Trajan
conscientia mille testes
I see The Economist seems to agree with Brooks.
Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes
IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.
There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.
The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.
Related topicsBarack ObamaRepublican Party (United States)United States
Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.
The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical
For more go to: America's debt: Shame on them | The Economist
Only a fool would believe that increased revenue would be used for deficit reduction. The more money the gubmint gets, the more it spends. Obama would start a dozen or so new spending programs with increased revenue.
thats why we need the balanced budget amend. what very few mention here seems to be the fact you spoke to, no on trusts the gov. I don't trust ANY of them. reps dems ......if you give them money, they will spend it.
its always the same, some heavily emotional issue(s) like oh, mediscare will force obama to ask for more money say for his HC prgm. the dems will of course be all over it and the reps if they balk, will then be termed, again, as the party that will throw grannie over the cliff. this shit is as old as wine.
balanced budget amendment, period its the only way to keep them all within some spending constraint and it plays NO favorites. .