I suppose we might say "thank you" to John Boehner for calling the vote on a "clean" bill to increase the debt ceiling, but that might be giving him a little too much credit. Another bout of craziness certainly would not have helped Republicans in the midterm elections, and the Republicans who joined Democrats to give us a clean bill either were in super-safe seats or had announced their retirement at the end of this Congressional session.
In the meanwhile, the crazies can rant and rage against Boehner to whip up their even crazier base, but I don't expect the Speakership will be in danger. Attention span among the true crazies is not all that long, and they are easily distracted (by Fox News.)
The evil Obama might have been happier with another threatened debt default and, perhaps, even another credit downgrade (by a different ratings agency.) Am I a bit cynical?
You betcha.
Showing posts with label Boehner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boehner. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Boehner and the bomb throwers
It's Boehner's responsibility, if not necessarily his fault. He can call for a House vote on the Senate's continuing resolution whenever he gets up the testosterone to face down Ted Cruz and the Crazies (not a heavy metal band) but he's so terribly afraid of losing the Speakership, he won't do it.
And what I want to know is what's the point of being Speaker if you can't lead?
According to sources to the Times, Boehner says he won't let us default on the debt, albeit he will not make any public statements to that effect. I believe it, though. I think he cares more about the full faith and credit of the United States (not to mention the economy of the rest of the world) than for his status with the people Harry Reid calls "Tea Party anarchists."
Honestly, I suspect John Boehner just might be some kind of patriot.
And what I want to know is what's the point of being Speaker if you can't lead?
According to sources to the Times, Boehner says he won't let us default on the debt, albeit he will not make any public statements to that effect. I believe it, though. I think he cares more about the full faith and credit of the United States (not to mention the economy of the rest of the world) than for his status with the people Harry Reid calls "Tea Party anarchists."
Honestly, I suspect John Boehner just might be some kind of patriot.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Why they do it
Okay, the government is somewhat defunded, and it probably doesn't make that big a difference except to the 800,000 or so who won't be paid for a while. The rest of us can live without the Lincoln Memorial for however long it takes — which is to say, no later than October 17, when the debt ceiling comes down on us.
So, we look at those involved in the current "crisis," seeking their motivation. Sometimes it's obvious. Some. like Michelle Bachman, Louis Gohmert, and Steve King, are just idiots. John Boehner is afraid of losing his beloved Speakership, even though he knows better. Ted Cruz is a self-promoting little piece of crap. Others are from "safe" (gerrymandered) Republican districts where they just hate Obama (and all the other uppity niggers as well.)
Then, there are the funders. Some say the Koch brothers are motivated by having read Ayn Rand back when they were in high school — but, clearly, it's just greed. They're super-rich, and certainly don't want to pay their fair share of taxes. They're oil men, and have little tolerance for environmental regulation. They have extraordinary senses of entitlement.
It's possible that the idiots, the self-promoters, and the greedy will push Boehner into pushing the USofA into default. I sincerely hope he is willing to throw himself on his sword, and save us by calling for an up-down vote when the time comes.
So, we look at those involved in the current "crisis," seeking their motivation. Sometimes it's obvious. Some. like Michelle Bachman, Louis Gohmert, and Steve King, are just idiots. John Boehner is afraid of losing his beloved Speakership, even though he knows better. Ted Cruz is a self-promoting little piece of crap. Others are from "safe" (gerrymandered) Republican districts where they just hate Obama (and all the other uppity niggers as well.)
Then, there are the funders. Some say the Koch brothers are motivated by having read Ayn Rand back when they were in high school — but, clearly, it's just greed. They're super-rich, and certainly don't want to pay their fair share of taxes. They're oil men, and have little tolerance for environmental regulation. They have extraordinary senses of entitlement.
It's possible that the idiots, the self-promoters, and the greedy will push Boehner into pushing the USofA into default. I sincerely hope he is willing to throw himself on his sword, and save us by calling for an up-down vote when the time comes.
Friday, September 20, 2013
The "Train Wreck"
John Boehner really, really, really wants to keep his job as Speaker. He's not stupid, and I'm sure he doesn't want to shut down the government, but he had to go along with the radical crazies in his caucus for fear of losing his job. That's why he supported the House bill to defund Obamacare, referring to the ACA as a "train wreck."
The real train wreck will come at the end of the month, when government shuts down. Unlike the catastrophic Congress Clinton had to deal with back in the nineties, which had enacted a fair number of appropriations bills before digging in its heels, the current Congress had not passed any appropriations bills at all.
