Debt Ceiling Could Prove to Be Major Victory for Republican Presidential Candidate

Google Images: Mitt Romney, the GOP front runner

I feel bad for Republican presidential candidates. They've been trying so hard to get attention recently, with a number of televised debates, campaign stops, and television appearances. But the GOP field just can't seem to catch a break. And Mitt Romney is taking it the hardest.

Romney's problems stem largely from the issues I've addressed with the mass media and the way in which it functions. Why report on Romney's serious economic proposals when Herman Cain is saying that he would outlaw any legislation over three pages, or Michelle Bachmann is reportedly having migraine headaches? The average viewer watches the news for short and interesting tidbits of information, not full-scale political analysis of major issues. This is why PBS, with its lack of flair and dramatics, is so unpopular among mainstream Americans. 

But Romney, who many consider to be the front runner of the GOP presidential race, may have caught a major break with the ongoing debt ceiling crisis happening in Washington. And he did not have to do a single thing.

Analysis: GOP Presidential Candidate Could Profit From Debt Talks
With the debt crisis consuming every single part of Washington, Romney and the other serious presidential contenders (I'm looking at you Rick Perry) have two major things going for them:

• Being outside of Washington, away from negotiations, and away from the possibility of having to vote to increase the debt ceiling, is a major advantage right now. While polls show that the American people are starting to understand the seriousness of the situation if we were default on our debts, they are still fairly evenly split on whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling. While everyone in Washington (I would hope) and those who consider themselves politically active know, it is an impossibility to not raise the debt ceiling. It will be raised, it is just a matter of how long it will take to hammer out some kind of compromise between the two parties. But reality does not matter in politics. Politics is solely driven by perception. President Obama is not only directly tied to an increase in the debt ceiling, but he also has to sign the bill into law and waste plenty of resources explaining why the ceiling needs to be raised to a relatively uninformed general populous. Nominees like Romney and Perry, on the other hand, have no such problem. In fact, knowing that their base is strongly opposed to any raising of the debt ceiling under any circumstances, I would be shocked if you don't soon see Romney railing against raising the debt ceiling, saying that if he was in Congress he would have opposed it. Is this the truth? Of course not. For all the flack that Romney takes, I'm the first to admit that he possesses a very high level of intellect, especially for things related to business. And as a businessman, Romney knows that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the United States could face an economic catastrophe. But that doesn't matter, because he will never have to vote on it in Congress or sign legislation that would raise it (at least through the campaign). 

Google Images: President Obama in the White House Briefing Room

• But that's not the only thing that Republican candidates have going for them. While Republicans like Romney are hitting the campaign trail hard, spending hours a day stumping and fundraising with major donors, Obama is stuck in Washington, dealing with anger from both sides, from Republicans who are vehemently against raising taxes and from Democrats who refuse to accept any entitlement cuts. Romney raised $18.4 million last quarter, far surpassing the amount that all other candidates took in combined. However, Romney still loses out to the incumbent president, who took in a record shattering $87 million dollars. But comparing the two numbers ignores the bigger issue. Romney is out campaigning every day, getting his policy positions out there, crusading against the President and his policies. While Obama's grassroots machine has begun to ratchet up, Obama himself has not had the opportunity to really hit the ground running in a number of key battleground states he needs to take to win in 2012. For all those who say that it's too early to even think about the President campaigning, consider this. According to the latest Gallup poll, the president's approval rating sits at 43%, far from the 52.9% that he took in the general election. These poll numbers are worrisome because his approval is down among his own base. If the President wants to rally his base and reassure independents by making sure that they don't just sit out on election day, he needs as early of a start as possible. With the fragile state of the economic recovery, and Republicans doing all they can to make sure that he does not pass a single piece of landmark legislation (or, for that matter, any legislation that would help the president in righting the economy), Obama has some major work to do if he wants to see electoral success again in 2012. 

Google Images: Voter anger with any all incumbents will certainly flair up after the extended and extremely frustrating weeks of debt ceiling negotiations. This is likely to help boost the Republican nominee, who will be able to paint him/herself as an outsider, much like Senator Obama in the run-up to the 2008 election. 

