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. 

Debt Ceiling Drama: Tea Party Republicans vs. Everyone Else

Google Images

Just weeks after the Republican caucus wholly rejected any form of "grand deal" to raise the debt ceiling, rumors are swirling around the Capitol that the possibility for a larger package has been put back on the table, and that progress is being made.

A Quick Update
For those who have not been paying much attention lately, here are the most recent updates:

• House Republicans debated and passed the "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act," with 9 republicans opposing and 5 Democrats supporting the bill. According to the language of the bill, the legislation would cut discretionary spending by around $380 billion in 2012 (although where the cuts come from has not yet been specified), enforce a cap on spending that would make it impossible to spend any more than 18% of GDP, and put a balanced budget amendment on the table which would force all tax increases to be passed by a 2/3 vote instead of a simple majority. Republicans have said that this bill will help to right America's fiscal house and spur job growth by creating certainty in the marketplace. Critics have pounced on the bill for not specifying what cuts would be made. They have also asserted that if the bill became law, the legislation would severely handicap the President in times of economic downturn (as he would be unable to access any type of money that would be intended for stimulus). Either way, the bill is said to be dead in the water in the Senate, as the Senate Democratic Majority would be wholly unlikely to pass such a bill seeing as a balanced budget amendment has very limited support among progressives.

• The Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has floated a bill that would cut around $1.5 trillion in spending over 10 years while also giving the President the authority to suggest (but not implement) even more future spending cuts as one of the conditions to raising the debt ceiling. But House Republicans have thrown up major roadblocks to this idea, saying that it does not cut enough over the ten year period and that it gives the President too much discretion and too many opportunities to back out of those cuts in the future. Additionally, the President and his administration have been desperately pushing for a bigger deficit-reduction package, which has led many lawmakers to consider the McConnell deal as being too small and possibly unnecessary. Because of this, the bill is looking less and less likely to be the ultimate solution that is agreed upon by the President and Congress. 

Google Images: Mitch McConnell is working frantically to  create a plan that would cut $1.5 trillion dollars from the budget over 10 years and give the President the authorization to raise the debt ceiling. But commentators say it has very little chance of passing the House with enough Tea-Party Republican support. 

Where Does This Leave Us?

With the two most high-profile bills all but ruled out, where does this leave us? Remember a few weeks ago when Boehner drew major flack from House Majority Leader Cantor and the rest of the Republican caucus for offering them a "grand deal" that he had assisted in conceiving with the President? Well, it appears that that plan is back with a vengeance. Commentators and officials close to the White House are saying that a long-term, large-scale deficit plan is now seeming to be more and more likely of an option. 

According to a number of different sources, the President is still looking for a large-scale deficit deal that would likely save more than $4 trillion dollars over ten years, through discretionary cuts, entitlement reforms, tax increases on wealthy Americans, and the elimination of tax subsidies for big oil companies and a number of other corporations. And with Republicans taking major flack for their no-compromise policy, they may at this point be willing to oblige him. 

What would this possible deal look like? According to the Huffington Post,

It would involve steep reductions in health care spending -- both in Medicare and Medicaid. In previous debt ceiling negotiations, the administration has supported further means-testing elements of Medicare as well as raising the eligibility age of the program. Cuts to Medicare suppliers would also be part of a larger package, as would adjusting the payment structure of Social Security so that a lower level of benefits was paid out over time.

Even if these controversial cuts to medicare were approved by both Democrats and Republicans, the problem of tax revenue is still an issue that seems dishearteningly difficult to find common ground on. Said simply, Democrats want the Bush era tax cuts curtailed and rates to go back up to Clinton era levels, which, it should be noted, was a period in which the government was running surpluses (however, whether or not that had to do with tax rates is disputed). Republicans, on the other hand, do not want any form of tax increase involved in a deal.

But the most outspoken congressional Republicans, the freshman, tea-party backed conservatives, may have to swallow the medicine. While Speaker Boehner has publicly stated that Republicans are solely focused on getting cut, cap, and balance signed into law, according to unconfirmed yet widely circulated reports, Speaker Boehner spoke openly to the Republican caucus in a private meeting and said that some form of a grand deal is still on the table. It has also been reported that he has expressed interest in a large-scale deal with the potential for raises in revenue and has been working on some form of a deal directly with President Obama.