Not long after, of course, we come up against the debt ceiling. Will the crazies carry through on their threat to let the USofA default on its debts? Are they really that crazy?
I guess all we can do is wait and see.
The real train wreck will come at the end of the month, when government shuts down. Unlike the catastrophic Congress Clinton had to deal with back in the nineties, which had enacted a fair number of appropriations bills before digging in its heels, the current Congress had not passed any appropriations bills at all.
Not long after, of course, we come up against the debt ceiling. Will the crazies carry through on their threat to let the USofA default on its debts? Are they really that crazy?
I guess all we can do is wait and see.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Beware the "Grand Bargain"
The general public seems to believe that what Bernanke called "the fiscal cliff" (and Krugman called "the austerity bomb") has been averted. It hasn't, of course. Sequestration and lifting the debt ceiling were kicked down the road a couple of months, but nothing, really, is settled.
During his first term, Obama seriously sought a "Grand Bargain" on tax increases and spending cuts with John Boehner — but Republicans, possibly convinced by too rich a diet of Fox News, declined, thinking they could take the Presidency and possibly the Senate as well in the 2012 elections. Well, they were wrong.
The problem now, though, is that Obama still wants a "Grand Bargain," and probably still is willing to make entirely too many concessions on what currently are called "entitlements," but which used to be called "the social safety net." (Yes, the progressives let the conservatives select the lexicon again. When Republicans talk about "reforming entitlement programs," what they mean, really, is "shredding the net.")
Well, there are some changes that could be steps in the right direction. The salary cap for FICA contributions could be lifted — or, better yet, entirely eliminated — to build the Social Security trust fund. Since that trust fund may be invested only in government bonds, perhaps the Fed could create a new instrument — available only to the trust fund — that actually pays a little interest. Since the Fed creates money out of thin air, it wouldn't cost taxpayers a cent, so beefing up the trust fund would not have any negative impact on the general economy.
What Medicare needs more than anything is what insurers call a more favorable experience rating — that is, it needs more members paying in who need less health care. Hence, it makes no sense at all to raise the age of eligibility to 67, since the youngest members use the fewest services. What should be done is to open up Medicare coverage to much younger participants. The best way I can see to do that is to allow Medicare to compete against the private companies on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Uh huh, that good old public option — but there's no doubt it would cut costs. The real solution, of course, is single payer for all. Don't miss Eduardo Porter's column in yesterday's Times!
Needless to say, eliminating corn subsidies and the corn-based ethanol requirement for gasoline would free up a lot of money for food stamps, and raising the minimum wage to a living wage would help increase all kinds of tax revenues while reducing income inequality. Yes, prices might have to rise, but poorer people tend to spend whatever extra income they receive, boosting sales. That means more profits for (real and alleged) small businesses, and more employment.
I could go on, but why bother? None of the above will happen. After all, as Will Rogers said, "We have the best Congress money can buy."
During his first term, Obama seriously sought a "Grand Bargain" on tax increases and spending cuts with John Boehner — but Republicans, possibly convinced by too rich a diet of Fox News, declined, thinking they could take the Presidency and possibly the Senate as well in the 2012 elections. Well, they were wrong.
The problem now, though, is that Obama still wants a "Grand Bargain," and probably still is willing to make entirely too many concessions on what currently are called "entitlements," but which used to be called "the social safety net." (Yes, the progressives let the conservatives select the lexicon again. When Republicans talk about "reforming entitlement programs," what they mean, really, is "shredding the net.")
Well, there are some changes that could be steps in the right direction. The salary cap for FICA contributions could be lifted — or, better yet, entirely eliminated — to build the Social Security trust fund. Since that trust fund may be invested only in government bonds, perhaps the Fed could create a new instrument — available only to the trust fund — that actually pays a little interest. Since the Fed creates money out of thin air, it wouldn't cost taxpayers a cent, so beefing up the trust fund would not have any negative impact on the general economy.
What Medicare needs more than anything is what insurers call a more favorable experience rating — that is, it needs more members paying in who need less health care. Hence, it makes no sense at all to raise the age of eligibility to 67, since the youngest members use the fewest services. What should be done is to open up Medicare coverage to much younger participants. The best way I can see to do that is to allow Medicare to compete against the private companies on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Uh huh, that good old public option — but there's no doubt it would cut costs. The real solution, of course, is single payer for all. Don't miss Eduardo Porter's column in yesterday's Times!
