Shall We Scream and Shout or Get Something Done?
One of Robert Frost’s poems suggests, tongue-in-cheek I hope:
When in Danger
And in Doubt
Run in Circles;
Scream and Shout
Is that to be the Conservative Republican motto for the next couple of years or would we prefer that they actually accomplish something beyond being reelected? The national debt limit and ObamaCare seem to be among the first tests.
National Debt Limit
We are within a few hundred billion dollars of reaching the national debt limit and that won’t take long even without any newly authorized expenditures. There is lots of opposition to increasing the limit. We have already spent far too much! Gotta stop those wastrels. Rein them in! These statements are not only true but obviously so. However, the money has for the most part already been spent or obligated and this problem must be dealt with piece by piece and not as part of a suicide pact over the national debt.
I agree that refusing to increase the debt ceiling would be peachy, if the consequences were not draconian. Want to default on existing debts, foreign and domestic? Great. Then the dollar will forfeit any remaining status as an international currency and even as a respectable domestic currency. Halt Social Security payments? OK. Want to support your aged parents as you pay lots more for Chinese junk and foreign oil since we haven’t been able to follow the commandment “Drill, baby, drill?” Want to pay more for just about everything else? Then refuse to increase the debt limit. Punish the beastly Democrats? Sure. That would be nice. But let’s not punish ourselves and help to produce a resurgent Liberal Leftist majority in the process.
An increase in the debt limit need not, must not, and simply cannot mean increased spending if our CongressCritters are paying attention. All appropriations bills arise in the House because they have to; that’s what the Constitution requires and when on infrequent occasion the Senate has decided otherwise, it has been put in its place by the refusal of the House to give up its constitutional prerogative and pass the Senate-crafted appropriations. The Republicans are now in charge of the House and don’t have to fund anything unless they choose to. The Senate can’t do it and neither can President Obama.
Our Honorable Members in the House should be clever enough to understand that an increased debt limit does not compel them to appropriate more money or prevent them from appropriating less. It does not even mean that existing funding must be maintained. There are many places to deny funding almost immediately. Funding has only been provided through early March of this year; that’s when the government will run out of money (regardless of any action on the national debt limit) because the late but unlamented lame ducks were unable to pass an omnibus appropriation bill providing funding beyond that. A further interim appropriation bill can, of course, be passed to keep the government running in as low a gear as desired for another few months until appropriations can be fixed for the remainder of fiscal 2011. That’s where the focus must be. Starve ObamaCare, the EPA, even the sainted United Nations and a bunch of other ravenous beasts to death. That will work and will be healthy rather than suicidal. It will also greatly irritate the leftists, not a bad thing to do.
The repeal of ObamaCare has acquired much the same aura as refusal to extend the debt limit. ObamaCare is bad and so are hurricanes and floods. We are not in a position to outlaw or otherwise to prevent the latter two; resources dedicated to those ends would be wasted. What we can do is build strong houses and dams. That is not as effective as successfully eliminating hurricanes and floods would be but it is possible and does some good.
The House voted on January 7 to approve rules leading to the repeal of ObamaCare, 236-181. On January 8 the House postponed all legislative action for a week to “take whatever actions may be necessary in light of today’s tragedy.” Obviously a national tragedy, the shooting serves as a compelling reason for reflection rather than the sort of crass political opportunism to which the mainstream media has repeatedly and with obdurate persistence hitched its star. It does not, however, legitimize forgetting the other important business of the country.
As I argued here, outright repeal of ObamaCare just won’t work. Here’s why: the Republicans/Conservatives do not yet have a strong veto proof Congress. By 2013 there might well be a veto proof Republican/Conservative supermajority or a better president whose veto it will not be necessary to override — unless we spoil our chances. Getting to that point is something we can and should work very hard to accomplish. Until then, the death of ObamaCare and other obnoxious laws by starvation seems better than ineffectual threats of a cleaner demise. Despite the feel-good sensation produced by passing a repeal bill it is almost certain to amount to no more than sound and fury signifying nothing; perhaps worse.
Aw, yes, another “clear think” who says we just need to put away the anger expressed by the voters and get back to “business as usual”.
It’s really pretty simple. The socialists kept the healthcare power grab on the top of the agenda for as long as it took. How many times did we think we had killed it, only to see they wouldn’t let it go?
If letting this travesty stand is what it takes to “get things done” then I say scream and shout instead. Hammer this POS every day of the new Congress if necessary to kill it, and anything like it.
And if the “clear thinkers” of the establishment GOP don’t pull their collective head out and realize there is no more “business as usual” they will be the third party in the next election.
On January 10, President Obama signed the Defense Authorization Bill – passed by the lame duck Congress — even though it had significant funding restrictions the effect of which were to prevent the closing of Gitmo, one of his principal campaign promises and one of the demands of his supporters.
Just as it was necessary to sign that bill, it will be necessary to sign appropriations bills significantly restricting implementation of ObamaCare, one of his primary initiatives. Ditto funding bills for the EPA, the FCC and others.
