in which the White House’s talking points on the two issues collide. Here is the White House’s principal talking point on the debt ceiling:
- All the debt ceiling does is make it possible to pay for what Congress has already authorized. If Congress doesn’t like all the money that is being spent, maybe Congress should stop spending so much.
And here is the White House’s principal talking point on the shutdown slowdown:
- The House of Representatives must fund the entire government. That is their job. I will not fund only part of the government because Americans should not have to pick and choose. They must fund it all, end of discussion. There will be no negotiation.
No journalist will ever pick up on this rather blatant contradiction. That’s why God created bloggers.
WELL, ISN’T THAT A HOOT: No sooner do I hit publish on this post (which I thought I had published this morning!) than do I see this, which kind of muddles the message of the post a bit: Fidelity sells off short-term government debt.
Isn’t it ironic?!
The point is, this is a vote of “lack of confidence” in Obama, not in Congress. Again, he is taking in multiple times the amount of money he needs to pay this interest. If he doesn’t pay the bondholders, it’s on him.
Why does it seem like so few people are saying this?
Patterico (9c670f) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:53 pmIf Barack the Petulant is late for just one payment to one SocSec recipient, it is all the fault of the TEA Party.
askeptic (2bb434) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:54 pmChase down every last one of them, and bring ropes.
maybe Congress should stop spending so much.
Damn good idea!
askeptic (2bb434) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:55 pmLeave it closed, and no back-pay for the drones.
Only the Daily News is more mendacious then the Times on each shore;
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/todays-ny-times-article-on-debt-default-is-point-blank-incorrect-in-headline-and-substance/
narciso (3fec35) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:02 pmWhy does it seem like so few people are saying this?
Not sure. I have even heard Boehner say things that obscures the reality.
Although it does raise an interesting conundrum-
If Obama refused to pay bondholders, illegally provoking a crisis, would he still be above impeachment???
If he did a EO extending some crisis extra credit line, would anyone stop him?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:11 pmThe debt limit is the moment of truth. That is why I preferred the showdown over that rather than Obamacare. However, the Democrats and Obama have been so petty and nasty in the theater of shutdown, they have nowhere to go unless he thinks he can tell Treasury not to pay interest. I don’t think even Obama voters are that dumb.
MikeK (dc6ffe) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:12 pmAmerica began on January 20, 2009.
Later that month, the Congress began passing laws and spending money.
And every Congress is obligated to honor those laws, and all of that spending. If ensuing Congresses do not, then they are in violation of the Constitution of Obama. And guilty of racism. Or something.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:12 pmIt’s not a contradiction to a mooch. Daddy has to give him the car, and gas money, and the Platinum card.
nk (dbc370) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:20 pmRepublicans may be giving up:
It sounds like Pelosi is on board.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:47 pmFew people in Washington are saying this because they govern by polls, not reason. The recent polls are bad for Obama but slightly worse for the Republicans, and that’s all they see.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 6:49 pmNot increasing the debt ceiling would be one way to do that. It’s not as good as passing a balanced budget, but it would force Barry to live within his means.
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:03 pmFollowing up on my comment #9, I hope the GOP isn’t reacting to recent media polls because I don’t trust them. I believe the media wouldn’t hesitate to fix a poll to make the GOP look bad.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:46 pmAmericans should have to pick and choose
being fat and stupid is not an acceptable excuse for to not make responsible choices
happyfeet (8ce051) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:22 pmThere has not been a budget for four years… US Senate last passed a budget was on April 29, 2009 (late). The only limits on spending (apparently) would be to not increase the debt ceiling.
In California, Prop 13 was a way to limit state/local government spending (no other voter limits stuck prior to that). And since Prop 13, the government powers have been funding spending by taking out loans on every piece of government property/revenue they could.
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac/debtdata/totals.asp
Even if there was a “hard debt limit”… I am sure some “smart” politicians will be able to work around such a limit (again).
