Pray for a Dirty Debt Deal (The Dirtier The Better): Nick Gillespie in The Daily Beast

I've got a new piece up at The Daily Beast. Here's how it starts:

Can anyone other than doctrinaire Democrats and members of his immediate family keep a straight face when President Barack Obama insists that he is “prepared to negotiate on anything” while simultaneously saying that “until we make sure that Congress allows Treasury to pay for things that Congress itself already authorized, we are not going to engage in a series of negotiations”?

Or when Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announces that the government “cannot be put in a position of having to choose which commitments it should meet,” as if picking between, say, paying interest payments to avoid default and buying half a billion dollars worth of useless cargo planes is a contemporary version of Sophie’s Choice.

However much House Republicans may have Mr. Belvedered themselves when it comes to the government shutdown, they are absolutely right to insist that any increase in the amount of money the government can borrow today should be tied to firm commitments to spend less in the future. Think sequester, which promises to cut just somewhere between 1 percent and 2 percent of overall annual spending, on steroids. And the future should be defined as “the day after the debt-limit increase goes into effect.”

Read the whole thing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Warty||


    oneDay
    1 hour ago
    CONGRESS created this MESS - They have to FIX it.

    The 'Debt Ceiling' is an Obsolete Idea that should be done away with.
    It was started in 1917 to limit WWI Bond Sales
    and has no place in today's budget process.
    There Certainly is No Legitimacy to use it to send America into DEFAULT
    The reason the Government is running on 'CRs'
    is because the Congress has FAILED in its Duty to pass a Budget.
    There hasn't been Budget submitted by President Obama
    that has been passed - EVER.
    Just because there is a Black Man in the White House
    doesn't mean we have to DESTROY America

    FPNI.

  • Paul.||

    The 'Debt Ceiling' is an Obsolete Idea that should be done away with.
    It was started in 1917 to limit WWI Bond Sales
    and has no place in today's budget process.

    An indicator that we're having to borrow more from one loan to pay the other should have no place in a budget process?

  • Hyperion||

    So, 100 trillion in debt is ok? 500 trillion? No limit, ever, on spending?

    Well fuck, just fire up those presses, right now, comrade Yellen, print up 18 trillion and pay off the debt, because inflation is only a filament of the imageenashun of evil Teabaglicans.

    If I were the GOP, I would just tell Obama and reid right now, whatever you want, spend away, why only a measly trillion, just fucking take 100 trillion now and get it over with, if you don't, you're spineless pussies.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Oh yeah?

    Is Nick that clueless? Yes, everyone with a brain agrees with Obama: budgets are not negotiated by holding the country hostage.

    HOSTAGE! TERRORISTS! ANARCHISTS!

  • waffles||

    You joke, but Obama has been using some really strong language here. Hyperbole is ruining my ability to understand the debate.

  • Paul.||

    His adminstration was willing to send in armed agents to stop seniors from 'recreating'. His petulance knows no bounds.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    It's like House Republicans think they have the power of the purse! Where did they get that ridiculous notion? A 220 year old document?

  • Ted S.||

    WRECKERS! KULAKI!!

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, they're right. Our government should pass budgets and spend only what it takes in through its revenues.

  • Hyperion||

    How quaint, bagger! Next thing you're going to be suggesting that the government doesn't have to read all of our emails to keep us safe. This isn't like 1800 anymore, duh!

  • ||

    Nope. The commentors at the beast already have a response for this:

    Left of Center 1 hour ago

    @Forenziks_ Further confirmation that you know nothing about economics and finance.

    So, let take the right winger's favorite false analogy: the household budget and the Federal budget.

    What you are proposing is outlawing future debt for a mortgage and a car.

    You are a real genius, Forenziks.

  • Invisible Finger||

    I've never borrowed for a car.

    I do have a mortgage, but it is a ten-year with one-year left.

    I used to think that was what "normal" people did. Less than a year out of college I realized that 80% of the people I worked with who earned more than me expected to have car payments and mortgages for the rest of their lives. And they not only consider it normal, they resent those that choose not to go into perpetual debt.