Why do something merely for show when something really effective can be done?
“Why do something merely for show when something really effective can be done?”
Because de-funding and repeal are not mutually exclusive.
Because the weight of citizen’s opinions are firmly on our side. How can pursuit of a goal desired by a strong majority not serve to strengthen a political party’s position in future elections? How can backing away from an important campaign promise serve to strengthen a political party’s position?
“I agree that refusing to increase the debt ceiling would be peachy, if the consequences were not draconian. Want to default on existing debts, foreign and domestic? Great.”
I am really, really, really, getting sick of this argument. Sure, raise the debt ceiling and see if Congress spends less money. I dare you, I double dog dare you. Remember, the Republicans may own the House, but they are still the minority in the Senate and there still is Obama, who ain’t going nowhere for two more years. Lets say the Republicans do cut spending, especially for Obamacare. Big deal. It will just die in the Senate and, even if it made it through the Senate, Obama would still Veto it. So that means either the government shuts down, or the Republicans cave in to the demands of the Democrats and we spend even MORE money.
Don’t you get it through your thick head that nothing, NOTHING, gets done in Washington unless you threaten Congress, and the President, with utmost disaster? Unless you can blackmail them into cutting spending, the Democrats just won’t do it, and they’ll laugh in your face if you try and make them. So only the threat to disaster, along with the willingness to follow through on it, will force them to do what you want them to do, which is cut spending.
So fat chance trying to reason with these spending thugs. Go ahead, raise the debt limit and see how much the Democrats listen to your pleas for reducing Federal spending. Go ahead, I dare you, I triple dog dare you.
Re comment # 2, Remember, the Republicans may own the House, but they are still the minority in the Senate and there still is Obama, who ain’t going nowhere for two more years. Lets say the Republicans do cut spending, especially for Obamacare. Big deal. It will just die in the Senate and, even if it made it through the Senate, Obama would still Veto it.
It may die in the Senate or be vetoed by President Obama. If so, what happens then? NO funding for the various agencies. Somehow, I don’t think the Senate or President Obama would go along with that. He signed the Defense Authorization Bill (please see my response to Comment #1) because he had to; to have done otherwise would have meant no defense appropriations.
Re comments #3 and 4, As noted in the article, I don’t care if a repeal bill is attempted and the symbolism might even do a little bit of good — so long as that does not delay substantive defunding legislation which simply cannot be stalled in the Senate or vetoed by the President without consequences neither would accept.
Re comment #5, I agree that we absolutely have to balance the budget and that’s something the Congress can do regardless of whether the debt limit is raised. To offer an imperfect analogy, accepting a greater credit line on my credit card does not require me to spend the money to buy things I can’t afford or otherwise to waste it. The Congress, particularly the House, has to show a bit of restraint. It may well be necessary to hound them to do that and should they spend anyway, that’s what elections are for.
Dan, there is a huge difference between signing a defense bill and signing a bill that de-funds Obamacare. Rightly or wrongly, Obama, like most liberal democrats, is perceived to be weak on defense. For him not to have signed the defense bill not only would have made him look weak at home, but abroad as well. It would have been political suicide to stop the defense bill, especially when we’re still fighting two wars overseas.
But spending bills, especially funding for Obamacare, are entirely different. Harry Reid already said that any bill de-funding Obamacare is dead and there’s no reason to believe Obama won’t back him up with a veto. And remember, Clinton stared down Gingrich in the previous government shutdown, and that didn’t work out so well for the Republicans. Even if Republicans have right on their side this time around, are they really going to risk a government shutdown? You see, the threat of a shutdown is meaningless unless you’re willing to follow through on the threat. Same goes with the debt limit. So you can say Obama will sign the bill and not risk a shutdown, but I don’t believe that for a minute, especially since he has the main stream media in his pocket. Nope, unless you’re willing to go all the way, the Democrats will call your bluff. In this high-stakes game of chicken in Washington, you’re either all in or all out.
I think Senator Reid said that any bill repealing, not any bill defunding, ObamaCare is dead and I think he is correct. If his reference were to defunding, I think he is dead wrong.
Be that as it may, the selective defunding of ObamaCare and the other atrocities (EPA Carbon Dioxide emission limits, FCC net neutrality, etc.) as suggested in this article and here, by passing, not one omnibus bill but as many separate funding bills as needed, would not shut down the entire government, only those agencies involved in ObamaCare and those other atrocities. It seems quite unlikely that the Senate or President Obama would accept such shutdowns. Were they to do so, we should be willing to have them shut down. If it happened, there would be quite a lot of blinking. Our new CongressCritters should not be among the blinkers.
My concern is that repetitious bills to repeal ObamaCare etc. will be little more than excuses not to use the more difficult but far more effective defunding tool and that by insisting on the impossible we may well preclude the possible.