BfC (a1cf00) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:25 pmAnother GOP solution from the Denver Post:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:30 pmThese people can’t see past the latest poll. Nobody is looking at the big picture. Even if Obama did default, so what? We’re going to default sooner or later anyway. Why not bite the bullet now?
Patterico (9c670f) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:40 pmThe Social Security fear-mongering is just that as well. Now that the 2% tax break is history, the FICA tax more than covers all payouts. Clearly, unless the administration borrows money that is due SS beneficiaries, there is no danger of them missing a check.
Since a debt limit freeze scenario means that the general fund can no longer borrow from anyone, that would seem to indicate that even borrowing from SS is halted. To take money from the trust fund under those conditions would be embezzling, not borrowing.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:48 pmThe Republicans in Congress don’t want to lose their jobs, so putting this problem off for another 1, 3 or 5 years is desirable. Of course, most of us would hate to lose our jobs bit we don’t have jobs where we’re supposed to put our constituents’ interests before our own.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:01 pmOver 9 trillion of the 11 trillion public debt is in short and mid-term securities.
But such short-term rates are volitile. Suppose the doubled or tripled in the next few years? Tripling the interest from $300 billion to $900 billion would have the exact same effect as balancing the budget would today: $600 billion in cuts or new taxes.
And of course in that scenario, you have to cut $1.2 trillion to get to even.
But why worry? That’s tomorrow, not today!
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:02 pmWe’re going to default sooner or later anyway.
Hunh? I don’t see it as mandatory. If we never borrowed again, stating today, we would not default. There would be serious serious pain, but there would be another side, too. And we would not default.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:04 pmThis debt limit needs more cowbell.
htom (412a17) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:08 pmThere is one problem that neither the Republicans or the Democrats are talking about. And while it is absolutely true that we can service the debt with current revenue, that is sort of a fib by omission.
Since 1935, the Social Security administration has taken in taxes from employees, self-employed individuals and employers. They payed out what needed to be paid out in benefits. The rest of the cash was given to Congress and Congress gave Social Security a special bond which Social Security placed in its “trust fund”. There is no actual cash in the trust fund, just a pile of these IOUs from Congress.
Now Social Security is running cash negative. So Social Security must present these bonds to Congress for payment in order to make up the difference to pay out retirement and disability benefits in excess of Social Security taxes collected. Right now we have record numbers of Americans going on disability and retiring while we have a declining percentage of workforce participation among those of working age.
Now, when Social Security presents one of those bonds, Congress must pay it out of any budget surplus it might have (which it doesn’t right now) or they must borrow the money to pay it (pay one credit card by borrowing from another).
We have enough to service our debts but not enough to service all our debts AND redeem Social Security trust fund bonds because we would have to issue new debt to pay those. Or we could pay Social Security and default on SOME of the debt interest payments. Or we could service all the debt and default on some social security or disability benefits.
We just don’t have enough tax revenue right now to service both all of our debt and all of the social security trust fund bonds that are being redeemed. But wait, it gets worse. If we DO default, it would mean that interest rates for US debt would go up meaning it makes the debt burden even worse making default even more likely. So to prevent that from happening, the federal reserve has been printing dollars and using it to buy treasury debt. That is called “monetizing the debt” or “quantitative easing”. If the fed stops that policy, the treasury would have to sell that debt on the open market. In order to get enough people to buy that debt, the interest rates would have to rise. The reason the federal reserve is buying that debt is to artificially keep interest rates down so we can afford to service the debt.
But what neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are saying is that we are in one hell of a jam here. We can’t afford a deflationary economy and we can’t allow interest rates to rise. We can’t pay off both our treasury and social security debt because the numbers on social security are climbing rapidly. Look at the birth rate for 1948. It was when the baby boom was really starting to ramp up. We are just now at the start of a huge retirement boom and the Democrats are going to have to start figuring out a way to snuff old people or they are in deep do do.
crosspatch (f08108) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:16 pmNice headline; don’t fear the reaper either.