Knowing that Republicans will do all they can to avoid tax increases, the President has offered them an alternative path:

The White House has laid out an alternative suggestion during past negotiations: Lawmakers would be required to find $800 billion in additional revenues over the next decade. If they could not find an agreement, then the Bush-era tax cuts for the high-end earners will expire.

What's more, Grover Norquist, the man behind the "no-new-tax-pledge" which all congressman (with a handful of exceptions) have signed, said explicitly that not continuing the Bush tax cuts would not theoretically be considered a tax increase, and therefore would not violate the pledge that Republicans in Congress signed. According to the Washington Post,

According to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.

Republicans are critical of this alternative path, saying that all Democrats would have to do was simply "run out the clock" -- meaning that they would oppose any and all deals knowing that the Bush tax rates on the rich would go up no matter what. Because of this, Democratic officials say they are floating a new, slightly different idea:

In order to try and find agreement on this front, a slight reversal to the administration's original plan has been floated, according to a Democratic official. Rather than write the decoupling of the Bush tax cuts into the debt ceiling legislation, negotiators will simply leave the rates as is.

Lawmakers would still be tasked with finding $800 billion or so in revenues to supplement a deficit-reduction deal. But if that $800 billion didn't materialize, they would no longer have the fallback option of seeing the high-end rates go back to pre-Bush levels when they are set to expire at the end of 2012. Instead, they would have to relive the dramatic legislative showdown that happened in late 2010, when the president and Democrats tried, unsuccessfully, to decouple the top-rates from the middle and lower income rates.  

Google Images: Grover Norquist, The Head of Americans for Tax Reform

 Analysis: Tea Party vs. All 
As demonstrated above, there are a number of different options floating around. But the worry is that none of them are politically viable, by which I mean none of them would be able to get enough support from House Republicans. Even with President Obama compromising on trillions of cuts, including deeply unpopular cuts to medicare and medicaid, and offering an olive branch to Republicans on taxes, Tea Party backed Republicans still refuse to even entertain the idea of increasing taxes a single penny. Instead, House Republicans have taken to the airwaves and the television screens, arguing with political commentators and hosts that cut, cap, and balance has a great chance of passing the Senate. Case and point, Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh got into a heated (and extremely juvenile) argument with Chris Matthews about the plan that Tea Party Republicans have trumpeted:




Through all the bickering (which I have argued is a huge problem with the mass media), Walsh repeatedly asserts that cut, cap, and balance has a good chance of passing the Senate. This is pure posturing. Cut, cap, and balance has absolutely no chance of passing the Senate. It would need a total of 60 Senators to vote in favor and with the chamber being composed of a Democratic majority vehemently opposed to such ideologically driven legislation, it is dead on arrival. Joe Walsh (and more broadly members of the Tea Party Republican caucus) have said that they are in no way posturing, that they want to see a deal done more than anyone else. In fact, they argue that President Obama is the one lying in an attempt to turn the people against the Republican party.

If Tea Party Republicans are not posturing, if they really believe in compromise, why did they push so hard for cut, cap, and balance, legislation that is purely ideologically driven (with a requirement that all tax increases can only be put into law with a 2/3rds majority) and had absolutely no chance of ever becoming law? If they believe in compromise, with less than two weeks before the government begins the process of defaulting on its debts, shouldn't they be working with the President, working with their leadership to try to hammer out a deal in which no one is happy, but everyone is equally unhappy?

A new CNN poll came out today that showed that 64% of Americans believe that any debt ceiling deal should include a mix of both spending cuts and tax increases:

In those discussions, several budget plans have been proposed that would reduce the amount the government owes by trillions of dollars over the next ten years.  If you had to choose, would you rather see Congress and President Obama agree to a budget plan that only includes cuts in government spending, or a budget plan that includes a combination of spending cuts and tax increases on higher-income Americans and some businesses? 