• Furthermore, while Obama may win the battle, he's growing more and more likely by the day to lose the war. Think about it this way: Polls show that if a potential default were to happen, Republicans in Congress would be blamed by 50% of Americans whereas the president would only be blamed by 33%. According to one commentator, the public would view Obama as bad and congressional republicans as even. Obama cannot win and republicans know it. And GOP presidential candidates should be licking their chops at the opportunity to hit Obama hard on the debt ceiling. With Speaker Boehner walking out of a potential bipartisan deal earlier today, this now leave the McConnell compromise as the last real bill on the table. McConnell's plan would essentially grant the president with 100% of the responsibility to raise the debt ceiling, allowing members of Congress to vote no and shifting all the blame for the unpopular action of raising the ceiling squarely on Obama's shoulders. The way in which the debt ceiling negotiations have been handled is likely to cause a rabid anti-incumbent sentiment for Washington politicians. Like it or not, even acting as the most mature man in the room (assuming an almost father like role over his "congressional" children), President Obama is the leader of the "typical, Washington politicians." President Obama will ultimately find it difficult to stave off a well-funded republican candidate who runs as an outsider, just as Senator Obama did in 2008.  

Conclusion

If you ask me, Republican leadership knows exactly what they're doing. By handicapping the President's ability to fund raise, forcing him to engage in seriously unpopular talks, and potentially giving him the sole approval to increase the debt ceiling (allowing Congress to vote no and putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of the President), they are doing all they can to set the president up for failure in 2012. The most telling of quotes comes from Senate  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Forget compromise, forget the possibility of defaulting on our debts, forget that American voters elect officials to represent them and act and vote in a responsible and grown-up manner. Washington has slowly but surely become a political  circus, a place where the minority party will do anything and everything to ensure that the incumbent does not get re-elected. Republicans have recently mastered this strategy, reaffirming the beliefs of millions of discontent Americans. If the possibility of a market meltdown and rapidly increasing interest rates (among dozens of other things) does not spur this Congress to quickly find compromise, I have absolutely no idea what will. 

A Missed Opportunity: Republicans Are Quickly Losing Their Momentum

Google Images: Eric Cantor

With their fervent anti-tax ideology, and their inability to entertain any of tax increases despite the fact that President Obama has offered huge cuts in a number of politically unpopular areas of the government, Republicans have lost a potentially monumental opportunity to permanently turn this country center-right.

David Brooks said it best,

It could be that this has been a glorious moment in Republican history. It could be that having persuaded independents that they are a prudent party, Republicans will sweep the next election. Controlling the White House and Congress, perhaps they will have the guts to cut Medicare unilaterally, reform the welfare state and herald in an era of conservative greatness.

Republicans had a huge chance here. I said it in my last post and I will say it again: There was a Democratic president who saw it fit and necessary to move his policies and this country towards the political center, floating ideas that were extremely unpopular in the Democratic Caucus in Congress. Liberal activists were (and still are somewhat) furious and stunned by Obama’s talk about potentially raising the Medicare enrollment age, cutting Social Security by changing the inflation index, and offering offering to work with congressional Republicans on broad-based tax reform. 

The Democratic Party was one step away from truly fracturing, with congressional Democrats unified in their full opposition to entitlement reform while President Obama spent long nights talking about that very topic with Speaker Boehner. Republicans were one step away from really solidifying and even strengthening their 2010 gains. Democrats would have stayed home in large numbers in 2012 and the Republican nominee would have had a huge opportunity to take the White House.

But then something happened. Republicans pulled back. Eric Cantor stormed out of debt talks. He then rebuked Speaker Boehner’s potential deal with President Obama that would have cut around $3 trillion in spending while eliminating tax loopholes and making minor cuts to Medicare. To avoid a “grand deal” was a mistake, but it’s understandable that Republicans pull back from such a large deal. 

But Republicans in the House did not just reject the plan being crafted by Speaker Boehner and President Obama. No, it then went to an even greater extreme. Today, House Republicans introduced the “Cut. Cap, and Balance Act,” which is the most ideologically driven, partisan debt ceiling legislation that we have seen yet. As the August 2^nd default date creeps eerily closer, and both parties frantically attempt to convince independents that they are the ones working for their values, Republicans have astonishingly made a hard-right turn.

And while Republicans believe that their opinions are currently in line with those of the American people (and they are for the most part true), those views are quickly shifting. While just one week ago, a huge majority of Americans disagreed with raising the debt ceiling, those numbers are now much more hazy, with at least one poll out today saying that 55% of Americans are now very concerned about what would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised. 

Furthermore, a new Gallup poll released today shows that 66% of Americans agree that some type of compromise plan is necessary for the debt ceiling, even if it is a plan that the person who was polled personally disagreed with. Just 27% of Americans polled believe that their party should hold out for the exact plan that they want, even if the debt ceiling was not raised by August 2nd. Furthermore, 57% of Republicans believe that a compromise is necessary even if they disagree with the plan and an astounding 72% of independents agree.