  • ||

    The commenter is right about house holds and government are different when it comes to debt. Nicks article shows how high government debt harms the economy by lowering GDP.

    My guess as to reason why this difference exists is that family debt produces things. A family sheltered with a roof over their head is more productive as well as a family that has access to transportation.

    Government on the other hand shows the exact opposite. High debt slows the economic output of the country....This is an explicit fact based condemnation of government spending. What it produces with that debt spending not only does not provide anything of use but it in fact harms those who are actually producing things of use.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Those foreclosures in my neighborhood are so productive.

  • ||

    What's funny is that the holdup on the budget since 2010 has always been the Team Blue controlled Senate...

  • Pro Libertate||

    "No, fuck you, cut spending."

    I agree that defending this stonewalling is nuts. The president could at least talk to the House. Ditto the Senate. Treating the legitimately (in the legal sense) acting and elected House as a terrorist hostage-taker may seem like some nifty political move (a stupid one, I think, but whatever), but it's not the president's job to refuse to discuss things with the other branches. I mean, what's the point of having him in office at all? A Roomba could be modified to say no over and over again.

  • Alice Bowie||

    As I mentioned earlier, the "No, fuck you, cut spending." will only help the democrats once the stock market does drop, our rating is cut, and jobs are loss.

    There's not too many people that will vote for a candidate that wants to take away safety nets when all this happens. Check out the 2012 election.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What, free markets don't work better than command-and-control economies? Because we're increasingly looking like the latter more than the former.

  • ||

    Romney wanted to do away with safety nets? That'll be news to...well anybody with a brain.

  • Hugh Akston||

    They tried that already. The exocomps burned themselves out rather than trying to stoop to Obama's level.

  • Ted S.||

    Isn't there a part of the "I'm just a bill" Schoolhouse Rock piece that talks about the conference committees? If so, the House Republicans should play that, point out that they've passed several spending bills, and are more than willing to sit down with the Senate in the conference committee to negotiate.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Hey Libertarians...Your message is getting out loud and clear.

    Ron Paul was right. We don't need FEMA. We can let charity handle national disasters.

    Look, a charity organization has agreed to pay the $100k and burial for our troops that died in action. There we go. We can cut this expense out of our budget.

    I eat my words.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Look, a charity organization has agreed to pay the $100k and burial for our troops that died in action. There we go. We can cut this expense out of our budget.

    Great.

    So when can we cut the expense of the government initated war that killed them out of our budget?

  • Alice Bowie||

    Hope all is well w/family.

    It was funny to see Donald Rumsfield say how appaulled he is that death benefits aren't being paid out to the people that HE sent to their deaths.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hope all is well w/family.

    Thank you.

    It was funny to see Donald Rumsfield say how appaulled he is that death benefits aren't being paid out to the people that HE sent to their deaths.

    Shameless, no?

  • ||

    Donald Rumsfield? What year are you living in? Obama is the commander in chief and ultimately responsible for every single U.S. soldier who is killed.

  • Hyperion||

    Yes, but Obama only got people killed out of good intentions. It's different, you know.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I'll take that. I've not been happy with Obama at all.

    Not sure if he is also a War man or if the War machine is so powerful that it doesn't matter who the president is.

    But for now, I'll blame Obama.

  • Paul.||

    Not sure if he is also a War man or if the War machine is so powerful that it doesn't matter who the president is.

    It's a little of both. But as President, he can engage the war machine and actively resist it. Obama welcomed it with open arms. Get it? Open arms?

  • Jordan||

    The government paid $50k for a mechanical bull a week into the shutdown. And 83% of federal employees are still on the job. It's not that they can't afford to take care of the soldiers who they send to die, it's that they don't want to. So take your thinly veiled guilt trip and shove it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's worse than that. They actively are picking and choosing what pain to cause. On purpose.

    No, that's not fair. It's not they. It's him. The buck stops there whether he likes it or not.