See there’s another problem with your premise- it’s well within the realm of possibility that the government could be shut down by accident, like say Obama vetoes a bill that raises the debt ceiling with the caveat that there are to be immediate spending cuts, but there isn’t sufficient time to override the veto or pass a new bill. For that matter, the Senate and the President may be expecting that after the veto, the House will simply let the bill die and pass a new bill to raise the debt ceiling without restriction, only to find that the House instead votes to override the veto and send the same bill back to the Senate for an override vote.
Repeal of Obamacare is NECESSARY symbolism.
Then a whole laundry list of defunding bills attached to the debt limit bill. Let the Senate/Obama be the ones to shut down the govt if they wish.
One way or another a confrontation MUST occur.
Good points. Not particularly correct points but writing them down probably made the author feel better.
Don’t raise the debt ceiling, cut spending. Proposals are already available.
Do pass repeal of Obamacare. Do not pass anything that purports to defund Obamacare, but may be as long as the part of Obamacare that it defunds. Were one to consider the lunacy of the proposition, one might not publish it. At the same time as one is working to pass repeal, simple, clean defunding bills can be advanced as well. Each member of the House has staff, as well as the member themselves should be capable of simple multi-tasking. No reason to assume that only one “iron” can be in the fire.
Good effort though.
The premise of the author is that it would be ruinous to balance the budget, and to do it right now. If you believe that then you are an idiot. Government can live within the means provided by its current, rapacious levels of confiscation. The sky will not fall if it does. The sky may fall if it doesn’t.
As for repealing fascistic medicine (that is a more apt label than socialized medicine, though the difference is semantics), the author overlookos the valuie of forcing the tyrants to stand openly against the people. Make them do it. Every time you can. And it is not either or. The Republicans own the House. They can do both repeal and defund. So quit talking down repeal. It makes you sound like a shill or an idiot.
Interesting article, but way too simplistic. Just a couple specifics:
“we haven’t been able to follow the commandment “drill, baby, drill….” Here in the intermountain West, the large majority of energy leases granted by the BLM in the past 10 years are sitting idle. If one wants “drill, baby, drill,” then talk to the energy companies.
Along those lines, we seem to be on the verge of yet another hard rock mining boom out here for uranium and rare earth minerals. Would be nice to first see some reform of the 1872 mining law so taxpayers get some royalties for THEIR minerals.
“starve Obama Care….” not so fast. There is some good stuff contained within the law. As in, giving Medicare more authority to track down fraudsters (source: Bloomberg Business Week). And the author ignores the real power behind keeping Obama Care in place. It’s not the Democrats; it’s now the big insurance companies who stand to gain 30 million new customers.
“starve Obama Care….” not so fast. There is some good stuff contained within the law.
That’s possible. I suggested selective defunding: kill off the bad stuff by refusing to fund it and fund the good stuff, if any. That’s part of the rather labor intensive work necessary to do it correctly — the principal reason why instead of wasting time providing fireworks displays our CongressCritters should get down to some serious business.
Another part of that work will be to examine all of the statutory links within the several thousand page ObamaCare legislation, completely read by very few if any who voted on it. For example, various sections of the Internal Revenue Code are linked and/or amended, including the provision of penalties for not buying insurance as required and providing for their enforcement. It will be necessary to restrict IRS funding to prevent their enforcement.
It’s not the Democrats; it’s now the big insurance companies who stand to gain 30 million new customers.
If that’s the case, selective defunding would work.
The point of passing a repeal Obamacare bill is to get the names supporting it on record so those people can be removed in 2012, along with Obama. Defunding is the practical solution to the problem until then.
OK, that’s cool.
No, not increasing the debt limit is not the same as defaulting on the debt. Heh, not bad huh.. three negatives added together be equalin’ a negative.. but I digress .
Do not increase the debt limit and reduce the the deficit to $0.00 and there is no default , no debasement of the dollar as world currency no wild-eyed , cockneed hysteria of of… well hysteria.
The fix is fairly simple , instead of increasing the debt limit. Pass emergency legislation which returns the budget to 2008 levels. That gets us within striking distance of $0.00. Then suspend all non-military, non-essential discretionary government spending. Furlough without pay all those weasel federal bureaucrats … let them get a real job. Doing so to the dept of education would save over 30 billion, the IRS.. until revue the enforcement people are not essential. Dept of human services.. totally non-essential , savings there alone about 150 billion.
It is doable, and would really accomplish something instead of the usual run in circles scream and shout of the ..apocalyptic “we have to raise the debt limit crowd.” Which is who got us to this point to start with.
Let us be civilized like our elected officials. We can pick and chose which laws we wish to follow just like our politicians do. I use Eric Holder as a prime example or the ones who do not care what is in our Constitution, they will make it up as they go along. Ah just like Obama that has sealed his past records, do you think Soros might be Obama`s son?
The problem with government is that all the agencies are ruled as fiefdoms. Always have been. They canNOT be trusted to do the right thing. All Congress has to do is put forward another one page bill that says ANY recipients of federal dollars must comply with Sarbanes-Oxley. It was pratically unanimously approved by both houses of Congress and, Lord knows, we need some accountability in government. It is doable.