Republican and Democratic voters are decided on this issue. Republicans believe that we need to cut, cap, and balance without any tax hikes while Democrats believe that deficit reduction should involve a more balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases. The fight is over the center. And the ability to relate to the independent center voters (those that are absolutely imperative for election/re-election) is quickly slipping away from Republicans in the House. 

Google Image: Tea Party Patriots Banner

As the tea party continues to radicalize a republican party that no longer has a moderate wing, republican lawmakers are increasingly left pandering and reassuring their own voters. This can be seen with cut, cap, an balance. Republicans know that this bill has no chance of becoming law but that's not what's important. What is important is that the act reassures tea party donors and super conservatives, which keeps money flowing in to republican coffers.

The problem with this approach is that Republicans are now ostracizing independent voters, allowing President Obama, who had consistently attempted (and mostly succeeded) in painting himself as compromiser-in-chief, to swoop in and snatch up independent voters with his centrist and pragmatic policies. While liberal democrats have become rather frustrated with Obama, there is no doubt that they will still vote for him in the end (however begrudgingly they may do it). What has always mattered (and especially matters now) is who can control the middle ground. And with Republicans moving farther and farther right, passing their latest cut, cap. and balance bill by more than 30 votes, they are moving themselves away from what is really important: the political center.

Google Images

While Republicans in the House celebrate their victory tonight, the American people are worried, worried that political posturing and risky lies could make it so they no longer have access to credit and are at risk of losing their job. The debt ceiling is not something to play with, it should never be used as a political tool to inspire fear or as an excuse to lie through one's teeth. 

Republicans are happy tonight; but rest assured, political commentators, historians, and politicians will look back on this past month and say that the Republican's handling of the debt ceiling situation was one of the biggest political blunders in the history of the Republican Party. 

The radicalization of the republican party continues, and with it goes a missed, golden opportunity. 

The Question No One Wants to Ask: What Would Happen if the US Government Defaults on Its Debts?

Getty Images

Remember this headline?

Dow falls 777 points, biggest one-day drop ever

With debt ceiling talks completely stalled and neither side wanting to give up political ground, the United States faces a true possibility of default for the first time ever. And the news coming out of Washington is less than stellar. In fact, its downright scary.

Stan Collender, budget expert at Qorvis, spoke to Ezra Klein in Sunday’s Washington Post. He ominously explained,

 “[There is] less than 50-50 [chance of a deal before Aug. 2]..." 

And David Cote, chairman and CEO of Honeywell, on the “Meet the Press” roundtable commented,

 “[I]t's like both parties have a grip on each other's throat and they're more focused on simultaneous asphyxiation than they are on actually resolving the problem.”  

Finally, The New Yorker’s George Packer:

“Obama and Congress are engaged in high-drama brinksmanship, like members of an ordnance-disposal unit arguing about how to defuse a huge ticking bomb.” 

Hearing these types of words form high-level officials and commentators this late into the debt ceiling discussions is extremely disheartening and worrisome for the economic fate of the nation. Remember, while the Obama Administration has said that we will begin the process of defaulting on our obligations August 2nd, it takes time for a bill to be drafted, debated, and passed in both the House and the Senate. If we are going to reach a deal before the deadline, it will have to come this week.

Google Images: On September 29, 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial fell 777 points, the largest single-day drop in history. Analysts are speculating that if a deal is not reached by August 2nd, we could see something comparable, if not worse, to the economic collapse of 2008.

The Current Situation 
Let's face some unfortunate facts:

• The President of the United States and high level treasury officials say that we have until August 2nd at the latest to increase the debt ceiling
• Republicans in Congress are refusing to accept any form of tax hike on any person or corporation (this includes eliminating loopholes for big oil, timber, and corporate jet owners)
• Democrats in Congress are refusing to vote for any debt increase if the deal includes cuts to medicare and/or social security
• To make matters worse, Republican have made a far-right turn, pushing a radically partisan "cut, cap, and balance" plan instead of compromising just two weeks away from a possible default. 
• Debt talks have stalled, with neither side ceding any ground; in fact, both sides have apparently dug in

Politicians in Washington are certainly playing with fire when it comes to the debt ceiling. But the American public is not making it any better. Still, despite all the dire warnings, a plurality of Americans believe that the debt should not be raised. As I have previously said, Republicans see a political victory out of this, attempting to come down on the side of the people since they know that strict opposition to the debt ceiling increase could score them political points now and mean campaign contribution for their 2012 war chest. But maybe, just maybe, if I can explain what would happen if we did default, I can begin to change some minds.