AZ Bob (c99389) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:17 pmIn other words, it is the rapid growth of Social Security payouts combined with a decline in people working that is going to hammer us. So the Democrats have to figure out a way to decrease the payout. The way to do that is kill old people (indirectly by limiting their health care choices) and taking half their estates with the death tax.
crosspatch (f08108) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:20 pmUnder my plan of a cap and trade, energy prices will necessarily SKY ROCKET…..
What did we expect.
Gus (70b624) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:25 pmAnd then there is this: Of the 963,000 new jobs this year, 97% are part-time.
Another proud moment for the President and his apologists.
Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:29 pmI’m not sure what it means but this is interesting: Following up on my comment #9, Obama invited all the GOP members in the House to come to the White House, but Boehner decided to only bring some of the members.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:37 pmThis doesn’t sound like the John McCain who called Ted Cruz a wacko bird:
Is McCain mellowing or did he hear from some constituents? I think I’ll go with the latter.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:53 pmObama wanted to exploit divisions in the GOP caucus. Boehner wasn’t falling for the divide and conquer trick, DRJ.
That was the same reason he invited those “conservative” journalists. Looks like the charm offensive worked with Kirsten Powers.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/extremely-conservative-and-incredibly-out-of-touch.html
Obama is trying to peel people off.
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:55 pmThat may be true but I bet Boehner isn’t taking the Tea Party conservatives, so who will represent their interests?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:59 pmMy mistake. It was Kathleen Parker at the meeting, not Kirten Powers.
I always get those two confused.
But still the point stands. Obama thought he could do an end run around Boehner. Sort of isolate him, within the caucus and within the conservative media.
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:59 pmIn other words, it is better or worse if Boehner does Obama’s ‘divide and conquer’ work for him?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:00 pmI don’t fear divisions in the GOP caucus. We disagree and everyone knows it, and trying to act like it doesn’t exist isn’t helpful.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:01 pmDemanding purity of loyalty to the GOP leadership is what ruined this party. Being honest about the limitations and contradictions and mistakes is the only way the GOP could ever hope to reestablish itself.
It’s not a secret that the GOP could do with some improvement.
The greatest ally Obama has is those who have weakened his opposition party from within with their hostility to conservatives motivated by love of country rather than partisan loyalty.
Obama would not have been reelected had the GOP acted like it wasn’t ashamed of conservatism, and nominated someone who had a record of succeeding with conservatism. There is some denial about this and I think it’s only natural to be in denial about one’s responsibility for such a terrible thing.
Dustin (303dca) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:10 pmI’m not saying he would peel anyone off.
He’d lie and say he did. This meeting is all for show. The WH has already said that Obama won’t negotiate until the House surrenders control over borrowing and spending to the President. But of course after that there’s nothing to talk about.
But after the meeting Obama would give a speech about how a majority of Republicans agree with him but they’re held hostage to a small group of extremists and Rush Limbaugh.
This denies Obama the opportunity for the photo-op.
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:17 pmObama is a clown. When he tells me to dance, I tel him to fu@k himself.
Gus (70b624) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:17 pmThis is what I’m talking about.
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:19 pmYes Steve, Obama is a clown. Carney is his bitch.
Gus (70b624) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:26 pmObama would not have been reelected had the GOP acted like it wasn’t ashamed of conservatism
Dustin, I totally sympathize with your exasperation over previous and current political/party trends. But just as was the case with the debating points expressed by Steve57 awhile back regarding Edward Snowden — in which I couldn’t disagree one iota with most of Steve57’s observations — my heart (or passion) nonetheless just wasn’t in it.
What I mean is that just as I found it very difficult to separate Snowden from the context of a US government that has become increasingly philosophically idiotic and corrupt, I find it difficult to separate the Republican Party from the context of an American populace that has allowed nonsensical liberalism to metastasize further and further.
Regrettably, bad politicians and bad policies — and dumb socio-political trends — to me are merely a larger reflection of all the people we know personally who are of the left or are squishy “centrists.” And with very few exceptions, most of us are all quite well acquainted with such people in our immediate lives.
