Bismarck is credited with the quote:
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”.
That notion escapes many #GOP politicians animated only by the desire to deliver tax cuts to those who don’t need them and a refusal to compromise at all costs
#Politics #USPolitics #DebtLimit
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/us/debt-limit-bill-house-rules-committee.html
From what I've heard from the holdouts, their concerns tended to focus on spending, not taxes.
The holdouts say the opposite. Take this statement from Chip Roy, just to grab one of them at random to grab his stance.
He's calling for discretionary spending at 2022 levels, and the US certainly did spend on more than the military then.
The GOP holdouts would never countenance new taxes. To some degree there approach focuses on reducing taxes resulting in a shortfall enabling them to complain about excessive spending
That's not how federal financing works, though.
The shortfall has nothing to do with taxes since the president already signed legislation that countenanced this level of taxation, which along with his spending, lead to this shortfall.
Biden already accepted this level of taxation. He put his pen to paper approving it through the CAA... which was passed over GOP objections, mind you.
So at this point the president is demanding power to borrow more because the bill he signed was mathematically unworkable given the level of taxation he accepted alongside his level of spending.
Taxation is not the problem here. It has nothing to do with this dispute.
@volkris. The immediate dispute is whether the budget cap will be raised or not so that the obligations already signed off by both ingress and the President will be met
The GOP has chosen to take this enabling legislation and use it to negotiate a reduction in future spending. There are 2 levers that can be pulled when attempting to achieve a balanced budget. Decrease expenditure and/or increase taxation. The GOP, will only countenance the former, never the latter.
No, I don't know who you have been listening to, but that's just not correct.
The current dispute is over the borrowing limit, which has nothing to do with the budget cap. The budget cut was set in legislation passed by the last Congress and signed by the president already.
And you can see that this is not about obligations since the deal worked out with Biden rescinds spending authority. If it was about obligations then that couldn't happen. The deal they worked out debunks the idea that this is about obligations.
Ok let’s be clear there are 2 elements at play in the recent machinations of congress
1) An agreement as the whether the upper threshold of the national debt will be expanded to meet the current expenditures of the US government
2) The attempted use of that expansion by the House majority to drive reductions in the overall expenditures of the government under highly questionable concerns of balancing the budget
@volkris The drive to reduce expenditures by the #GOP is not driven out of a desire for a balanced budget, rather it is to provide a further reduction in tax obligations for a monied elite who have little real need for a tax cut. Such cuts in turn trigger additional calls for further expenditure reductions as the budget is driven further out of balance. My point here is, I’m highly skeptical of GOP balanced budget concerns. I think it is pure posturing and Kabuki
Your theory doesn't make mathematical sense.
if the GOP doesn't desire balanced budgets then they would simply lower those taxes without bothering with spending since they wouldn't care about the deficits.
The fact that you say there is a drive to reduce expenditures undermines the rest of your theory.
@volkris no you are incorrect, the strategy of the GOP for decades has been to created budgetary crisis. This is not mathematics at work, this is about creating crisis so that the beast can be starved, so that discretionary spending can be eliminated
But the GOP voted against this crisis.
Democrats voted for the Consolidated Appropriations Act that set this budgetary crisis up while Republicans voted against it.
Budgeting and debt ceiling have been managed on 2 separate tracks for decades. We can argue for the merits of that approach. The Democrats voted to expand expenditures, the GOP opposed that effort. They chose to use the management of the debt ceiling to force changes of expenditures. Usually that is a separate negotiation as thoughtful folks traditionally have opted not to threaten the credit standing of the country. In my view, that was reckless and foolish.
According to the civil servants at the Treasury, they were bringing in plenty of revenue to service the debts regardless of the debt ceiling, so no, Republicans did not and could not have threatened the credit standing of the country.
That was all up to the administration. It already had the borrowing power to maintain the credit standing of the country.