What Is A Default?

Default is a relatively simple concept: It occurs when a debtor (in this case the United States) has not met its legal obligations according to a debt contract. This may mean not making a scheduled payment, violating some condition of the contract, or being unable to pay back the loaned money. Default occurs if the debtor is unwilling or unable to pay their debt.

Google Images: Rioting in Greece

If the United States Defaults...

widespread panic would ensue. No country the size of the United States has ever defaulted on its debt. Think about this: The financial markets lost tremendous amounts of value when Greece was seen as a major threat to default in 2010. Greece has a GDP of $329.9 billion. The United States? Our GDP is almost 43 times bigger than that, valued at an astounding $14.12. A number of economists believed that the world economy was in danger of collapsing had Greece defaulted. Now, can you possibly imagine what would happen if the United States defaulted on its debt? 

One thing that is important to remember is that the debt is not just simply a bunch of numbers; it is real money that has been lent to us by foreign countries with the actual expectation that we return that payment plus interest. The debt is owed to foreign countries, multinational banks, and many Americans through the buying of treasury bonds (which are rated as AAA, the safest type of investment money can buy). If, for example, I overspend and am forced to default on my debts that I owe, that money that I owed does not just magically vanish into thin air. The bank is forced to take the loss. The same can be said for the United States of America. If the US was to default on its debt, the rest of the world would suddenly be left with $14 trillion of unpaid liabilities. One can only imagine the catastrophic collapse that would ensue. While we do not know exactly what would happen (since we have never actually been through and never should have to go through it), it is fairly easy to make some well-supported assumptions:

skiddish and more worried. However, if previous experience serves as a guide, we will not see any type of collapse until August 2nd if a deal had not been reached. That being said, if wall street spent months expecting a late-term deal and no deal ultimately gets done, the markets reaction will be uncharacteristically harsh and never-before-seen. Collender explains it best:

[R]emember the general idea on Wall Street right now is that there will be a deal because there’s always a deal. But Wall Street works off of expectations. So if the market realizes they got this wrong, the reaction could be larger than expected. 

The only positive to a market collapse would be that it would most likely force lawmakers to pass a debt increase as quickly as possible. The AP speculates,

The widespread selloff that might trigger could have one benefit, Briggs and others say. Panic-selling might force Washington to quickly agree to raise the debt limit. Think back to September 2008 for some historical perspective. After the House of Representatives voted down the bailout bill to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program on Sept. 29, the Dow Jones industrial average nosedived 777 points. Congress made an about face and four days later passed the TARP bill. President George W. Bush quickly signed it into law.

But even then, one day past August 2nd is one day too many. A deal is easily reachable if both sides share the sacrifice. In the end, no one will be happy with the deal that is reached. Ultimately it is about making sure that both sides feel equally bad about the bill that they end up passing.

2. Many of the world's largest banks, who have still not fully recovered from the 2008 financial meltdown, would be forced to go bankrupt to their exposure to United States debt. Subsequently, credit for necessary things like homes, cars, etc., would become almost completely unavailable. Additionally, since many large corporations rely on short-term credit to pay their employees and that credit would all but disappear, many workers would be unable to collect their paychecks. 

Moreover, the credit rating agencies like Moody's and S&P have threatened to downgrade treasury bonds from their AAA rating if a deal is not reached. This would mean that treasury bonds would no longer be considered as safe an investment as they once were and countries like China (who are the biggest buyer of US treasury bonds) would pull out its money and look for a safer investment. This could not only cause short-term economic pain, but have grave, long-term consequences for the United States and the rest of the world.

3. To go along with that point, businesses would begin laying off more workers since they have no access to credit and no way to advance their own growth. With no access to capital, companies would start shedding workers at an alarming rate. This would of course only make matters worse, resulting in at  best a deep recession and at worst another Great Depression. 

4. The dollar would also likely become almost worthless since the "full faith and credit" of the United States is the only real thing holding up the value of the dollar. When that disappears as access to credit vanishes, it is hard to imagine the dollar being able to retain any of its value.

5. The government would also be potentially unable to send out checks for medicare and social security, leaving hundreds of thousands of seniors who rely on medicare for their medications and prescriptions paying extremely high prices.

**There are a whole lot of other things that I could list off, like rising oil prices and subsequently, skyrocketing gas prices. But I think that the above four are the most significant and vital to understand. 

