Why Are We Talking About the Debt Ceiling Crisis As If It's Normal Politics?

[n2doc]

—By Kevin Drum

I was noodling over Obama's debt ceiling press conference during lunch, and the thing that struck me—again—was how hard it is to truly communicate his postion. And I sympathize. I've written about the basics of the debt ceiling hostage crisis at least a dozen times, and I still don't feel like I've ever been able to get across just how radical the whole thing is.

Except for Newt Gingrich in 1995, no one has ever shut down the government as a threat to get something they want. And except for John Boehner in 2011, nobody has ever threatened to breach the debt ceiling as a threat to get something they want. That's because it's basically nuclear chicken, threatening to destroy the economy unless you get your way. It's unthinkable.

And yet, it's now become so institutionalized that Republicans can repeat over and over their mantra that "President Obama refuses to negotiate," and eventually it starts to get some traction. Reporters who should know better write columns suggesting that Obama should try to bargain his way out of this. Conservative pundits complain not about the hostage taking itself, but about the fact that Republicans should be sure to choose the superior—i.e., most damaging— hostage-taking opportunity available. And Obama is forced to take the stage and try out an extended series of metaphors to explain exactly what's going on. And then we all sit around and analyze his speech and nitpick his metaphors and game out how this might end.

It's crazy. How do you get across how insurrectionary this is? Raising the debt ceiling isn't a concession from Republicans that deserves a corresponding concession from Democrats. It's the financial equivalent of a nuclear bomb: both sides will go up in smoke if it's triggered. Ditto for the government shutdown. And ditto again for the piecemeal spending bills, which are basically a way for Republicans to fund only the parts of government they like but not anything else.

You can't govern a country this way. You can't allow a minority party to make relentless demands not through the political system, but by threatening Armageddon if they don't get what they want. It's not what the Constitution intended; it's not something any president could countenance; and it's reckless almost beyond imagining.

more

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/debt-ceiling-crisis-not-normal-politics

[Niceguy1]

1. it is a political game...

S a default is entirely voluntary....if it isn't raised we are firced to balance the budget... unpleasant yes, but nilt as bad as a default would be.

[starroute]

4. That's a Rand Paul kind of an argument, isn't it?

Balancing the budget might be possible if we could raise taxes dramatically on all the rich people. It might be possible if we could radically slash military spending. But lacking those things, the US government can't bring expenditures into line with revenue short of cutting out all discretionary spending whatsoever and, if I recall correctly, taking a bite out of Social Security and Medicare as well.

[Niceguy1]

8. my point is

If the debt ceiling isn't raised all spending will have to be cut to make the debt payments...that is the law. The govt will have to cut the budget. Remember, the govt is required to pay its debts but there is no contitutional requirement that the debt ceiling be raised.

It would be devestating and that is not what I advocate.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. No, nope, not a "game". Please get real.

It's not about balancing the budget.

It's about the Constitutional obligation to ensure that the US debt obligations are the most secure in the world and therefore the most desirable.

It's about honouring the Constitutional validity of elections and the legislative process and the Judiciary. It's about not trying to a do an anti-Constitutional end-run around those institutions.

It's about not crashing the economy.

That means it's about human lives.

"political game"? No, nope, not. Please get an education. The Affordable Care Act passed Congress, was signed into law, was ratified by a Presidential election, and passed Supreme Court scrutiny.

[RKP5637]

2. The R's rely on the fact, court room legal tactics, that if one repeats the

same lies over and over again, some are going to believe them hook, line and sinker.

[bigtree]

3. I appreciate the alarm he's sounding

. . . people need to wake the fuck up.

[JDPriestly]

5. It isn't about health care. It's about tearing down our entire safety net.

Public pensions for public workers. Social Security. Medicare. And finally, health care.

Think of it. All the ACA really does is expand the Medicaid program to include a wider range of uninsured and subsidize their care individually or family by family based on income. It doesn't change the fact that they buy commercial, profitable health insurance. Will it gradually increase the pressure on insurance companies to lower the cost of insurance? Yes. Those who offer lower prices for the quality and offerings of the plans will get more enrollees. But beyond that -- it is some increase in subsidies for healthcare, but then we get better healthcare for people on the retail end for less cost.

I am wondering how this new healthcare plan will help people with certain addiction problems. If people who, say, have an alcohol problem but not a lot of money, happen to go to their General Practitioner now that they have one, will they get some assistance, at least a reminder that they are hurting their liver?

How about obesity? These days a lot of doctors are trained to talk to patients about their diets (the younger doctors). Will it make a difference in the amount of obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction (especially prescription drug addiction) that we have? Interesting experiment. The Republicans are insane. They are just doing this out of ideological fanaticism.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. It's not normal politics. It's brinkmanship writ large, and we may have already gone over the brink.

But I think everyone involved understands that.