Simply put, when a sizable percentage of the American public — based on recent polls — still blames George W Bush (far more than Obama) for today’s economic problems, that is the crux of the problem.
Mark (58ea35) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:39 pmNow Social Security is running cash negative.
This is not true. They were running cash negative in because of the 2% drop in the FICA tax, but that is now over and they have positive cash flow.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:23 pmSocial security data recent and projected.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:24 pmThere is no actual cash in the trust fund, just a pile of these IOUs from Congress.
Guess what? There is no cash in any bank, just a pile of IOUs there too. You could argue that SS should be investing its money in corporate bonds and such instead, which might pay better interest. But Obama would have it all in Solyndra bonds, so I’m fine with this.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:27 pm#40
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:28 pminYes Kevin, agreed, it’s a lot better than letting Obama invest.
Still, the “IOU”s in the SS fund are different from the “IOU”s in the bank. Special issue treasury bonds. I.E. promises from the US government to pay itself.
At least banks have capital requirements, so they have to have “IOU”s that are more diversified. Cash, government securities, Mortgage loans, etc.
Not every government is going to default. And sure, the guy with the mortgage loan may not pay but at least the bank winds up owning the house.
I guess that’s why I feel better with my money in the bank than in Social Security.
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:53 pmSteve,
There are many better investments than social security. All I’m saying is that Obama is attempting to scare old people with lies. It ain’t going bust any time soon, debt limit or no debt limit.
And in fact, if there was a frozen debt limit, they would have to buy outstanding debt with the cash flow surplus.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/10/2013 @ 12:22 amMark, there’s certainly a lot foolish about the public giving Obama a break but being harder on Bush. Yet why not blame Bush for our economic problems? Why not blame every politician who grew our government in size, power, intrusiveness, and debt? I do.
Obviously Obama’s spending and his budget-free first term and the job killing Obamacare have done far more damage than Bush’s deficits (I think Bush’s averaged about 150 billion before Pelosi ran the House). No question in my mind. But Bush and Delay and Frist’s deficits are what gave birth to the Tea Party with proto groups like Porkbusters.
What I’m really trying to say is that I see a lot of folks who draw political battle lines on partisan grounds instead of policy. For example, defending Bush and criticizing Obama, instead of criticizing big government and debt.
And of course I wonder why in the world Obama was able to win a national election, let alone fail for one term and get reelected during hard economic times. How does that happen? Well, as I said above, Obama’s greatest ally is the corrosion of the GOP’s purpose.
Imagine if instead of compassionate conservatism, Bush acted like conservatism did not require this ‘compassionate’ qualifier. That Bush was unashamed of the results of limited government. Imagine if Bush and Delay and Frist balanced the budget every year they had the power to. Instead of security theater they honored liberty. Instead of lobbyists they gave us a truly fair tax code and stayed out of the way of everything they could possibly stay out of the way of.
Had they run the government that way, I am quite sure that the democrats would have been able to gain power anyway at some point. Limited government is in some ways the harder path, as politicians lose much of the ability to promise things for votes and donations.
Yet, long term, imagine the contrast the GOP could present to the American people. A clear one. Because they do not, we do not get a clear democratic choice.
Who did I have to vote for if I opposed the individual mandate as a tyranny? By the time the primary got to my state I had Newt, Romney, and Santorum to choose from (Santorum, then, but he was not really viable). That’s the menu the GOP offered me. No wonder I’m looking for other options.
You have identified the crux of the problem as the people being ignorant or having the wrong priorities (I think this is what you mean). Fair enough. But no wonder they are so confused. The debate between the party of liberty and balanced budgets vs the party of Big Brother and debt never actually happened. The arguments for and against were not realized. Thanks *entirely* to the RINO wing.
Dustin (303dca) — 10/10/2013 @ 12:57 am37. Precious relished the expectation of ripping the Frosh new ones and nasty Mr. Scratch Score deprived him of a simple pleasure.
“Curse God and die.”