Google Images: Unemployment Could Skyrocket to Numbers Not Seen Since the Great Depression

Conclusion
So will the United States default on August 2nd? Most likely not. While the Treasury has said that August 2 is the drop-dead date for default, economists are saying that if lawmakers were to shut down a large percentage of government agencies and shuffle some money around, a full out default could likely be avoided for a few weeks. Regardless, the prospect of living with 20+% unemployment, no access to credit, a withering stock and mutual fund portfolio, and a global meltdown, is something that no person wants to see.

There is something that every American needs to realize: At this moment, the United States can still easily meet its debt obligations. Ignore the hype, those who say that America is broke and/or out of money are lying to you. 

If the United States goes into default, it will most certainly not be because of the economics. If the US defaults on its own debt obligations, it will be solely due to the politics behind the issue. The unintended consequences of political pandering to pick up votes in 2012 would have such grave economic repercussions that America would be left reeling for years to come.

Cut, Cap, and Balance: The Republican's Latest Economic "Plan"

With a debt deal going absolutely nowhere and the August 2nd deadline getting ever closer, the Republican Study Committee (a caucus of House Republicans that push conservative economic principles) has announced that they will push for a brand new economic plan: an amendment to the constitution called "cut, cap, and balance." 

What is Cut, Cap, and Balance?
According to the Study Committee,

1. Cut – Immediate spending cuts to reduce the deficit by half next year.  According to March projections from the Congressional Budget Office, this would require spending cuts of approximately $380 billion in the 2012 fiscal year. 
2.  Cap – Statutory, enforceable caps that bring spending into line with average revenues at 18% of GDP.  Reps. Kingston and Mack have each introduced legislation that would ratchet total federal spending down to 18% of GDP over the course of 5-6 years.  
3. Balance – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases.  The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines. 

Andrew Stiles at the National Review provides an even more succinct explanation:

Under the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” legislation, Congress would raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion (the amount requested by President Obama to get him through the 2012 election). However, that increase would go into effect only if both houses of Congress pass — with two-thirds majorities — a balanced-budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution and send it to the states for ratification. In addition, the plan calls for significant spending cuts to next year’s budget — about $111 billion — and firm caps on federal spending at 18.5 percent of GDP by the end of the decade. According to White House data, given current trends, spending will exceed 25 percent of GDP this year and will hover around 22.5 percent for the next five years. (The legislation will make no immediate changes to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.) 

The plan sounds perfect in theory. Let's make sure that the government lives within its means by limiting their ability to spend and tax! But the Republican plan is, sadly, complete hogwash. 

Analysis: The Negatives

Let's break down why this plan would do little to assist our ailing economy. In fact, the Republican's plan to cut, cap, and balance could make our economic problems even more severe:

1. Firstly, and practically speaking, there is no way that such an amendment could ever be added to the Constitution. The numbers simply do not add up. As a recap, the amendment would have to pass both the House and the Senate with a 2/3rds majority, which means that 67 senators as well as 287 members of the House would have to vote in favor. This is extremely improbable seeing that there are currently only 47 Republican Senators and 240 Republican members of the House. Such a controversial and likely straight party-line vote would make it all but impossible for Republicans to draw the bipartisan support they would need to pass it. 

2. The plan would significantly handicap the country's ability to deal with recessions and economic collapses. Cut, cap, and balance calls for a rule to be put in place that would require a supermajority (that is, 2/3rds of Congress) to pass any form of tax increase. Furthermore, they would make it impossible for government to spend any money in the form of an economic stimulus or in times of potential economic catastrophe. This could have terrifying ramifications. Let me start with an example. I am not a politician, and therefore am able to say something that almost no politician (at least Republican will ever say): Say what you want about the $700 billion that went to bailing out the banks, but it was an absolutely necessary infusion of cash to a system that could no longer prop itself up. Those emergency funds temporarily staved off an even worse recession until the government could figure out how to create more wide-ranging and long-term economic measures. If cut, cap, and balance had been in place during 2008, President Obama would not have the opportunity to grant the banks that money because there would have been a law in place that severely weakened his ability to react to economic calamities. 

3. My third point goes hand in hand with the previous idea. If the economy began to tumble (which it would if regulations were eliminated to create a marketplace that would be determined largely by greed and the government was unable to spend the necessary funds like TARP to keep the economy afloat), taxes would almost certainly have to be increased to make up for the fact that the government would be unable to spend money due to cut, cap, and balance. But tax increases would also be an impossible feat, seeing that Republicans will never vote for any form of tax increase or tax loophole elimination and Democrats will never have a supermajority in either the House or the Senate. This puts the US government in a horrible and absolutely unworkable position in times of recession. Not only would they be unable to spend any emergency money, but they would be unable to raise that money through taxes. That does not sound like a plan for economic prosperity from me. Instead, it sounds like a plan for long-term economic depression. 

