by:
Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
The President, in a display of executive power and arrogance, threatened Monday to veto the republican's Cut, Cap, and Balance initiative should it arrive on his desk. Lets dispense with all the hyperbole and vitriol and address the issue objectively.
It is becoming increasingly clear republicans and the President are engaged in a great test of wills. There is little question but what both sides have decided to play hardball, and neither side at this point appears to be able, or willing to negotiate a reasonable resolution to the impasse. As this is being written it appears
the President is holding the greatest number of cards.
As the nation waits, the people cannot help but wonder why the supposedly intelligent and mature individuals they elected to represent them are unable {or unwilling} to find a way to balance the budget, honor our obligations, and find a way to put our feet on a course that leads our nation back to fiscal sanity and shared prosperity.
As a fiscal conservative the concept of cutting spending, capping future spending at a reasonable percent of GDP (19.9% is a reasonable number), and passing a balanced budget amendment is appealing and desirable. We also need to encourage business growth here at home, give companies the incentive to invest and grow their businesses {elimination of corporate income taxes is a good place to start} so as business confidence grows they begin putting people back to work.
The Hill reporting on the President's veto threat with accompanying comments by yours truly.
“Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility,” the White House said in its statement. “Increasing the federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.”
Given that our government has demonstrated its inability to act responsibly and live within its means it makes perfedct sense to shackel the congresses ability to over promise and over spend. Had the congress always been responsible, remember the President can only spend that which has been approved by the house of representatives, I would whole heartedly buy the White Hiuse argument.
While I agree the debt ceiling must be raised to avoid default, effective mechanism must be in place to avoid a continuation of the spending habits of the last 50 years. They need to be in place before we once again raise the ceiling because if effective mechanisms are not in place we will no doubt be revisiting the present drama all over again.
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a conference call Monday afternoon that the Republican plan "enshrines into the Constitution the Ryan plan on steroids." Pfeiffer was referring to the House GOP budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which included significant reforms to Medicare.
This is more hyperbole, simple scare tactics meant for those who will choose not to think. A balanced budget amendment would say nothing as to how revenues are to be spent. It would simply require congress to make decisions, admitedly sometimes very tough ones, as to where revenues would be directed and require the budget to be balanced at the end of the day.
"It’s disappointing the White House would reject this common-sense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America," Boehner said in a statement. "While American families have to set priorities and balance their books, this White House obviously isn’t serious about making the same tough choices.
In fairness I must say the Congress is responsible for the budget and it does control the purse strings. It's right in the Constution, always has been. So, I guess the Congress should have put the breaks on spending years ago.
"This unfortunate veto threat should make clear that the issue is not congressional inaction, but rather the [resident’s unwillingness to cut spending and restrain the future growth of our government. If we are going to raise the debt limit and avoid default, the White House must be willing to demonstrate more courage than we have seen to date," Boehner said.
For the American people getting nothing accomplished and our nation defaulting on its obligations puts all of Washington on the inaction list. However, given the President's willingness to accept the 3 for 1 deal I'm betting at the end of the day congressional republicans will have the most egg on their faces and likely will be out of a job soon.
The administration lambasted the "cut, cap and balance" proposal as setting out “a false and unacceptable choice between the federal government defaulting on its obligations now or, alternatively, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.”
More scare tactics from the administration. There exists much pork in the budget, we all know it. Perhaps the nation ought to read
Ron Paul's book and consider his recommendations. I have, they are bold, and they are good.
Perhaps, just maybe, it is time for this 235 year old republic to decide that it
1) can no longer afford to be the world's candy store and significantly reduce foreign aid {welfare},
2) can no longer be the world policeman,
3) makes no sense to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration,
4) makes little sense to continue to pour billions into a losing war on drugs,
5) is tme to rein in the military industrial complex President Eisenhower cautioned the nation about in 1961, and
6) is time to reform entilements ie; social security, medicare, and medicaid so that they remain solvent while gradually requiring people to take more responsibility in insuring their own security.
The full article
here.
Via:
Memeorandum