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/10/2013 @ 2:05 amOdd and odder:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/10/obamas-fundraising-websites-processed.html
So you really think the Lord of the Flies could be embarrassed? Think about that, what does shame require?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/10/2013 @ 2:16 amOr we default because we’re not set up to prioritize bond payments and we screw up the plan to make them on time. Would a short glitch count as a default?
time123 (03e182) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:00 amAlso, what’s the legal authority for the White house to decide who gets paid and how? I figure if this does happen BO will start running the country via Executive Order. He’ll decide what he will fund and won’t. He’ll base most of his decisions on the politics of it. The GOP will scream on Fox news and fund raise off of and claim the moral high ground and not fix anything. It’s depressing.
But he’s not going to make the granular decision himself. That will be delegated down. Do we trust to the judgment and discretion of the department heads and middle managers? Have we trained these people in how to do this? I’m pretty sure they haven’t run drills and put together policy on how they’ll handle this scenario. It would have made too much sense for the white house to come right out and say “If the debt limit isn’t passed here’s our plan B.”
I don’t think my concerns are trivial. There are a lot of moving parts that have to come together for this to work and I’ve never been really impressed by the ingenuity of government employees.
I know the Senate passed some crappy budget back in March. I know the house passed some differently crappy budget. Why haven’t they pulled together a conference committee and just figured this out already?
I don’t think Obama would have a problem with default per se. He has shown zero or less interest (no pun intended) in paying off the debt, ever. He probably views default as a super way to spread the wealth around.
I think the only reason why he will not default is that the creditors aren’t all in yet.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:08 amWe have got to wake up. These people view theft as a moral imperative. Lying too, but that’s more obvious.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:16 amhttp://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-obama-blockade.html
narciso (3fec35) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:17 amIf Fidelity has sold off short term debt due for payout in October and November, then someone else had to buy it. That means that someone out there knows that he’s going to get paid — perhaps a few days late — and was able to pick up the debt instruments at a bargain price.
The investment banker Dana (3e4784) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:18 amThat’s interesting, because Soros increased his stake in Lehman, righr before it fell.
narciso (3fec35) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:39 amOne last thought on this:
Suppose a Republican president (e.g. Rand Paul) wanted to cut the budget drastically but could not the cuts past a Senate filibuster. So he waits for the debt limit thing to come up and then vetoes any increase. Once the limit is reached, he then has the ability to “prioritize” expenditures to avoid default.
Whaddatheygonnado? Impeach him?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/10/2013 @ 8:26 amIf it was a Dem House and Senate, then Yes, they would: Impeach, and Convict!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/10/2013 @ 8:36 am22. crosspatch
If this is not clear to you, Social Security held bonds already count toward the debt limit.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/07/social-security-debt-ceiling-and-obama.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458294273264416.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 8:55 amComment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/10/2013 @ 8:26 am
Suppose a Republican president (e.g. Rand Paul) wanted to cut the budget drastically but could not the cuts past a Senate filibuster. So he waits for the debt limit thing to come up and then vetoes any increase. Once the limit is reached, he then has the ability to “prioritize” expenditures to avoid default.
That’s why you really don’t want to give 100% discretion to a president, but the Republicans aren’t worried about this now.
Whaddatheygonnado? Impeach him?
Override the veto, if they can. In the case of someone like Rand Paul, he’d probably pick things to cut so that such a veto would be overridden.
Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 9:00 amComment by time123 (03e182) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:00 am
Would a short glitch count as a default?
Yes, unless the glitch was overcome before the start of the next business day and the payment attributed to the business day on which it was due.
Also, what’s the legal authority for the White house to decide who gets paid and how?
A lot of spending doesn’t have a specific due date.
Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 9:07 am49. Comment by time123 (03e182) — 10/10/2013 @ 6:00 am
I know the Senate passed some crappy budget back in March. I know the house passed some differently crappy budget. Why haven’t they pulled together a conference committee and just figured this out already?
Because the Republican leadership in the House belatedly realized that the Democratic plan would be to offer resolutions instructing the House conferees how to vote on the House floor.
