Debt Ceiling: Lies, Trruth and Solutioin (Blog Solution Shown To Be Correct)

One of the many mainstream media LIES out there is that we "have" to raise the debtg ceiling because we have already spent the money. Now that is not true. If we had "spent" the money, then we would already have violated the debt ceiling. Congress could rescind the spendng authorization for money not yet spent. But that is a little lie. The Big Lie (Orwellian whopper) comes abut because Obama is NOT askind for just enough money to get through the end of this fiscal year--to pay for spending Congress has already approved. That would take only $250 billion--300 billion at the outside. Obama is requesting that the debt ceiling be raised by 2.4 or 2.5 TRILLION dollars. In other words, Congress has not yet directed the spending of more than TWO TRILLION dollars of the proposed rasie in the debt ceiling. That means that the mainstream media/leftists are at least TWO TRILLION DOLLAR LIARS> This "issue' only arises because the spending bills--that is, the one massive continuing resolutioin, which is a defaault of propper government in itself--for this fiscal year has authorized spending through September 30. It is only because the fscal year does not correspond to the debt limit "deadline" (August 2, and not September 30) that this "issue" of lpaying for spending already authorized arises. (Spending bills---appropriations bills--for NEXT fiscal year, begining on October 1, SHOULD have been already passed, but have not been--even though "the law" requires it.)


If you read this blog, you know my solution to the whole problem. One of the problems here, and the reason (take my word for this) that Republican politicians are not jumping on my solutoion, is that Republicans (not Michele Bachmann or a few like her) vote for spending bills that REQUIRE a raise in the debt limit. Then those same Republicans oject to a raise in the debt limit. That is "politics as uusal", but it is no longer acceptable (if it ever was). Democrats and the mainstream media are, of curse, even more dishonest and hypocritical (read the first paragraph of this article again). This blog has proposed a simple solutioin that would expose all of these disonest hypocrites from who they are. It would let the public know what is really going on.


What I have proposed is to raise the debt limit that $250 billion necessary to "pay for" the spending that Congress (including Republicans) has already authorized. As this blog has repeatedly stated, NO MONEY can be spent for the next fiscal year unless Republicans in the House sign off on the spending. REepublicans have the POWER, if they chose to use it, to force a balanced budget on the country by simply refusing to spend any more money that that. In other words, Republicans have the POWER to raise the debt limit enough to get us through September 30, and then cut spending to the point that we would not need to raise the debt limit again. There is nothing DEMOCRATS could do to stop Republicans. Our system is set up so that if the House o fRpresentatives refuses to authorize the spending of money, it can't be spent. Yes, Obama and the Democrats would probably SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT before accepting this, but so what . In the end, Republicans can FORCE whatever spending limits for next year for which Republicans are willing to fight to the bitter end. Democrats can do nothing to spend money the House does not authorize. Now Republicans MAY CAVE to public pressure, when Democrats shut down the government, but that is an issue of COURAGE and not of POWER.


No, I am not advocating Republicans go that far, although Michele Bachmann may be (leading to the question of whether Bachmann is really willing to propose appropriations bills that cut spending for next year by at least 40%). My proposal is simple, and effective at TRANSPARENCY. Raise the debt limit only enough to gt through september 30. That puts the debt ceiling and the spending bills on the sAME TIMETABLE. No, don't require any "spending cuts" at all for this. This is money already authorized for this year. But simultaneously announce--that is, REPUBLICANS in the House announce--that there will be NO further raising of the debt ceiling until ALL of the spending bills for next year have PASSED. Further, announce that you are going to CTU SPENDING in those bills. As part of the announcement, state that you will only extend the debt ceiling for the same period of time coverd by the spending bills--that is, will raise the debt ceiling only enough to cover the extra debt that will be required by the SPENDING BILLS passed for the fiscal year beginning on September 30. Then announce that you will do the same thing every year--always raising the debt ceiling just enough to cover the SPENDING that Congress has authorized for each year. Announce that the whole purpose of doing things this way is to INFORM the public exactly how each year's spending is adding to the debt, and to force both Democrats and Republicans to be HONEST about what is taking place. Yes, you can announce that "deals" can and should be made before the ned of each fiscal year as to what will be in the spending bills. But if Congress cannot agree ahead of time, then they will face both the pressure of a government shut down AND a debt ceiling limit if Chongress cannot get spending bills passed on time. And if Congress does get spending bills passed, Congress will have to INFROM the public exactly how much the spending bills are adding to the debt--every year.


