Mr. Boehner, you must vote no on raising the debt limit

There really shouldn’t be many fence sitters left on the debt ceiling issue at this point. This should be one the few major issues that is not partisan driven as well. It’s really a very clear cut choice. Support raising it and you have zero credibility in my book. You are simply a sucker for the hyperbole and fear tactics in play.

The facts are that the U.S. will not default on its debt. Write it down, take it to the bank, bet the farm. At least not this year anyway. Servicing our $14 trillion dollar debt only requires approx. 6% of the tax revenue generated annually. The only feasible possibility for default would be if Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, at the direction of his boss the POTUS, does so intentionally. Not likely to happen. There is no option for doing so and gaining politically. All the threats being put forth are hollow. Certainly there will be some gamesmanship played with some high profile events the MSM media will eat up. How far is Obama willing to go and put us at risk in this game of chicken we just don’t know. I’ll admit that is a concern with an amateur in charge. The one thing that is for sure is that it’s not necessary.

What’s outrageous is that House Speaker Boehner is even negotiating a deal at all. Trading promises of spending cuts for raising the debt limit? Foolishness! Do you know what will happen should the debt limit not be raised? Forced spending cuts, that’s what. Why in the hell does Boehner need to bargain them away when they are guaranteed absent the debt limit raise?

The debt will be serviced first. After that will begin the process of prioritizing Federal programs. As long as Obama runs an unbalanced budget, the forced spending cuts will get dramatic by necessity. But that’s the point. He can’t avoid them. Of course, partisan politics will play a huge role at this stage as he tries to pacify his base as much as possible and make the cuts in GOP majority areas. But even minor cuts to union strongholds will bring out the venomous protesters en masse.

If you are at all unsure where you stand on this issue, please do your research. There simply is no merit to the administration’s threats at all. No double dip recession or tanking of the world economy. The cuts will be to government run or subsidized programs. These are not wealth creating programs. They will not restrict or remove investment capital from the markets. In short, nothing that would dictate a recession. A double dip is not even technically possible since we are nearly two years removed from the end of the previous one.

The administration only has the fear tactic on its side to sell. They can’t lay out the facts with our true options because it would defeat their premise. They cling to their hope that enough ignorance exists in the public arena that they can pull off their outright lies and distortions. Unfortunately, a large segment of our society falls into that category.

Make no mistake, the American public will bear the burden of the fallout if the debt limit isn’t raised. But it’s a necessary evil. Much like what is going on with the levees in the south. Picking and choosing the winners in the who gets flooded drama is extremely unpopular with those that will lose everything. But choosing a course that will protect the greatest number of people is the only real choice. Addressing the deficits and debt will chart a similar course. Many Americans dependent on the government machine will lose. But in order to address the cancerous debt issue, it has to be done.

This debt limit vote is only the beginning. However, it’s an absolute necessity. And a clear choice to boot.

8 thoughts on “Mr. Boehner, you must vote no on raising the debt limit”

  1. They’re playing a game with us. The reason Boehner is negotiating is because this is what Washington insiders do, they cut backroom deals. He knows no other way. We need to continue to call them out on this and continue to post about it.

  2. Right you are Mr. Carey. I still find it surprising that so many buy into this. The Tea Party was created just for this. The polls all reflect a will to curtail spending. Here we have a gift wrapped opportunity to enact spending cuts without any legislation necessary, yet we waffle and wonder if the fear-mongers could be right.

  3. I actually do believe it should be raised. I would pass debt ceiling increases of decreasing magnitude for seven years or so to “phase in” a balanced budget. I would also peg it to publicly-held debt, not the gross national debt. Because of the goofy accounting associated with intragovernmental debt, the government can – and is – issuing more debt even though we’ve “reached the ceiling.”

    I simply believe that an immediate 40% cut to the government would be a sure-fire way to give the Dems the WH, the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2012. If all we had were SS, M/M, Interest, and a reduced-size military, people would freak. And due to the Baby Boomer retirement, defense would have to be cut each successive year.

    It’s my humble opinion that SSS and M/M reform need to proceed a firm stance on the debt ceiling.

  4. You have far more faith than I in the system cooperating with your assumptions. Seven more years of increasing the debt merely to stop the bleeding? I have never been a believer in the ‘balanced budget’ as a cure to what ails us. Clearly a balanced budget should be a foregone conclusion. However, even a massive, bloated budget can easily be met simply by increasing revenues otherwise known as huge tax increases. Our government likes the concept of raising revenues to meet spending goals rather than the intended effect of forcing them to live with-in their means through a balanced budget concept.

    The publicly held debt concept has also been shown to be ripe for abuse. The Fed has many tricks up its sleeve and accounting gimmicky through its many purchasing programs are a mere formality in shifting the balance of the debt we hold to ‘public’. They’ve even shown the ability to manipulate the stock market with their purchasing ‘powers’.

    Without question, you’re correct on entitlement reform. It’s not a matter of if, only when.

    I also have a humble opinion. Mine doesn’t allow the government the latitude to control the playing field when it comes to reforms and fiscal responsibility. Any ‘reform’ legislation that isn’t hard and fast gives the feds the time and opportunity to formulate their end-around strategy. We needn’t look any further than the Medicare ‘reform’ of the 90’s that Gingrich is now running around promoting as a positive. Now we see that Medicare is in the worst shape of all entitlements despite a massive ‘reform’ attempt.

  5. I don’t see how the house can vote against increasing the debt ceiling. They’ve already voted on a budget (Ryan’s proposal) that REQUIRES more debt!

    I don’t feel Ryan’s proposal goes far enough, fast enough, but they have already refused to accept proposals that would have been more severe.

    It appears the only choice remaining is to add to the fiscal hawks in 2012. Maybe Ron Paul would be a start to getting the fiscal house in order, but only if we can elect enough supporters in the house and senate.

    We really need reforms in the entitlement programs, taxes and decreased regulations to get back on track.

  6. Good points. There is no chance the debt ceiling won’t be raised. None. And you’re right on Ryan’s budget. Do I like it better than Obama’s? Of course, but it falls far short overall. I still see the problem as the American people. We say we want spending cuts, but the demonstrations show that no one wants austerity. How do we hold their feet to the fire when we aren’t serious about inflicting the pain required to make a difference?

Comments are closed.