  • Hyperion||

    It's just a bunch of low level rogues that are doing that. Obama doesn't even know about it yet because he hasn't been watching the teevee.

  • Paul.||

    It might be mid to low-level rogues. Obama can communicate loudly and strongly that anyone caught barricading open air monuments or shutting down services for the express purpose of causing pain to constituents will be dealt with.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Even if it were underlings, Obama can't say, "Hey, that's not right. Open the monument, save the kids, whatever"?

  • Hyperion||

    I have a feeling he's not going to do that, unless some black kid gets shot by a white Hispanic.

    Although this might be a really good time to say that the park rangers acted stupidly, he's really not smart enough to know that. Which is why his popularity is down to 37%. Not that it matters to him, he's the first black prez, he's not up for election, and he can do whatever he wants now with zero consequences for him personally.

  • Paul.||

    Although this might be a really good time to say that the park rangers acted stupidly, he's really not smart enough to know that.

    I think he is smart enough to know it. I think he doesn't care or actively supported the concept? Shut me down? Shut me down? Watch this!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Where are the [expletive deleted] PM links?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    There they are - I was about to ask the manager to go back into the kitchen and ask what the holdup was.

  • Hyperion||

    Where are the [expletive deleted] PM links?

    Didn't you hear? The government is shut down! And you still think we can have PM links? You tea nuts are all the same, anarchists!

  • Winston||

    Wait so the sequester had actual budget cuts?

    And "firm commitment to spend less in the future"? That means shit and jack left town.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    House Republicans may have Mr. Belvedered themselves

    This is funny in a comments section. In a piece on the Beast, it's... even better.

  • Winston||

    Old Man Gillespie trying to show he is up with TEH Yutes lingo.

  • Winston||

    ...Pass

  • Tony||

    No, fascist. Take your social policy demands to the American people and get them to vote for them. I thought you people were against "throat ramming" of policy. If the people want their safety net cut, they will indicate their preference in their voting patterns.

    Stop telling the American people what's good for them and then telling them they don't get a choice in the matter.

    You are treating a novel, undemocratic hostage-taking scenario as the obviously clear-headed way of doing things, and treating the actual, constitutional, sane method: saving the country from disaster first, then debating policy changes in the normal governing process, as some kind of hoodwink.

    In this country you don't get everything you want if you don't win both houses of Congress and the presidency. That's just the way it works. Sorry about that.

  • Randian filtered me, I WIN!||

    "In this country you don't get everything you want if you don't win both houses of Congress and the presidency. That's just the way it works. Sorry about that."

    I'm glad that you agree Obama is being a cunt, and doesn't get to get everything that he wants because he doesn't control all three.

    It's a refreshing bit of clarity from you.

  • Tony||

    He doesn't, but "not having a global recession" isn't an Obama pet policy.

  • Sevo||

    "It could have been a prostitution ring or illegal trans fat trade."

    Wanna remove enough negatives to make sure you are crawling up your own asshole?

  • Paul.||

    The former mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, will be sentenced in federal court tomorrow on 24 counts of bribery, extortion, racketeering, fraud, and tax evasion.

    Wouldn't he normally be given a position in the Obama administration?

  • R C Dean||

    until we make sure that Congress allows Treasury to pay for things that Congress itself already authorized,

    Apparently, Obama's conception of Congress is "one Representative, one vote, one time."

    Why does this not surprise me?

  • Tony||

    I thought this was nicely put: (credit Brian Beutler)

    "Indeed, the claim that Democrats 'refuse to negotiate' is a lie by omission of the term 'under threat.' There are 365 days in a year. Dems are willing to negotiate through about 335 of them. Republicans, only in the remaining 30 before default."

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.9.13 @ 5:51PM|#
    "I thought this was nicely put: (credit Brian Beutler)

    "Indeed, the claim that Democrats 'refuse to negotiate' is a lie by omission of the term 'under threat.'"

    Of course you did; it's an out-and-out lie, so it's right up your alley.
    There is no "threat"; that's hyperbole from some lefty turd.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement