Tag: Debt Ceiling

I think the GOP is smelling success in their goal of making President Obama a one term president. Even bloggers like the Rude Pundit doubt Obama:

At some point, Obama has to squash McConnell and Boehner like bugs (although he probably won’t)

Now that Boehner has once again walked away from the negotiating table, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear on Fox News Sunday that his top priority is stopping Obama’s re-election:

Even with the country on the brink of default, the Senate’s highest ranking Republican says his “single most important” goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told National Journal’s Major Garrett in October.

Fox News’ Bret Baier asked McConnell Sunday if that was still his major objective.

“Well, that is true,” McConnell replied. “That’s my single most important political goal, along with every active Republican in the country.”

“But that is in 2012,” he added. “Our biggest goal for this year is get this country straightened out and we can’t get this country straightened out if we don’t do something about spending, about deficit, about debt and get the economy moving again. So our goal is to have a robust vibrant economy to benefit all Americans.”

McConnell told Baier that a “Grand Bargain,” where Republicans agree to tax hikes in exchange for cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, was likely off the table.

“I think it is. Everything they told me and the Speaker is to get a big package would require big tax increases in the middle of the economic situation that is extraordinarily difficult with 9.2% unemployment. We think it’s a terrible idea. It’s a job-killer.”

Priorities aside, what all these politicians don’t seem to understand is that austerity is the “job killer”, especially with the the job market and wages sinking like a rock. President Obama’s grand plan of $4 trillion in deficit reductions with cuts to vital social safety nets as the carrot and minuscule revenue increases, is even worse. This is all about maintaining the status quo for the wealthiest who have proven since the Bush tax cuts that they will just keep the money and screw the masses.

John Aravosis sums up this debacle quite succinctly:

Someone’s being played.  First the Republicans walked out of the Biden talks.  Now Boehner is refusing the President’s more than generous offer to cut Social Security and Medicare as part of a larger deal absurdly skewed towards GOP goals.  It’s those pesky tax increases, you see.  It’s just not enough that the President caved on a clean debt ceiling, caved on having an additional stimulus instead of spending cuts, caved on postponing spending cuts until the economy is well again, caved on at least making spending cuts equal to tax increases, and caved on keeping cuts to Social Security and Medicare out of this.

Mind you, it’s not entirely clear what the Republicans have even agreed to here in terms of any tax increases.

So the GOP walks, and Obama will just have to sweeten the deal to “save the hostages.”  Did anyone else see this coming?

Someone is being played alright, the American people.

I have no hope for any rational solution that is going to improve the economy and the job situation for Americans. It makes no difference who is in the White House at this point, or in 2012.  Obama will never stand up to McConnell and Boehner simply because he agrees with them. They are playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun at the American people’s head.

While there is a lot of angst on the part of the left and progressives over President Obama putting Social Security on the bargaining table for some meager tax concessions, they are still no closer to an agreement with the Republicans on the looming debt limit. Obama has rejected any temporary deal that would just kick the can down the road, possibly making the debt limit an even bigger issue in 2012 and a door for the Republicans to get the Bush/Obama tax cuts extended, or worse made permanent. The President has also said that he would not renew them again but after the last 3 years, can we realistically believe anything he says. After all, he is now doing what Bush could never have gotten away with, putting the safety nets for our seniors, disabled and poor on the line to protect the wealthiest.

Today. The Speaker of the House, John A. Boehner, clearly stated, “There is no agreement, in private or in public.”  The House recess for July 18th has been canceled signally that no agreement is in sight.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi met pivately with the President today. Prior to her meeting Ms. Pelosi clearly indicated that she would resist efforts to tie the deal to Social Security.

“Do not consider Social Security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country,” Ms. Pelosi said to reporters on Capitol Hill after the meeting. “We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities.”

Last night Keith Olbermann looked at this current state of these discussions.

Boehner: “We are not going to raise taxes on the very people that we expect to invest in our economy and help grow jobs.”

Olbermann: “Shut up. If they were reinvesting in the economy, we wouldn’t be in this position, moron. They’re keeping the money.”

Rep Raul Grivala: “Without overwhelming support from our caucus, this would be a difficult bill to pass”

Pres. Bill Clinton. They quadrupled the debt before me and double it after. Suddenly it’s the biggest problem in the world”

Ryan Grimm: “Obana has been dangling safety net cuts for the last several weeks.  He created the cat food commission . . .

The idea that Obama is the defender of Sociual Security isn’t going to get you very far.

“One dime a month is enough to put many elderly in the poor house.”

Considering today’s news about jobs and unemployment at 9.2%, this, to put it bluntly, sucks.

The only people who are against taxing the rich and closing the tax loopholes are those whose pockets they line. The Republicans and blue dog Democrats are more concerned about protecting their wealthy donors than the people they represent. It is a blatant lie that the majority of Americans are opposed to tax increases for those making over $250,000 and closing tax loop holes for the Wall St. gamblers who help to keep the price of commodities, like oil, inflated.

Closing The Hedge Fund Manager Tax Loophole Would Raise $4 Billion Annually From The 25 Richest Managers

One of the tax breaks upon which President Obama has focused is a provision that allows hedge fund managers – who make billions annually – to receive a substantial tax break. This particular tax break, known as the carried-interest loophole, allows hedge fund managers to treat the money they receive from investors as capital gains, subject to a 15 percent tax rate. Though this money is a paycheck received for services, just like a movie star receiving a bonus if her movie does well, it’s treated as investment income.

Since hedge fund managers are some of the richest people in the country, this tax break actually causes a significant loss of revenue. In fact, according to calculation by RJ Eskow, closing this loophole would raise more than $4 billion per year just from the 25 richest hedge fund managers:

   The top 25 hedge fund managers in the United States collectively earned $22 billion last year, and yet they have their own cushy set of tax rules. If they operated under the same rules that apply to other people – police officers, for example, or teachers – the country could cut its national deficit by as much as $44 billion in the next ten years.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): Senate Floor Speech on Carried Interest and Offshore Tax Havens

Now just one example of the kind of tax breaks and tax loopholes we Democrats seek to change is the unconscionable tax break given to hedge-fund managers. Hedge fund managers generally make their money by charging their clients two fees.  First, the manager receives a management fee, typically equal to two percent of the assets invested.  Second, the manager typically receives 20 percent of the income from those investments above a certain level. This 20 percent share of the investment returns from hedge funds is known as carried interest.  Under current law, most hedge fund managers claim that this carried interest qualifies as a long-term capital gain, currently subject to a maximum tax rate of 15 percent, rather than being taxed as ordinary income, currently subject to a maximum tax rate of 35 percent.

But a moment’s analysis shows that this money is ordinary income by any fair definition and should be treated that way. The 20 percent fee is not capital gains, because it applies not to capital that the hedge-fund manager has invested, but to the payment he receives for investing capital that other people provide.  Pretending that the 20 percent fee is capital gains when in fact it is payment for a service is an Alice-in-Wonderland argument that elevates fiction over fact.

Now we Democrats seek to end this fiction. We are ready to call carried interest what it is – ordinary taxable income. Recognizing carried interest for what it is would increase tax fairness for working Americans who pay their share, and their fair share of taxes. They have the right to expect the wealthy to do the same. And it would reduce the deficit if we did this by an estimated $21 billion over the next 10 years.

And then we have Ben Nelson (D?-NE), whose primary concern is Ben Nelson:

David Dayen: Ben Nelson Wants Spending Cuts Primary in Debt Limit Deal

One of the reasons why Democrats are going to lose this debt limit fight in a big way is that they have no consistent position across their membership. Republicans know exactly what they want – no taxes – and every one of their members agrees with that assessment. By contrast, Democrats have people like Ben Nelson looking out for themselves:

   Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the more conservative Democrats in the chamber, has said that a deficit-reduction deal should focus on reducing spending, and not finding new revenues.

   The Nebraska Democrat also said in a Wednesday statement that he thought a significant plan to roll back deficits would not necessarily have to take aim at entitlement programs.

   “I want to see a broad and serious package of spending cuts,” Nelson said. “And we can cut trillions of dollars of spending without attacking Medicare and Social Security. But if we start with plans to raise taxes, pretty soon spending cuts will fall by the wayside.”

This is just ridiculous if you look at what’s actually being proposed. The Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts that have been put on the table dwarf the revenue increases through closure of tax loopholes by a 2:1 margin. And that’s without even taking into account the agreed-to cuts in mandatory and discretionary spending. You’re looking at a 6-1, minimum, ratio. But if we don’t give a tax break for corporate jet owners and force hedge fund managers to report their income as income and not capital gains, “spending cuts will fall by the wayside.” This is nonsense.

How many of the 25 top hedge fund managers live in Nebraska? How many Lear jets do Nebraskans own? How many Nebraskans rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Benefits? I don’t see any reason for Nebraskans to send this corporate puppet back to the Senate for another 6 years.

The best analogy of this entire stand off came from Miles Mogulescu:

Republicans and Obama are Like Thelma and Louise Racing Toward the Cliff

The Republicans are a bit like Thelma, her foot flooring the gas pedal as the global economy hurtles towards the precipice of the Grand Canyon, while Obama is a bit like Louise, her passivity effectively giving Thelma permission to drive off the cliff. Or maybe the movie is Rebel Without a Cause with the Republicans’ James Dean engaging in a miscalculated game of chicken and Obama’s Sal Mineo being killed by police gunfire after all the bullets have been removed from his own gun. Or maybe it’s The Guns of August as the Germans and Western allies inadvertently, but inexorably, hurtle towards World War in the summer of 1914.