Needless to say, eliminating corn subsidies and the corn-based ethanol requirement for gasoline would free up a lot of money for food stamps, and raising the minimum wage to a living wage would help increase all kinds of tax revenues while reducing income inequality. Yes, prices might have to rise, but poorer people tend to spend whatever extra income they receive, boosting sales. That means more profits for (real and alleged) small businesses, and more employment.
I could go on, but why bother? None of the above will happen. After all, as Will Rogers said, "We have the best Congress money can buy."
Friday, January 4, 2013
Chuck Hagel
A decade or so ago, it seems that Chuck Hagel — whose name currently is under serious consideration for Secretary of Defense — said something unenlightened about gays in the military. Big deal. For Christ's sake, he's a Republican. What did you expect?
More important, Chuck Hagel is not in the pocket of the Israel lobby.
If Our President goes ahead with his nomination, I'll feel a lot more comfortable about the upcoming second term. More impressively, he could come out of right field and nominate Susan Rice, despite her "withdrawal" from the fray, as Secretary of State.
In the meanwhile, Obama says he will not "negotiate" the debt limit. Will he let the Republicans in the House spitefully destroy the American economy? And, will they actually go ahead and do it? Who knows?
I think Hagel is okay. I like his reluctance over Iraq, and his foot dragging over taking military action against Iran. I also like the ideas of Barney Frank taking John Kerry's Senate seat for the interim, and Boehner struggling to keep the Speakership.
Of course, nobody knows what the hell Obama will do. Now in his second term, people say, he might be different. Then again, he might not.
More important, Chuck Hagel is not in the pocket of the Israel lobby.
If Our President goes ahead with his nomination, I'll feel a lot more comfortable about the upcoming second term. More impressively, he could come out of right field and nominate Susan Rice, despite her "withdrawal" from the fray, as Secretary of State.
In the meanwhile, Obama says he will not "negotiate" the debt limit. Will he let the Republicans in the House spitefully destroy the American economy? And, will they actually go ahead and do it? Who knows?
I think Hagel is okay. I like his reluctance over Iraq, and his foot dragging over taking military action against Iran. I also like the ideas of Barney Frank taking John Kerry's Senate seat for the interim, and Boehner struggling to keep the Speakership.
Of course, nobody knows what the hell Obama will do. Now in his second term, people say, he might be different. Then again, he might not.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Over the Cliff!!!
Butch and Sundance did it. Thelma and Louise did it. Results were mixed.
As for the fiscal cliff, it is pretty obvious that John Boehner cannot control his caucus. Maybe, come January, the crazies will elect Paul Ryan to the office of Speaker. You never know with those assholes.
I just listened to Obama's brief statement. He didn't say much — certainly nothing especially specific. I was kind of hoping he would withdraw his most recent offer ($250,000 to $400,000, "chained CPI"), but he didn't. He just expressed a little half-hearted optimism and left the room.
I suspect the Administration calculates that going over the cliff might turn out to be a net gain. Now that Boehner's "Plan B" is dead, the last chance for Republicans dodging responsibility is gone. Once the leap is undertaken, and tax increases and sequestration kick in, the right-wing ideologues scarcely could oppose tax cuts for the middle class because they are not extended to the very rich.
As for the sequestration, those spending cuts will kick in slowly, probably not doing a great deal of damage while Congress works to balance the demands of the defense lobby and the remainder of the human race. I fear defense will make out better than humanity, but what the hell? What would you expect?
Will the markets take a dive? Uh huh. Briefly. As I've observed before, the markets have very little to do with real life.
As for the fiscal cliff, it is pretty obvious that John Boehner cannot control his caucus. Maybe, come January, the crazies will elect Paul Ryan to the office of Speaker. You never know with those assholes.
I just listened to Obama's brief statement. He didn't say much — certainly nothing especially specific. I was kind of hoping he would withdraw his most recent offer ($250,000 to $400,000, "chained CPI"), but he didn't. He just expressed a little half-hearted optimism and left the room.
I suspect the Administration calculates that going over the cliff might turn out to be a net gain. Now that Boehner's "Plan B" is dead, the last chance for Republicans dodging responsibility is gone. Once the leap is undertaken, and tax increases and sequestration kick in, the right-wing ideologues scarcely could oppose tax cuts for the middle class because they are not extended to the very rich.