Everyone agrees that a "big deal" is not going to get done. As this blog has shown, a "grand deal" would almost surely represent a SELL OUT by Republicans anyway (with spending "cuts" in the far future, when Democrats expect they will never take place, while tax increases occur much faster-not to mention spending INCREASES NOW). No, it is effectively impossible to see how a "balanced budget amendment" gts a 2/3 vote in BOTH the House and Senate. Any SHAM vote, which is guaranteed to fail, just guarantees the DEATH of the Republican Party. Mitch McConnell's plan is absurdly complicated, and just absurd.


This blog's proposal is simple. It FORCES both Congress and the President to confront SPENDING for next year (and every year after that) BEFORE aising the debt ciling by the amount required by the SPENDING. If Congress is going to pass the spending, then Congressshould inform the public EXACTLY how much the spending will require that our debt be raised. In fact, Republicans in the House should make sure that every bill state how much of a debt increase will be required by the passage of the bill. With the debt ceiling on the same timetable as spending, our politicians can run but they can't hide.


What is whrong with my plan? Nothing, I think, although it is not meant as a "final soulution" to uor debt/deficit. It is merely meant as a means of forcing HONESTY into the debt ceiling debate every year, by making sure that the relationship between spending and the increase in debt is made CNCRETELY clear in a way no one can disguise or explain away.


But you know what is "wrong' with my proposal as well as I do. It is TOO TRANSPARENT. It requires TOO MUCH HONESTY. It directly requires that the public be INFORMED about the exact relationship between spending bills and our debt. It requires that Republicans give up their GAMES, just as much as requiring Democrats to give up their GAMES. I don't believe Republican politicians are honest and courageous enough to do it. I don't think they have enough courage to propose yearly spending limits, that cannot be "spun", and HOLD TAO THEM in the face of threats.


Yes, spending "caps" are fine with me--including in a Constitutiional Amendment. But we are not going to get a Constitutional Amendment WITH TEETH in the present negotiations It is absurd to act like we are. And any "grand deal" will be a Republican SELL OUT. This bog's proposal is the ONLY proposal that makes Democrats, including the President, directly responsible for the consequences of their spending. Yes, it also makes REPUBLICANS responsible for the spending they pass, but they should be. If they fight the good fight, and get real spending cuts, they can be on the ultimate winning side (without "balancing the budget" next eyar). But if Republicans pass spending bills that keep raising the debt at about the same rate, then they are toast.


You say my proposal is never going to get wnaywhere? Maybe not. But I am gong to evaluate Republicans exazctly as if they had fromally adopted my propsal. I am gong to evaluate Republicans based on what SPENDING they allow, and what it adds to the debt--NEXT YEAR (not tnen years from now, or whatever). Yes, I will give EXTRA CREDIT if Republicans can get a complete restructuring of Medicare and Medicaid, and get some sort of BINDING Constitutional Amendment so that we will not be faced with this yearly battle sometime in the future. But I a giving NO credit to Republicans for TRYING for things they know they cannot get, like a balanced budget amendment. Republicans CAN remove funding from Planned Parenthood and NPR. Republicans could CUT all Federal salaries 5%--from last year's level. In other words, if RepublicaNs are gong to assert that they CAn ultimately balance the budget, and do REAL CUTS, then they need to START NOW. I give nNO credit for GAMES. In fact, I forfeit the whole game for CHEATING. (Mixed game metaphor heree? Who cares? You get what I mean, and I make it claear below.)


George Stewart wrote a great non-fiction book ("Ordeal by Hunder) about the Donner arty--those people reduced to cannabilism in the 19th Century when their wagon train is caught in the massive winter storms of the Sierra Nevada. Here is approximately what Stewart (a namesake of mine) said abuot Tamsen Donner: "As Tamsen Donner left her rescuers to walk off into the snowy wilderness of teh Sierra Nevadas, to her dying or already dead husbaznd, and to certain death, it is still said of her 100 years later that she never looked back." (Note: The rescuers, who were able to save all of the people still alive at the camp they reached, were unable to take the time to try to rescue Tamsen Donnner's husband trapped in another location. But Tamsne Donner felt it was her duty to her husband to go to him, as she sent her children with the rescuers, and family to safety.)


I don't delude myself that I have the courage of Tamsen Donner. But I have enough courage for this. I promise Republicans that I will not accept betrayal here. If Republicans betray principle here in order to save their own political sins, I am gong to WALK AWAY. No, it does not matter if I am walking into the dEATH of another Obama term. I will walk away from the Republican Party FOREVER. And I promise them that I WILL NEVER LOOK BACK. I will have no regrets at all. The time for "politics as usual' has passed, if it everexisted. Republican politicians could use the courage of Tamsen Donner, but I don't know how to give it to them. I still regard the chances as 80-20 that I am gong to be walking away from the Republican Party, into maybe a bleaker landscape than Tamsen Donner faced (she could look forward to a future for her children, after all).


P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).