Pick your metaphor, but any way you look at it, America’s political leaders are flirting with disaster, risking the first debt default in American history which would likely drag the American — indeed the global — economy into a new recession or even a depression and could dwarf the economic crisis of 2008.

The Republicans are acting as the aggressors, but Obama is acting as the enabler.

Damn those torpedoes. Full speed ahead to the cliff.

Nobel Prize winning Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has nailed Barack Obama’s economic polices and his penchant for feeding the right wing economic fallacies, as “the false government-family equivalence, the myth of expansionary austerity, and the confidence fairy” and, as Dr. Krugman points out, Obama did it in two sentences:

Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

Dr. Krugman has already debunked both the myths of government-family equivalence and expansionary austerity. Yet the President still thinks that by caving to the right wing Hoover economic policies the economy will get better. This appears to be a signal that he is about to cave to Republicans once again on spending cuts and no new revenue sources that has led will further slow the economy and may spiral the US into a second recession or worse.  

The White House is now saying that Congress must pass a bill by July 22 in order for the government not to default on its debt.

The Obama administration believes congressional leaders must agree to a deficit-reduction deal by July 22 in order to raise the government’s borrowing limit in time to avoid a default in early August, according to Democratic officials with knowledge of the negotiations.

The government needs a week or two to write and pass the necessary legislation and take the steps necessary to avoid missing a payment. “We’re down to the wire,” one official said.

Brain Beutler of Talking Points Memo reports Sen. Charles Schhumer (D-NY), in an telephone interview with reporters, said that while the Constitutional option is worth exploring, he thinks “it needs a little more exploration and study. It’s probably not right to pursue at this point and you wouldn’t want to go ahead and issue the debt and then have the courts reverse it.”

Legal scholars and other Democratic Senators have been taking a very close look at the 14th Amendment clause that forbids Congress from defaulting on US debt.

Republican economist Bruce Bartlett, who believes that the Republicans are playing with “the financial equivalent of nuclear weapons”, argues that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and obligates the President to consider the debt ceiling null and void.

If the Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling and the government stops paying its obligations, the first people who should not get paid is Congress.

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Section 4:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Republican economist Bruce Bartlett, who believes that the Republicans are playing with “the financial equivalent of nuclear weapons”, argues that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and obligates the President to consider the debt ceiling null and void.

. . . .I believe that the president would be justified in taking extreme actions to protect against a debt default. In the event that congressional irresponsibility makes default impossible to avoid, I think he should order the secretary of the Treasury to simply disregard the debt limit and sell whatever securities are necessary to raise cash to pay the nation’s debts. They are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States and preventing default is no less justified than using American military power to protect against an armed invasion without a congressional declaration of war.

Furthermore, it’s worth remembering that the debt limit is statutory law, which is trumped by the Constitution and there is a little known provision that relates to this issue. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” This could easily justify the sort of extraordinary presidential action to avoid default that I am suggesting.

snip

Constitutional history is replete with examples where presidents justified extraordinary actions by extraordinary circumstances. During the George W. Bush administration many Republicans defended the most expansive possible reading of the president’s powers, especially concerning national security. Since default on the debt would clearly have dire consequences for our relations with China, Japan and other large holders of Treasury securities, it’s hard to see how defenders of Bush’s policies would now say the president must stand by and do nothing when a debt default poses an imminent national security threat.

Mr. Bartlett is not alone, Garret Epps, journalist and professor of law at Baltimore University, agrees and proposes the President should give a speech declaring, ‘The Constitution Forbids Default’.

Democratic members of the Senate, too, have begun exploring the possibility of declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional:

“This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. “I don’t think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I’ll tell you that it’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'”

By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that the constitutional solution puts the question in its proper context — that the debate is over paying past debts, not over future spending.

“The way everybody talks about this is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. What we’re really saying is, ‘We have to pay our bills,'” Murray said. The 14th Amendment approach is “fascinating,” she added.

Let the games continue.

Up dates below the fold.

Jon Walker at Firedoglake says that the negotiations on the debt ceiling keep moving right:

In the beginning, the idea that any political party would actively hold the debt ceiling hostage to reduce the deficit was considered absurd. Mainly because all the top politicians have admitted they don’t want the country to default and that actually forcing a default would have the exact opposite affect of sending Treasury bond rates up, making the deficit problem dramatically worse. Only a year ago, the idea the debt ceiling must be raised was not just the broad centrist position, and it has been the common sense position for decades.