These resolutions require only amajorty vote and must be held.
Paul Ryan, instead wanted to negitiate privately with the Senate in a “pre-conference”
The Senate Budget Democrats refused to do that, and neither the House nor the Senate has appointed any conferees, the House because the House Republican leadership wants to negotiate in a way where an appeal cannot be taken to the House floor (it still could, of course, but they;d be breaking their word) and the Senate because Republicans in the Senate are filibustering to prevent the appointment of conferees until the House is ready.
That’s my best take on the situation at this point.
Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 9:11 amRe #46 – Comment by Dustin (303dca) to #39 comment by Mark (58ea35) “… Simply put, when a sizable percentage of the American public — based on recent polls — still blames George W Bush (far more than Obama) for today’s economic problems, that is the crux of the problem. …” re Bush being a phony conservative, joining the Libs in feeling & emoting instead of thinking & reasoning, see:
Review of the book FAKING IT: The Sentimentalisation of Modern Society from The Daily Telegraph, April 17, 1998
A new ingredient is dominating modern politics and cultures. It largely explains the rise of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair’s spin-and-gesture politics. It accounts for the changes in matters as diverse as health, schooling and environmentalism. Above all, it is the flavour that dominated the extraordinary events around the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales; events that were somehow a defining point of the new Britain. It is the rise of sentimentality. A book published today, Faking It, charts the march of sentimentality through the institutions of modern society.
That funeral itself provides a suitable basis for an initial exploration of sentimentality. In the “mob grief” at the Princess’s funeral, sentimentality was personified and canonized. It displayed the elevation of feelings above reason, reality and restraint. This sentimentality is, in its scope and intensity, a new phenomenon. Traditionally, movements in politics and cultures have been explained by changes either in “ideas” or “interests”. Government policies change because politicians have new or different ideals, arguments and analyses. Or because they represent or are captured by an interest group – such as the business interest, the union interest, the intellectual class interest. Cultures too – attitudes and habits about health, food, education, music, animals – until recently have been explained by changing ideas and interest.
But, increasingly, modern societies are dominated by something quite different – by feelings. And not deep, committed feelings, but displays of feelings. Sentimentality is about public demonstration of feelings. And that includes feelings people do not, in fact have. Politicians are concerned with what sounds good, what looks good, with what will play well, rather than with reality. Clintonism and Blairism are media-led politics: the politics of affect, not effect.
In our attitudes to culture, too, we are concerned with what feels good rather than what is good. So there are schools that make lots of reassuring warm noises about caring for children, but have little real education within them. They operate with a view of children as innocents who ought to be indulged with play, allowed to find themselves and their esteem bolstered, whether they have done anything worthy of esteem or not. It is at odds with the reality, which is that children have a potential for good and for evil, and need firm discipline and judgment. But then it is the hallmark of sentimentality that it denies, and runs away from, reality, especially the more unpleasant realities of a fallen human nature.
This sort of reality denial exists in our attitudes to health. Mainstream medicine in modern society is more science-based than ever before. Never before have the doctor’s diagnosis and treatment been so firmly based in scientifically established reality, in biology and chemistry. Yet never before have so many patients been unwilling to accept unpleasant verdicts from their doctors. Instead they run off to someone – anyone – among the “alternative” quacks and counsellors who will give them happier, if bogus, news. It is the mark of the adult to accept authoritative bad news and bear it with fortitude. Today’s patient tries to deny it – and even to persuade himself that denying it is brave.
Health behaviour shows another feature of sentimentality, which is the indulgence of feelings. The contemporary generation is healthier and longer lived than any previous one. Is it grateful for lives painless and long to a degree undreamt of by its ancestors? Is it content? On the contrary, it is obsessed with health. It constantly casts around, suspicious of which food, which pleasure, which activity might threaten so much as a few days of its interminable life. Its prime topic of conversation is its own health.