While Republican commentators are ecstatic that the bill will be introduced this week on the House floor, others are less thrilled. The Huffington Post explains,

Economists say a balanced-budget requirement would tie the federal government's hands during a recession, when tax revenues plummet and welfare costs rise, by forcing it to slash spending or raise taxes.

Seiver, a professor of finance at San Diego State. "It's exactly the opposite of what intelligent fiscal policy should do."

Tax revenues tend to decline in times of economic downturns. Making it harder to raise taxes during recessionary periods in which tax revenues plummet would tie the federal government's hands. 

Scoring Political Points
I have a working thesis about this whole cut, cap, and balance business. Despite the minority of really uniformed Republican congressmen who truly don't understand the importance of raising the debt ceiling and the negative consequences that not increasing it could have on the economy, I really believe that most of these congressman do not actually believe what they are saying.

Hear me out: Cut, cap, and balance (and for that matter a number of Republican principles like "low taxes" and "minimal government regulation") sound fantastic in theory and only cause problems when you try to apply them practically. Republicans know that it will not ever be adopted, that they simply do not have the supermajorities needed for its passage. But it doesn't matter. They've seen the polls (a majority of Americans don't support raising the debt ceiling) and know that if they posture enough, America will see the Republican Party as "their party."

Republican strategists are giddy at the number of possibilities that Republicans have to come out politically victorious from debt ceiling discussions. Polls show that the public, and especially Republican voters, oppose a debt ceiling increase and favor some form of balanced budget amendment:

"This is a vote where ... the House Republican majority gets to align itself with the American public at large," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist and former Boehner spokesman. 

Conclusion
What could possibly force Republicans to raising the debt ceiling, something that inevitable must happen if the US wants to avoid economic default and something that has happened 39 times since 1980 (17 of those times being under President Reagan)? The failure of the cut, cap, and balance bill in achieving political success, coupled with an increasingly more frantic lobbying campaign by pro-business, Republican allies (like the Chamber of Commerce, who has admonished congressional Republicans for playing politics with the debt ceiling), could soften Republican opposition as August 2nd inches closer. Additionally, a steep drop in financial markets could also change their mind (In fact, Nancy Pelosi said in an interview that that may be the only way Republicans will actually understand that their actions have consequences).

The biggest problem for me with Republican's hard-right turn is their utter lack of ability to compromise (or even consider compromise a legitimate option). Here we are two weeks away from potentially defaulting on our debt and instead of proposing something that operates under the assumption that deficit reduction should be a shared sacrifice, Republicans have gone in the opposite direction, proposing a plan that Democrats and independents alike are sure to be distrustful of. 

Despite their best efforts to derail it, Republicans in Congress know that the debt ceiling will be raised, it's only a matter of time. But by fear mongering relentlessly and playing politics with an issue that's extremely unpopular among the general American populous, Republicans are winning. And sadly, that's all that will ever matter in Washington. 

Washington Post: Since 1980, the debt ceiling has been raised 39 times. It was raised 17 times under Ronald Reagan, four times under Bill Clinton and seven times under George W. Bush.

Sunday Opinion: It's Time For Republicans in Congress to Take A Look in the Mirror

Congressional Republicans are continuing to throw roadblock after roadblock in the path of a possible debt ceiling agreement, and as the deadline gets closer, they are becoming more outspoken about it. Many House freshman have doubled down on their disbelief of the White House's August 2nd default date, with some, like Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, strongly asserting that the treasury has more than enough money to service its debt and pay for major government programs. 

Others, like Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama, have expressed utter surprise that credit rating agencies like Moody's have placed US treasury bonds on downgrade watch. Brooks actually wondered out loud why our credit rating may potentially be downgraded:

“There should be no default on August 2,” Brooks said. “In fact, our credit rating should be improved by not raising the debt ceiling.”

It is astonishing that these congressman, with absolutely no background in basic economic issues (let along something as complex and potentially catastrophic as raising the debt ceiling) are able to stand up on the House floor and unequivocally claim that President Obama pandering without a real solution for deficit reduction. Furthermore, Republicans are claiming that he is creating mass hysteria and uncertainty in the marketplace. 