Instead of holding a firm line and pointing out that Republicans were flirting with incoherent madness related to the debt ceiling, Democrats ,lead by President Obama, choose to feed the Republican deficit hysteria by actively refusing to take a stand. This moved the debate radically to the right. It made it acceptable to hold America credit worthiness hostage to demand deficit reductions despite massive unemployment.

John Amato at Crooks and Liars gives a tutorial in Negotiating for Dummies:

Every “cut” is on the table, but not revenue increasers. This is all kabuki and the debt ceiling isn’t the same type of game they played with as shutting down our own government was. But if Democrats use meaningless military cuts to justify massive cuts in education, food safety, health research and criminal justice as some kumbaya moment, then this will be not a deal, but a ritual sacrifice.

Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, Washington Editor of The Nation magazine, discussed the lengths to which the Republicans have gone to undermine President Obama, calling it “craven shameless, unprincipled partisan hackery”

At this point, I call it insanity on the part of the President and the Democratic leadership.

Finally, Democrats leaders are telling the White House to take Medicare off the table negotiating the debt ceiling. Hello? The majority of Americans support Medicare.

Actually there should be nothing on the table, raising the debt ceiling isn’t something that should or need to be negotiated, just DO IT. This is not a game. This is the economy of the United States and the world which relies on the US dollar as the basis for trade. Are the Democrats, at last, seeing the Republican folly of using Medicare as a pawn in their game for their corporate masters?

In Debt Ceiling Negotiations, Democrats Insist Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan to be ‘Off the Table’

In a letter to Vice President Biden today, five Democratic senators are calling for the Paul Ryan Medicare reform plan to “remain off the table,” as the budget and deficit negotiations over raising the debt ceiling go forward.

“We encourage you to remain unwavering in opposition to this scheme. For the good of the nation’s seniors, it must remain off the table,” the Democratic Senators write, ” we will never allow any effort to dismantle the program and force benefit cuts upon seniors under the guise of deficit reduction.”

The letter has been signed by Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Jon Tester (D-MT).

Even the Wall St. puppet, Sen Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said that Medicare cuts are a not a negotiating point:

The GOP has mostly stood behind the Medicare proposal, crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). But it’s been Democrats who have highlighted the proposal at every opportunity, and they’ve repeatedly called on debt negotiators to say publicly that Medicare cuts are off the table entirely.

If Congress is going to look to the program for savings, Schumer said, the money should come from cuts to the pharmaceutical industry rather than benefit cuts. He cited two policies Democrats have consistently supported: price controls on prescription drugs and extended rebates for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

A deal will be “impossible” if Ryan’s Medicare proposal is included, Schumer said.

The negotiations are aimed at finding a workable solution that both parties can support – which clearly would not describe the Ryan plan.

Since 1962 the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times. Under George W. Bush, it was raised ten times without amendment. The current fiscal problems were caused by the Bush tax cuts, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the economic downturn that both Republicans and Democrats refuse to realistically address by investing in this country, raising revenue, yes taxes, and closing the tax loop holes for corporations. The deficit will not be reduced by ending Medicare and decimating Medicaid and forcing seniors to pay 68% of the costs. That Medicare is even on the table without the tax increases for the top 1% should be a non-starter for negotiations on limiting the debt or raising the debt ceiling. The only reason that I can see this is even a discussion is that the President and the Democrats are beholding to the health care industry and pharmaceutical companies that would benefit in the trillions of dollars if Medicare and Medicaid are ended.

Every Democrat in the House who voted “nay” on the clean bill to raise the debt ceiling should be primaried with a real Democrat who will vote for the best interests of the middle class and the poor and not negotiate away their safety nets to make the rich wealthier.

The GOP staged a debt ceiling “stunt” vote by presenting a clean bill to the floor of the House under suspension of the rules. Suspension of the rules requires a 2/3 vote, allows only 40 minutes of debate and prohibits amendments. Chris Hayes, an editor at the Nation sitting in for Lawrence O’Donnell, discusses the House vote on this not so funny “joke” with Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).

Jon Walker at FDL observes

This move is the ultimate expression of political kabuki, and goes beyond just a show vote. Even if there were a majority of the House that supported voting for a clean debt ceiling increase, due to suspended rules, they now have no incentive to actually vote for the bill. After all, voting to raise the debt ceiling isn’t very popular, so knowing this bill can’t get a two-thirds vote, individual members have no reason to take an unpopular vote that will end up doing nothing.

Boehner isn’t having a vote on a clean bill to prove it can’t pass without major concessions, he has preordained the bill’s failure, taking away members’ reasons to actually vote for the bill, therefore assuring the final roll call will look very bad. Boehner will then point to this big failure he himself guaranteed as somehow justifying his making even more demands.

The hostages takers are demanding even more ransom and they won’t be satisfied until all the hostages are dead.