But even setting that aside, you're still brushing right past the way that it was Democrats who set this up. You can talk about how Republicans responded to the situation, but even so, Democrats set up the situation through their legislation and executive action.
Don't like that Republicans used this situation to press for change? Fine, but let's be clear that Democrats actively gave them that opportunity. Let's hold them accountable for it.
The Democrats want a more expanded set of social services they crafted legislation to that effect which necessitated with an expansion of the federal debt or an increase in tax revenues if you want a balanced budget
The GOP has a different view they want to starve the beast. Depending on your perspective, you can attach blame to either side.
I don’t like GOP policy, I believe it is skewed towards those that don’t need help to the detriment of the country.
Yes, but they declined to expand the federal debt or increase taxes.
For people who wanted a more expanded set of social services it is really striking that they declined to provide any financing for it, which led us to this situation.
Democrats could have and should have provided financing for their priorities, one way or another, but apparently their priorities were not committed enough to actually do that.
@volkris There is what is politically possible at any point in time. This latest negotiation, with #GOP control of the House was never going to result in an increase in taxation, so the alternate route has been taken. This is the nature of the mess that is American politics.
Question you might ask is why the GOP opted not to increase taxes? You have advised that they are supportive of social programs, if so how do you suggest they finance them?
Your point number 1 is incorrect. The Treasury's daily reporting showed that revenues coming in were sufficient to meet the current expenditures of the US government regardless of the debt ceiling.
AND, if revenues were insufficient, then current expenditures would be adjusted accordingly.
The Treasury can't spend $20 of $10. Current expenditures are limited by holdings, not the other way around.
Your point number two doesn't match the legislation they passed, but that's a different issue.
Indeed revenues were sufficient, if costs were cut, or if the debt ceiling was raised. Without one action or the other a crisis was forthcoming as Secretary Yellen indicated recently
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/business/yellen-treasury-x-date-us-debt.html
Exactly, so costs WOULD BE cut, just like I said.
If they only have $10 to spend then they won't spend $20. They would cut costs because it would be mathematically impossible not to.
A more responsible administration would have already cut costs to avoid this precipice, but unfortunately Biden's in the White House and he was eager to spend us into this crisis.
The alternative is, taxes. Can be raised. When was the last time the GOP agreed to a tax increase?
The #GOP believe in a more Darwinian economy where there are little or no social services. If that is the kind of works you want to live in, then feel free to support that approach. I chose not too
I don't know where you are getting your information, but mainstream Republicans flat out campaign on preserving and expanding social services before putting their pins to paper to vote on funding social services.
I think you're buying into a theory that just doesn't match reality when we pull up the record.
Didn't I share you a link above where even one of the hardcore Republicans was releasing a statement in which he was adamant that social services be preserved? I think it was this thread.
@volkris so how does that piece of disingenuous marketing square with what any facts based observer of GOP politics over the last 40 years can tell you - namely reduce taxes, cut discretionary spending and increase the military spend. Why would you think that a singular press release should be adjudged as a sea change to observable policy? There is what people say and what they do. I put more weight on observable action than posturing
Well keep in mind that the marketing would only be effective if it resonated with his base.
If Republicans were so opposed to social programs, even though they strangely keep voting to fund them, then why in the world would a Republican politician advertise himself in a way that would turn off Republicans?
And more, how in the world has he been successful in appealing to voters using positions that voters dislike?
What you're saying here just doesn't make any sense against what we see. It requires us to discount all of this evidence and instead jump through many hoops to maintain these claims that just don't square with reality.
@volkris Truth is, the majority of #GOP voters support #SocialSecurity, likely the most important and impactful social program in America. The financiers of the #RepublicanParty would like nothing more than to eliminate it. GOP politicians seek to execute on the latter’s expectations while pandering to the former. Here’s Krugman on the issue
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/13/opinion/columnists/republicans-medicare-social-security.html
@volkris
The holdouts will only ultimately be satisfied if spending can be reduced to expenditures associated with the military.