This comment has been the go-to for congressional republicans and conservative commentators alike. It all started with healthcare, when those opposed expressed concern that the new healthcare law would create grave uncertainty in the marketplace and would lead to major job loss and confusion among business owners. Now, this talking point has been revamped for the new fight, the fight over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.

But it's not President Obama who is creating the uncertainty. No, if Republicans want to point fingers at those who are causing turmoil in the marketplace, they needn't do anything but turn those fingers on themselves.

Republicans have spent the better part of July complaining about the President's handling of the debt ceiling discussion, claiming that he's adding to economic uncertainty, that he's out of touch, and that Americans cannot afford tax raises (despite the fact that they would only affect the top 1% of earners and major corporations like big oil). But this claim by Republicans only serves to act as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By spending the majority of their time in Congress bickering about the President instead of actually attempting to reach a compromise, congressional republicans are actually the ones to blame for increasing uncertainty. To put it another way: By attempting to create artificial "economic uncertainty" by focusing on it nonstop as opposed to actually sitting down at the table and hammering out a deal, House republicans are only making the problem that much worse. 

Both sides have spent plenty of time bickering, but the time for partisan hackery is over. I don't know how to stress the importance of the situation we now find ourselves in. Congress is more divided than it has been in decades, a radical freshman class in the House refuses to do anything that could help the President score anything that could be construed as a victory, and the US Treasury is stressing that if we do not raise the debt ceiling by August 2nd, the country is at major risk of default.

This is a dire situation, but unfortunately House republicans would rather play politics in hopes of derailing the President's re-election campaign. 

It's time we hold our politicians accountable for what they're really doing: fanning the flames of partisanship and deliberately creating artificial, economic uncertainty. 

President Obama has stressed that deficit reduction must be a shared sacrifice. He has offered to accept trillions of dollars in spending cuts, raise the medicare enrollment age, and cut funding to Social Security. In return Obama has asked for top tier tax rates to return to Clinton-era levels and the elimination of a half-dozen loopholes that would not in any way, shape, or form affect middle class workers (like subsidies for corporate jets, big oil, and the timber industry), which would result in revenue increases of only a few hundred million dollars (compared to the $3 trillion in cuts that the President conceded to Republicans in Congress). And what have Republicans, who rode into Washington on a wave of promises to "cut spending" and "restore America's fiscal responsibility," promised to sacrifice? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. After getting the trillions of dollars in cuts that they asked for, and being offered cuts in medicare that they wanted from President Obama, they refuse to compromise at all. No taxes, no negotiations, their way or the highway. 

If Republicans want to blame someone for fear-mongering, mishandling debt ceiling negotiations, and creating uncertainty in the marketplace, it's time that they face facts and take a look in the mirror. 

The Disintegration of the Mass Media Part 1

Summary: I begin this piece on the media with a very recent example regarding the British tabloid scandal at the News of the World. However, this should only serve as an example to the much more important part of this posting, which can be found under the "Analysis" section.

For those people living under a rock (or taking a much needed break from the constant debt ceiling discussions on news and opinion channels for a while), the British tabloid "News of the World" and the company that owns it, Newscorp Inc. (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News), have been sharply criticized for allegedly hacking into the phones of celebrities and even 9/11 victims. It's true. Major news sites have confirmed that staff members at "News of the World" actually attempted to pay off a NYC police officer in order to obtain the cell phone records and text conversations of those people who were killed in the September 11th attacks. Furthermore, and potentially more catastrophic than that, the "News of the World" staff hacked the phone of Milly Dowler, a British teenager who had been kidnapped and was ultimately murdered. In fact, when the girl's voicemail inbox became full with messages, News of the World (hereafter referred to as NOTW) staff actually erased messages from the phone in order to dig up more. This in turn gave the parents of Dowler false hope that their daughter was actually alive, despite the fact that she had already been killed. 

The acts of hacking perpetrated by staff and leaders at NOTW are horrendous and the people behind the hacks should be prosecuted for what they did. This is by all intents and purposes a huge story. NOTW was originally founded in 1843, it has been around for more than 170 years and had become somewhat of a staple in British culture. So when the shock news hit Britain and a number of top staff at the tabloid were arrested and questioned, it became a major story that news channels in the United States quickly picked up and reported on nonstop. This is where the story of media hypocrisy begins. 

DISCLAIMER: I do not hate everything on Fox News and my criticism of the network in this specific instance should not mean that I am immediately painted as a rabid liberal with an axe to grind. In this blog, I attempt to objectively point out hypocrisy, regardless of the source or party affiliation. 

