Options
The Tea Party Is Ceiling the Deal
· Thursday, July 14, 2011
There are a lot of pieces to the debt-ceiling deal. There are the taxes upon taxes, as The Wall Street Journal editors describe it. That's the roughly $1 trillion in new Obama taxes on top of what he's already signed into law. It's an economy and jobs killer.
Then there's the entitlement piece, which may be more interesting since Obama is apparently open to extending the Social Security and Medicare retirement age and using the so-called chained-Consumer Price Index, which would lower cost-of-living adjustments (and increase income-tax thresholds). Whether the president is serious about these entitlement measures, no one knows. It's noteworthy that he's at least talking about them, although he's linking them to higher taxes.
But there's another piece to the debt-ceiling deal that hasn't yet seen the light of day. It's the non-entitlement spending piece. That is, domestic and defense discretionary spending plus so-called small entitlements like food stamps, unemployment benefits and so forth.
Here's my thought: The public wants deep spending cuts. That's their first priority, and that's why polls overwhelmingly show opposition to a debt-ceiling increase. So regarding those spending cuts, the only thing that matters is the first-year spending decline. That would be 2012. If the spending baseline is brought down significantly in year one, then the out-years will follow suit. The government's cost curve will ease down.
For example, go back to the Paul Ryan budget. Ryan includes a $110 billion reduction from the Congressional Budget Office baseline for fiscal year 2012, which reflects a $179 billion cut from the president's budget baseline. Over 10 years, that's roughly $6 trillion in savings. That would be real money. It would be significant. In fact, Ryan's total budget in 2012 would actually come in about $100 billion below 2011. That's incredible. It's almost always that so-called spending cuts are mere reductions in growth. Hats off to Ryan.
But even so, his 10-year budget would still rise by about $40 trillion.
So, again, 2012 is the only year that really counts for spending cuts in the debt deal. My guess is that any entitlement reduction will take decades. So if Speaker Boehner sticks to his argument that there must be more than $1 worth of spending cuts to offset a $1 increase in the debt ceiling, then 2012 must be his target year.
As the congressional negotiators haggle with President Obama, we the taxpaying public have no idea what they're cooking up on 2012 spending. It could be a worthwhile reduction or not. Out-year discretionary decreases and small entitlement cuts for 2019 to 2021 are simply not reliable or credible. Congresses change. Deals are broken. Outcomes are, well, kind of like a scam.
And the public is onto this. The highly accurate IBD/TIPP pollsters have just released an incredible result. Get this: The public rejects a debt-ceiling increase by a huge 58 percent to 36 percent. That includes 59 percent of independents and even 38 percent of Democrats. That is the tea party revolt.
I believe the public agrees with people like Michele Bachmann. She told me in an interview this week that Congress can direct the Treasury to "first pay off the interest on the debt, make sure our military men and women get paid, and then deal with our priorities. Yes, we have very sacrificial consequences, but when are we going to get serious about deficit reduction?"
On this logic, Bachmann and other tea party Republicans -- including most on the presidential campaign trail -- oppose a debt-ceiling increase. This populist spending revolt runs directly counter to the Tim Geithner, Wall Street, big-business view that we must at all costs have a debt-ceiling increase to make good on our federal debt.
Tea party populists are saying no, no: We can still make good on our debt, but this debt bill is the only leverage we have to force Washington to cut spending.
Main Street is in revolt against Wall Street, although it should be noted that Wall Street bond investors are not panicked by any means. The 10-year Treasury continues to trade below 3 percent. Maybe that will change by Aug. 2, or the next Geithner debt-limit drop-dead date. But right now the bond market seems to be aligned with the tea party.
President Obama says it's time to "eat our peas," meaning the debt deal should have huge tax increases. That argument is being rejected. Instead, the grassroots sees a big bowl of porridge and wants to shrink that bowl substantially -- no matter what the "sacrificial consequences."
I'm with the porridge.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Syndicated Radio Host Dr. Laura Schlessinger: "The Patriot is the most informative and witty publication on the Internet. I read every issue!" It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
- Linda Chavez: Overreach by Unions in Wisconsin
- Mona Charen: Obama's Education Hypocrisy -- Again
- Jonah Goldberg: Big Business Gets the Hollywood Treatment
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Syr Knight
The problem with raising the debt ceiling is that it is temporary. With either President Obama's budget ideas or Representative Ryan's plan, the debt ceiling would necessarily need to rise. Yes, the country would be able to borrow for ONE more year before the ceiling would need to be raised yet again, ad infinitum. Cutting $4 Trillion over 10 years from the deficit would still add about $25 trillion to the debt. Think about that: We are at $14.2 Trillion. We'll be close to $40 Trillion in 10 years. Our top elected officials are contemplating raising the debt limit by about $2 Trillion. If we think this budget crisis is bad, think about how difficult it will be when we more than double those numbers. Our priorities are out of order. We need a balanced budget NOW, with no addition to the debt. Without a balanced budget, we will continue eating away at our prosperity.
And just as an aside, I don't consider this "$1 debt ceiling raise for ever $1 spending cut" to be accurate - It is currently along the lines of $1 for ever $0.10 in spending cuts, as it is over 10 years.
There is fear to be sown with our finances, but our elected leaders are looking in the wrong direction - while they squander and squawk about the issues of today, they are blinded by the predation of tomorrow, looming large and approaching with no remorse.
Posted July 14, 2011 at 8:58:47 AM
Marcus
taxes are already being raised or at least the attempt is being made through the 10%+ inflation we are all experiencing right now.
Posted July 14, 2011 at 11:15:38 AM
Gelio
Neither teh Republicans proposed cuts of $2.5 trillion over 10 years or Obama's $3 trillion over 12 years goes far enough, as we are expected to spend $30 trillion in that 10 year window. So where is the savings? Projected revenues fo rthis year is $2.2 trillion while expenditures are $3.8 trillion. How about Congress cut spending by $1.6 trillion as a start? Congress, Obama, his staff should all take a 20% cut in pay, and reduce their staff in kind. Congress also does not need private planes to get them around the country, let them fly coash on theri dime like the rest of us. And if the president or his family takes a vacation, it should be on his dime, not the taxpayers. The debt ceiling should be cut, not increased,a nd if they cannot not agree, then let the government shut down, it would not be the first time, and would save us some money.
Posted July 14, 2011 at 1:10:47 PM
Abu Nudnik
"Eat our peas!" How contemptuous! As if the citizenry were recalcitrant children who won't eat what's good for them. It's the other way around. It's the government which is irresponsible and has to "eat its peas." It must stop spending and now.
Posted July 14, 2011 at 2:42:09 PM
bokononsmoothie
@Abu - In my opinion, the citizenry is absolutely composed of recalcitrant children. Poll after poll show that we, the American voting public, want tax rates low but entitlement spending high. This is childlike at best, insane at worst.
Your position - stop spending - is consistent assuming you don't mind a reduction in entitlement spending (an assumption which, as you are posting on the Patriot Post, is fair to make).
The position of the American people, on the other hand, is not consistent. This is the fundamental problem in this country. It is not that we spend too much, or our taxes are too high, or that our social safety net is not robust enough - it is more fundamental than that. It is that as a nation we seem incapable of admitting that the level of social spending we want (again - refer to the polls) is possible with the level of taxation we want.
Posted July 18, 2011 at 1:35:55 PM
bokononsmoothie
Replace "possible" with "impossible" in that last sentence =)
Posted July 18, 2011 at 1:37:02 PM