As for the sequestration, those spending cuts will kick in slowly, probably not doing a great deal of damage while Congress works to balance the demands of the defense lobby and the remainder of the human race. I fear defense will make out better than humanity, but what the hell? What would you expect?
Will the markets take a dive? Uh huh. Briefly. As I've observed before, the markets have very little to do with real life.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Tax Policy
I've been trying to figure out what kinds of tax policy are endorsed, respectively, by Obama and Romney. It's not easy. Yes, we know Obama wants the two top income tax brackets and the capital gains tax back where they were under Clinton, but those ideas are not policy — they're talking points. They have as much chance of making it through Congress as a squirrel fart has of making it through a hurricane. We also can look back to some Obama proposals when he and Boehner were trying to strike a "grand bargain," but those ideas were contingent on Boehner accepting some elements that he had no way of getting past the House he allegedly leads.
Romney is even harder to nail down. He maintains he can lower everybody's taxes by plugging "tax loopholes," but he refuses to identify any of those "loopholes" — better known as subsidies, tax credits, and tax deductions. Personally, I think we would be better off if all the credits and deductions in our convoluted tax code were eliminated, and subsidies limited to R&D — albeit I think a lot of it has to be done gradually.
The biggest "loophole" of all is the mortgage interest deduction. At this time, it applies to interest on loans of up to one million dollars, which means it is regressive. The greatest advantages go to those who finance the most expensive homes — which means that people like you and me, who don't live in $125 million dollar homes, get a lot less out of the deduction than our more affluent non-neighbors do. Renters get nothing.
Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would depress property values, because without that deduction, home buyers could not afford the payments on more expensive homes. Even homes sold out of foreclosure would cost their buyers more. The solution is to drop the cap on mortgage interest deductions gradually, so that property values could adjust gradually. Needless to say, this won't happen.
Representative democracy in conjunction with capitalism doesn't work too well. The people who want to lead us feed us bullshit. The plutocrats control the flow of money, power, and ideas. I don't suppose it bothers too many of us with consistent sources of income and decent health insurance all that much, but it bothers me.
The current Republican credo is "leave every child (except mine) behind, so long as I get to hang onto my current comfort level." It just might work this November, but it still makes me sick.
Romney is even harder to nail down. He maintains he can lower everybody's taxes by plugging "tax loopholes," but he refuses to identify any of those "loopholes" — better known as subsidies, tax credits, and tax deductions. Personally, I think we would be better off if all the credits and deductions in our convoluted tax code were eliminated, and subsidies limited to R&D — albeit I think a lot of it has to be done gradually.
The biggest "loophole" of all is the mortgage interest deduction. At this time, it applies to interest on loans of up to one million dollars, which means it is regressive. The greatest advantages go to those who finance the most expensive homes — which means that people like you and me, who don't live in $125 million dollar homes, get a lot less out of the deduction than our more affluent non-neighbors do. Renters get nothing.
Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would depress property values, because without that deduction, home buyers could not afford the payments on more expensive homes. Even homes sold out of foreclosure would cost their buyers more. The solution is to drop the cap on mortgage interest deductions gradually, so that property values could adjust gradually. Needless to say, this won't happen.
Representative democracy in conjunction with capitalism doesn't work too well. The people who want to lead us feed us bullshit. The plutocrats control the flow of money, power, and ideas. I don't suppose it bothers too many of us with consistent sources of income and decent health insurance all that much, but it bothers me.
The current Republican credo is "leave every child (except mine) behind, so long as I get to hang onto my current comfort level." It just might work this November, but it still makes me sick.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Now what?
As of this writing, John Boehner still can't gather enough votes in the House to pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling, despite support from all Republican leaders, presumably including Eric Cantor — although I suspect next-in-line-to-be-Speaker Cantor may be less upset than he appears. If there is no breakthrough today, somebody in Washington may have to show some courage.
We all know who that somebody is, and we all know what he'll have to do. Barack Obama will have to go right ahead and break the 1917 debt ceiling law by ordering Treasury to keep selling bonds after the debt ceiling is breached. Presumably he can find some lawyers willing to write some opinions explaining why he's really allowed to do it. As we all know, it's not hard to find lawyers willing to justify anything. Hell, George W. Bush found lawyers to justify torture.