Fox News, the channel that is owned by Rupert Murdoch (who company owns News of the World), has attempted to downplay the scandal. You can watch the video below, in which host Steve Doocey and his guest scolded the mainstream media for reporting on what they saw as such an unimportant issue:

In the interview, Doocey exclaimed,

"We've got some serious problems in this country ... and what do they do?" he said. "They talk about this."

Oh Steve, if only there was videotaped evidence of you ignoring real political stories to report on a politically charged issue. Oh wait, there is! Need we remind Mr. Doocey of the Anthony Weiner scandal? According to Mediaite.com, a website that tracks media coverage,

On June 14, Weiner was covered extensively on all three major cable news channels. CNN covered the Weiner fallout on American Morning, CNN Newsroom, The Situation Room, and Anderson Cooper 360. Fox News featured the story on Fox & Friends, America’s Newsroom, America Live with Megyn Kelly, Studio B, Your World with Neil Cavuto, Special Report with Bret Baier, and Fox Report with Shepherd Smith. But it was MSNBC that had the most Weiner coverage Tuesday, with every show covering the story to some degree except Morning Joe, Dylan Ratigan, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz. 

Additionally, let me share a video with you of Mr. Doocey's Fox News program, Fox and Friends, ignoring important issues and focusing solely on the Weiner scandal when the news broke:



Brian Kilmeade, the commentator on the right, even says,

"We have so much to talk about, you have a budget to pass, you have what's going on in Libya...you have the tragic story of the 13 year old girl who was beaten in Syria, and who could believe that Congressman Weiner's pictures or not pictures could be the number one story on Capitol Hill!"

It's as if Fox and Friends recognized the great variety of substantive political issues that they had to choose from and yet still decided that they should spend hours upon hours needlessly tacking the most recent developments of Anthony Weiner.

Now, I would not be fair if I only blamed Fox News. MSNBC has been just as bad. On the Rachel Maddow show, Maddow went through a long list of all the different issues that were plaguing the world at that time. But then, instead of discussing them in detail, she ran a 10 minute segment about...you guessed it, the Weiner scandal:




Analysis: A Flawed Cable News System
Now, I give credit to Maddow for at least presenting these much more important issues (like the atrocities in Syria and Yemen), but the fact remains: the cable news world is out to draw headlines.

We witnessed this with the recent Casey Anthony trial. The day that the verdict was read, I sat at my desk at work watching CNN the entire 9-hour day. Of those nine hours, at least eight were completely dedicated to Casey Anthony. Even worse, the network had no new information. Instead, they were simply recycling the same four or five points over and over again, stalling until a verdict was decided upon and read.

Why do you think that PBS, a no-frills network with some of the best news and analysis on television, draws such abysmal ratings? Because there's no fun in it, no potential to see two self-interested, moronic commentators screaming at each other over a random political issue or over whether or not Casey Anthony should be released from prison on Wednesday or on Thursday. There's no flashy color schemes, loud and outspoken hosts, or crazy partisan hacks as guests. This is the problem with the modern day cable news system.

Our television coverage is failing us. As Americans who understand the importance of open discussion on extremely sensitive and overwhelmingly important issues like the debt ceiling debate, we need to demand that our cable news programs provide us with an informed, well-conceived, and non-partisan account of the most recent happenings. Guests should have substantive discussion, disagreement should be welcome (having two sides to every issue allows a free flow of ideas and encourages viewers to make up their minds independently), but shouting should be strongly discouraged.

The current politics in Washington, with an impenetrable partisan rift between conservatives and progressives that is only worsening as debate on a slew of important legislation continues, directly mirrors the way in which our cable news programs operate. The House floor used to be a place for lively debate, compromise, hard work, and negotiation. Similarly, television news programs used to be a place for well-respected, publicly non-partisan nightly news anchors to present the day's news in an objective and unbiased manner. Today, the House floor is a place for prepared, partisan statements that only serve to emphasize the divide between the two parties (compromise is no longer achievable). Likewise, the news media has become a place frequented by partisan hacks (as both hosts and guests), a place where uninformed opinion has all but permanently replaced unbiased news, commentators spout off party talking points on a relatively consistent basis, and the true battle in any debate between talking heads is over who can yell louder than the other.

Until the news media can find a way to pull back and present the news the way it should be, in an unbiased manner with substantive (and calm) discussion between opposing viewpoints, the ideologically-driven politics of Washington will remain the same.

It's about time that we start demanding change.