Only spending cuts 34%  

Spending cuts and tax increases 64%

The Republican Party is in trouble on the debt ceiling, and they are being given a huge chance to potentially avoid political catastrophe. President Obama is giving up at least $2.4 trillion in spending cuts, and what does he want in return? For Bush era tax cuts to expire. Just to hammer the point home (I know I just provided the quote), even Grover Norquist, the biggest anti-tax crusader in Washington, is saying that allowing tax cuts to simply expire is not equal to a tax hike and therefore would not draw the ire of Norquist's powerful group, Americans for Tax Reform. But tea party candidates are still clinging on to the wildly imaginative idea that cut, cap, and balance has a chance to pass the Senate.

This should be most troubling for Republicans like John Boehner and Senate Republicans who believe that compromise is necessary to making a deal. Why? Because when the American voter thinks about who they would blame if the government defaults, their opinions are not nuanced. The vast majority do not say "Republicans in the House" or "Tea Party Republicans." No, they say simply Republicans. This is the same phenomenon that happens almost every midterm election after a new president has been elected. Take, for instance, 2008, when President Obama was swept into office with a huge margin of victory and dozens of congressman rode in on his coattails. Then, in 2010, voters got upset with President Obama because they had voted for change and not a whole lot happened. What did the voters do? They did not get upset at just President Obama, no, they blamed the entire Democratic Party, voting out a huge number of House Democrats and hammering away at the Democratic Senate Majority.

A similar situation appears to be manifesting with the debt ceiling talks. While Senate Republicans have showed openness to compromise, the powerful group of freshman tea-party backed republican congressman have maintained their fierce fight against taxes. In fact, many Senate Republicans have showed interest in the so-called "Gang of Six" proposal that was created by 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The plan would essentially raise $1.7 trillion of revenue over the next ten years. But the plan drew near-immediate criticism from House Republicans.

Paul Ryan, the head of the House Budget Committee, expressed his dismay with the plan that would raise revenues:

Unfortunately, it [the plan] increases revenues while failing to seriously address exploding federal spending on health care, which is the primary driver of our debt. There are also serious concerns that the proposal’s substance on spending falls far short of what is needed to achieve the savings it claims.

And Tea-party freshman have also been chiming in against the plan, frustrated with the proposed tax increases. What House Republicans fail to realize is this: The President has expressed a willingness to compromise on trillions of cuts in discretionary and entitlement spending, a willingness that most Democrats are visibly frustrated with. Cuts to Medicare are angering for any Democrat.

But if President Obama's final deal with Speaker Boehner includes cuts to medicare, I would be outright shocked if Democrats did not swallow the bitter pill and vote for the plan anyways, despite their public outcries. This is the main difference between congressional Democrats and Republicans. Putting all the rhetoric aside, Democrats in Congress have shown a willingness to take politics out of the equation and put the country first. Will Democrats take major flack for increasing the debt limit and agreeing to cuts to medicare? Absolutely. They may even lose some wealthy fundraisers. But they understand that if the debt limit is not raised, this country is in grave danger of an even more calamitous economic collapse than 2008.

Tea-party Republicans (this does not include Senate Republicans or Speaker Boehner) say they want to move the nation forward, get our fiscal house in order, and create jobs. But the legislation they're supporting (like cut, cap, and balance) and the roadblocks that they are constantly throwing at the President and at Speaker Boehner suggest the opposite.

Google Images: Tea Party Republicans are sticking to their guns on cut, cap, and balance

And the voters have had enough of it. A recent CNN poll indicated that that 51% of Americans would blame the Republican Congress if the deal is not reached, whereas only 30% would blame Obama. President Obama has positioned himself and the Democratic Party as compromisers, centrists whose main goal is to fix the economy without harming the middle class. Republicans have no response. Worse, Tea Party Republicans have unsuccessfully attempted to paint Obama as a liar and a radical and have worked as hard as possible to derail a possible compromise.

Tea Party House Representatives were elected to Washington in 2010 to cut spending and restore America's fiscal responsibility. But if they don't quickly realize the implications of their actions, and understand that a vast majority of Americans are demanding compromise, come 2012, those "newly elected representatives" will be voted out just as swiftly as they were voted in.

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. 

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.