But who would buy those bonds? Well, Ben Bernanke is no idiot, and I think he could persuade the rest of the Fed to go along. Yes, it means "printing" money, and is likely to put even more downward pressure on the dollar, but inflation hasn't been any sort of problem for the past few years. An out-and-out default would do much more harm.
Yes, Obama would certainly be impeached in the House — creating even more political theater — but he wouldn't be convicted in the Senate. As for his electoral chances, they might improve if he finally showed some balls — portraying himself as the strong leader who finally stood up to the incompetents in Congress.
We all know who that somebody is, and we all know what he'll have to do. Barack Obama will have to go right ahead and break the 1917 debt ceiling law by ordering Treasury to keep selling bonds after the debt ceiling is breached. Presumably he can find some lawyers willing to write some opinions explaining why he's really allowed to do it. As we all know, it's not hard to find lawyers willing to justify anything. Hell, George W. Bush found lawyers to justify torture.
But who would buy those bonds? Well, Ben Bernanke is no idiot, and I think he could persuade the rest of the Fed to go along. Yes, it means "printing" money, and is likely to put even more downward pressure on the dollar, but inflation hasn't been any sort of problem for the past few years. An out-and-out default would do much more harm.
Yes, Obama would certainly be impeached in the House — creating even more political theater — but he wouldn't be convicted in the Senate. As for his electoral chances, they might improve if he finally showed some balls — portraying himself as the strong leader who finally stood up to the incompetents in Congress.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
War Powers
An odd grouping of Congress Critters (thanks again, Molly Ivins) is challenging Our President's Constitutional power to conduct warlike operations in foreign countries without congressional approval. Part of the group consists of the usual Republican cabal who "refudiate" (thanks again, Sarah Palin) anything Barack Obama is inclined to do. The other part consists of Dennis Kucinich and nine fellow travelers of the sorry remnant of the Democratic left.
The administration says the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply because what we're doing there doesn't rise to the level of "hostilities." Personally, I think if you're sitting in the middle of a drone-launched missile strike, you're inclined to think the people sending the drones are pretty hostile. Just because we're sending robots instead of troops doesn't mean we're not engaged in war.
To me, it's also pretty clear that NATO has far exceeded the UN resolution permitting the "protection of civilians" from the forces of Muamar Ghadaffi/Qadaffi/Gadhafi/Gadaffi/etc. (Why can't the English language news media agree on a common transliteration from the Arabic?) The object of the campaign, clearly, is to remove the variously spelled dictator from power. That's not at all the same as keeping government artillery from leveling Bengazi.
It would be lovely if Boehner and friends helped bring this controversy to the Supreme Court, and if the conservative court decided they'd rather screw Obama than protect the administrative right to start worthless wars We'll see. Most interesting, from my perspective, is that our involvement in Libya had little to do with our role as the military force of the multinationals — or maybe not...
French, Italian, and British corporations all have economic interests in Libya, long threatened by Gadaffi. What we seem to be seeing from Obama is the smallest possible response needed to satisfy our corporations' corporate allies and preserve NATO.
Obama and Boehner will be playing golf tomorrow, but they may not give each other quite so many mulligans as the US is likely to need. Bah.
The administration says the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply because what we're doing there doesn't rise to the level of "hostilities." Personally, I think if you're sitting in the middle of a drone-launched missile strike, you're inclined to think the people sending the drones are pretty hostile. Just because we're sending robots instead of troops doesn't mean we're not engaged in war.
To me, it's also pretty clear that NATO has far exceeded the UN resolution permitting the "protection of civilians" from the forces of Muamar Ghadaffi/Qadaffi/Gadhafi/Gadaffi/etc. (Why can't the English language news media agree on a common transliteration from the Arabic?) The object of the campaign, clearly, is to remove the variously spelled dictator from power. That's not at all the same as keeping government artillery from leveling Bengazi.
It would be lovely if Boehner and friends helped bring this controversy to the Supreme Court, and if the conservative court decided they'd rather screw Obama than protect the administrative right to start worthless wars We'll see. Most interesting, from my perspective, is that our involvement in Libya had little to do with our role as the military force of the multinationals — or maybe not...
French, Italian, and British corporations all have economic interests in Libya, long threatened by Gadaffi. What we seem to be seeing from Obama is the smallest possible response needed to satisfy our corporations' corporate allies and preserve NATO.
Obama and Boehner will be playing golf tomorrow, but they may not give each other quite so many mulligans as the US is likely to need. Bah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)