If we can’t tell genuine health prospects form self-indulgent obsessions, it is because sentimentality is generally useless at distinguishing the real from the fake. There are fake churches to join, fake politics and fake schools. The modern church certainly looks like a church. It has a cross on top, altars, services and all the external paraphernalia of Christianity. But it is largely empty of doctrine, tradition and rules. Empty a religion doctrine, tradition and rules and what is left is sentimentality. Doctrine, tradition and rules direct the worshipper away from self and to what has been established and to God – a loving but also a judgmental God. The modern worshipper does not want to look to God but to self. He does not want judgment, or to feel the fear of God, but to be affirmed, to feel good about himself, to be hugged by his neighbour.
Sentimentality will sustain an institution that has been intellectually discredited. The Left now accepts, as well as the Right, that the giant welfare system is not a welfare system. It does not provide welfare, but a dependency trap to those in need. It undermines self-respect and responsibility that are indispensable if men are to be “well”. The facts are there. But the system goes on, sustained by sentimentalist, apparently compassionate talk. Compassion, if it is genuine, must be grounded in reality, not just in good intentions, still less in a show of good intentions. But no one dares appear compassionless.
Look at these contemporary institutions, and at others: the self-indulgent romanticism of the environmental movement, which denies the realities of material progress. Or examine the omission of facts and trends in the base mass media in favor of sloppy and unrepresentative “human interest stories”. In all these, you see the many faces of sentimentality. You see escapism from reality, a childish petulance that wants things to be as they “should” be, you see narcissism and show. And sentimentality is even worse in what it drives our. It drives out a respect for truth and reality, an admission of the waywardness of man and the need for reason and restraint.
Sentimentality confronts conservative-minded people in particular with the crucial temptation. Today, it wins elections and sways the people. Diana’s funeral showed the sheer mass attraction of sentimentality. The modern media work on sentimentality; and conservatives need the media. Yet sentimentality is the enemy of everything conservatism stands for. It political and cultural conservatives join in an competition to be sentimental, they will surely destroy their own cause.
________________________________________________
FAKING IT: The Sentimentalisation of Modern Society (1998)
Penguin Books by Digby Anderson and Peter Mullen
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Faking-Sentimentalization-Digby-C-Anderson/dp/0140280731
Gary L. Zerman (b59f48) — 10/10/2013 @ 9:23 am24. Comment by crosspatch (f08108) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:20 pm
In other words, it is the rapid growth of Social Security payouts combined with a decline in people working that is going to hammer us.
Not true, really. The really problem is Medicare and Medicaid, which are in turn caused by a health care inflation, and waste, fraud and abuse.
Social Security should be OK if economic growth gets back to where it should be.
Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba) — 10/10/2013 @ 9:27 amMedicare and Medicaid were major causes of health care inflation, waste, fraud and abuse. Just wait until you see what effect Obamacare has.
As far as economic growth getting “back to where it should be,” I’ve always wondered what planet Finkelman looked like.
As far as Obama is concerned, this is it. Otherwise you might be able to heat your homes, drive your SUVs, and eat what you want.
Steve57 (51ff17) — 10/10/2013 @ 9:57 amComment by Gary L. Zerman (b59f48) — 10/10/2013 @ 9:23 am
Never heard of the book, then again there are many great books I haven’t heard of.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/10/2013 @ 9:58 amBut very thoughtful commentary.
I never stopped to think of the funeral of Princess Diana as a major commentary on the affairs of the world, but I guess it was a group mourning that fairy tales of “happily ever after” aren’t true.
Senate Republicans are not happy with Boehner’s clean debt ceiling proposal and are initiating talks with Senate Democrats:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/10/2013 @ 7:30 pmIt’s not that we won’t have money to pay bondholders. It’s that we won’t have money to pay bondholders and maintain government at the bloated, absurd, and unsustainable levels that Barack Obama loves so much.
Right. Whereas the GOP are all about trimming the big three (defense, Medicare, and Social Security). You would certainly never hear them accuse a Democrat of cutting Medicare, because that would be philosophically inconsistent. Cutting Medicare in some form or other is necessary, under their view. Yup.
