Lemmington D.C.
My dad never said it to me, but growing up I heard it said by adults to impressionable young people many times. The conversation would go something like, "But, dad... all my friends are going. Why can't I?" And dad (or whoever) would say, "Well, if they all jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?" It's such a staple of parentage as to be cliche, but I'm not certain the G.O.P. class of 2010 was ever confronted with that type of challenge when they were in short pants. (Perhaps they are still in short pants - I've only ever seen most of them from the waist up.)
There's nothing particularly unique about this attitude. It is, however, being applied in a very, very destructive way right about now. I will be charitable and suggest that perhaps many of these freshman House members (and some of their more senior colleagues) simply do not understand the gravity of the situation. Having said that, I'm going to do what people who say "having said that" inevitably do and say the complete opposite. I think it's very possible that they know their failure to raise the debt ceiling is going to result in disaster, and that they hope that will gain them political points and cost the president more than a few. The Norquist-endorsed promise never to contemplate higher taxes under any
circumstances is a very attractive position for conservatives and watery republicans like Boehner. It's very, very shiny. Also, the consequences of breaking that promise are painful for them to contemplate. So .... over the cliff we go!
I've gotten agitated about this impasse over the last couple of weeks, as some of you readers know, and last night I took it upon myself to write my representative, Richard Hanna (R-NY) and ask him to be the adult in the room, show some leadership, and get his caucus to stop using the debt ceiling as a cheap bargaining chip. It was a respectful, serious letter - very unlike me. This is the response, in essence:
I voted no on H.R. 1954 which would implement the President's request to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. The bill did not include any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do not support raising the debt limit without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do, however, understand that raising the debt limit will eventually be necessary and I hope that when the time comes it is accompanied by reforms that put our nation on a path to long-term fiscal responsibility. This will ensure that the dollar remains the world's reserve currency and that the United States maintains a solid credit rating, boosting our fragile economic recovery and job creation.
Okay, so he's another lemming, basically. He supported the efforts of his caucus to politicize the debt ceiling vote, and though he admits that raising it "will eventually be necessary," he hopes it will be accompanied by "spending cuts or budgetary reforms". He then expresses the hope that the austerity measures he advocates will bring about the credit security that his conference's game of chicken - which he apparently supports - is threatening to blow to smithereens.
This isn't the first time otherwise sensible legislators have followed wingnuts off a cliff. But it just may prove to be among the most disastrous.
luv u,
jp
There's nothing particularly unique about this attitude. It is, however, being applied in a very, very destructive way right about now. I will be charitable and suggest that perhaps many of these freshman House members (and some of their more senior colleagues) simply do not understand the gravity of the situation. Having said that, I'm going to do what people who say "having said that" inevitably do and say the complete opposite. I think it's very possible that they know their failure to raise the debt ceiling is going to result in disaster, and that they hope that will gain them political points and cost the president more than a few. The Norquist-endorsed promise never to contemplate higher taxes under any
circumstances is a very attractive position for conservatives and watery republicans like Boehner. It's very, very shiny. Also, the consequences of breaking that promise are painful for them to contemplate. So .... over the cliff we go!I've gotten agitated about this impasse over the last couple of weeks, as some of you readers know, and last night I took it upon myself to write my representative, Richard Hanna (R-NY) and ask him to be the adult in the room, show some leadership, and get his caucus to stop using the debt ceiling as a cheap bargaining chip. It was a respectful, serious letter - very unlike me. This is the response, in essence:
I voted no on H.R. 1954 which would implement the President's request to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. The bill did not include any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do not support raising the debt limit without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do, however, understand that raising the debt limit will eventually be necessary and I hope that when the time comes it is accompanied by reforms that put our nation on a path to long-term fiscal responsibility. This will ensure that the dollar remains the world's reserve currency and that the United States maintains a solid credit rating, boosting our fragile economic recovery and job creation.
Okay, so he's another lemming, basically. He supported the efforts of his caucus to politicize the debt ceiling vote, and though he admits that raising it "will eventually be necessary," he hopes it will be accompanied by "spending cuts or budgetary reforms". He then expresses the hope that the austerity measures he advocates will bring about the credit security that his conference's game of chicken - which he apparently supports - is threatening to blow to smithereens.
This isn't the first time otherwise sensible legislators have followed wingnuts off a cliff. But it just may prove to be among the most disastrous.
luv u,
jp
Comments