If we fail to reach a deal on the debt ceiling, Obama might have to make some tough choices about what parts of the government to cut. Government might shrink. (God help us all!) And he doesn’t want it to. He doesn’t want to make tough choices.
How is it his job to make those choices, and not the job of Congress? Has it secretly been the job of every president to overrule prior appropriations until the spending is reasonable, and they’ve all just shirked that particular responsibility?
And can you really imagine Obama making some magical combination of choices in cutting that Republicans wouldn’t rail against? That’s the beauty of the GOP’s failure to commit to specifics on “cutting spending”. Maybe if Obama went with the Ryan plan, they would accept it. Maybe. Except I doubt even the Ryan plan is as small as total-revenue-minus-payment-to-bondholders. So he’ll still have to make a choice, and no matter what choice he makes, Republicans have already established their opposition to it.
I can already hear Tea Partiers saying “Well of course Obama limited grandma’s Medicare, isn’t that just like a socialist? We need to de-socialize the government completely, that’ll make Medicare available forever!” Ditto anything else. I’ll bet they’d even make an excellent argument against a proposal I’ve seen floating around, eliminating the Department of Education. They’d call it retaliation for No Child Left Behind or something.
That leaves Obama with eliminating the EPA. Oh, hey, I’ll bet that saves us the whole three trillion! Hooray!
So what do I seriously believe? I believe debt can be a serious problem but right now it’s not nearly the priority some people think. We simply don’t have a present debt crisis, and using the debt ceiling to “solve” it is insane. We don’t even need a debt ceiling at all, it doesn’t actually add to the process.
Chris Morrow (58780a) — 10/11/2013 @ 8:39 amAmericans needs a debt ceiling because they are a whorish and profligate people with little discipline and even less good sense
happyfeet (8ce051) — 10/11/2013 @ 8:44 amTackle appropriations and funding line by line, morrow, that’s what they have the app committees for. Obama and the Dems want all or nothing because that is the only way to hide the non-essentials, bureaucratic bloat and waste of taxpayer money from the American people.
Colonel Haiku (eacb1f) — 10/11/2013 @ 8:53 amThe only thing Dems are serious about is growing the size and reach of The State.
Colonel Haiku (eacb1f) — 10/11/2013 @ 8:55 amShorter Chris Morrow: This speeding car needs no brakes.
What is this? Nascar?
felipe (70ff7e) — 10/11/2013 @ 8:55 amPromises that can’t be kept won’t be. The Dems want to bleed the host dry, it’s their nature.
Colonel Haiku (eacb1f) — 10/11/2013 @ 8:58 amI should have used blockquote before and not “quote” as the boxes here lead me to assume; sorry about that.
felipe: The speeding car analogy is almost perfect, thank you. Say there’s a general consensus that it’s dangerous to travel at 300MPH, but we’re doing that now anyway. The debt-ceiling “solution” is to simply hit the brakes. Then we won’t be traveling at 300MPH, anymore, so we’d be safe, right?
Or, we could slow our speed by throwing some of the passengers (mainly old people) in front of the car. I’m sure the voters will understand why it was necessary, why we couldn’t have let them out earlier with an apology that we can’t afford to take them to their destinations.
Anything, anything but easing off the gas. That means getting into nasty specifics, figuring out who gets out of the car when, and which tanks need filling. (Somehow the car has multiple tanks.)
Everyone: I’m still curious if you think it’s possible for the executive branch to make any combination of cutting decisions that the GOP would generally be happy with. Imagine that you could directly control Obama’s actions for the next month. What would you do that the GOP would approve of? I just don’t see any consensus there.
Chris Morrow (58780a) — 10/11/2013 @ 10:48 amReally beneficial….look frontward to returning.
Go Here (8414de) — 10/17/2013 @ 9:22 pmMorrow, you are a dishonest troll. Your belief that there is nothing that can be done is simply fatuous nonsense. But indicative of the utter refusal of Democrats to act like adults.
SPQR (768505) — 10/17/2013 @ 9:25 pm