Sometimes Everyone Loses

I win, you lose. Right?

Wrong.

The mainstream press (and many in the conservative alternative media) have declared victory for the Tea Party in the unpopular debt limit deal.

Try telling that to the Tea Party:

While pundits across the political spectrum tout the debt deal as a win for the Tea Party and as progressives betray their frustration at Tea Party principles with appalling, anything-but-civil rhetoric, Tea Partiers themselves confess themselves displeased with the debt accord that took such an agonizingly long period of non-productivity to reach:

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken hours after the Senate passed and President Obama signed the deal, a 46% plurality disapprove of the agreement; 39% approve. Only one in five see it as a “step forward” in addressing the federal debt. …

The poll finds some paradoxes.

Though Tea Party conservatives succeeded in setting the parameters of the debate, supporters of the Tea Party are among those most unhappy with the outcome. Only 22% of Tea Party supporters approve of the deal, compared with 26% of Republicans generally and 58% of Democrats.

Rasmussen's numbers are even worse:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Likely Voters nationwide approve of the agreement while 53% disapprove. Twenty-six percent (26%) are not sure...

Republicans and unaffiliated voters disapproved by a 4-to-1 margin. Democrats are fairly evenly divided with 34% favoring the deal and 40% opposed.

I can see why the partisan "Journolist" activists of the mainstream media want to assign victory to the tea party. It's a rotten deal, and American voters recognize it as a bad deal. So blame it on the Tea Party ― a big win for the diabolical racist jihad!

Unfortunately, a number of moderate conservatives echo the mainstream media in declaring Tea Party victory:

Understandably, most Tea Party activists see this as business as usual and not the kind of transformative, instant change they envisioned. But just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, it will take much more than one vote or one budget to build the kind of limited, fiscally responsible America that these activists desire. The expansion of the federal government has gone on for decades, and it will take many battles and victories, small and large, to reverse it. This is a long journey, and the Tea Party helped push the nation into taking a step in the right direction.

Incremental improvement is great ― when you have plenty of time to correct the problem. But do we have that luxury? I'm not convinced that we do. Moreover, I'm not sure that the debt limit deal represents incremental progress from the Tea Party perspective.

Here's how "Senator Tea Party," Jim DeMint (R-SC) sees it:

“This debt deal puts America at risk and does nothing to solve our spending crisis,” said Senator DeMint, “We haven’t changed direction in Washington. We’re just tapping the brakes as we speed toward a fiscal cliff.

“The President will now be responsible for nearly $6 trillion in new debt in just four years in office, more than any other president before him. The President’s reckless spending policies have made things worse, leaving our economy in shambles and Americans with less hope for the future. To grow the economy, we must stop growing government.

“This bill doesn’t cut the debt; it will add about $7 trillion in new debt over the next ten years on the backs of our children and grandchildren. This bill doesn’t stop deficit spending; it locks in trillion dollar spending deficits for years to come. This bill doesn’t stop tax hikes; Republicans and Democrats are already promising to consider job destroying tax hikes in this new Super Committee. This bill doesn’t protect our nation; it puts national security at risk with unbalanced cuts to funding our troops in the field count on. This bill doesn’t guarantee our AAA rating; it puts it at further risk as the world sees Washington as incapable of cutting wasteful spending.”

The bottom line: This was a bad deal for everyone. Conservatives don't like it, liberals don't like it, the Tea Party doesn't like it and America doesn't like it.

This was a poorly negotiated deal with unsurprisingly unpopular results.

Everyone lost.

UPDATES:

• Poll: Thumbs down on the debt-ceiling deal ... Americans (by more than 2-1) predict it will make the nation's fragile economy worse rather than better.
• Reaganite Republican: GOP Presidential candidates catching up with the rest of us.

Discussion: Memeorandum

x-posted

Squirrel Nation

The Spending is Nuts!

Grand prize winner of the Power Line Prize.

By Justin Folk:

When I first heard of the contest, I found it hard to believe that anyone would put up such a great prize to offer creatives a chance to dramatize the debt crisis. Most people don’t want to think about debt or the dangers it holds. Wars and environmentalism have attracted most of the attention of creative people in our culture–and not usually for a good result. But when you consider what debt can do and has done to nations throughout history, we’d be fools to not recognize our country’s solvency as the single greatest issue we face today. In my piece, I wanted to not just show how bad the problem is- which is in itself a noble effort since 15 trillion is hard for most to comprehend–but I sought to convey how we got to this point, and our choices moving forward.

I feel the squirrel allegory allows people to absorb the story unguarded, not pointing fingers at any one political party. I wanted to reach independents, conservatives, and liberals. Our debt, after all, belongs to all of us.

I’m grateful that Power Line and the Freedom Club saw the need to summon creative minds on this issue, and honored to have been picked as the winning entry.

$100,000 to the winner!

The people at Power Line deserve a great deal of praise for offering such a generous prize for this noble effort.

Tea Party Hobbits Win?

Pundits seem to think that the Tea Party is a big winner in the debt-ceiling deal.

Chris Cillizza:

Tea party: There were major questions coming into the 112th Congress about who would blink first — the largely establishment-aligned leaders of the new Republican House majority or the tea-party-aligned freshman members. We got our answer to that question late Thursday as House Speaker John Boehner was forced not only to postpone his compromise bill but ultimately to add conservative sweeteners to get the 217 votes he needed. (He got 218.) The tea party — inside and outside Congress — will almost certainly be emboldened by the result of this fight.

Marc A. Thiessen:

How the Tea Party ‘hobbits’ won the debt fight...

The reported debt-limit deal appears to be a victory for the Tea Party. It includes around $1 trillion in spending cuts and creates a special committee of Congress to recommend cuts of $1.2 trillion more. If Congress does not approve those additional cuts by year’s end, automatic spending cuts go into effect. The package sets an important new precedent that debt-limit increases must be “paid for” with commensurate cuts in spending. According to Sen. Rob Portman, a former White House budget director, if we cut a dollar of spending for every dollar we raise the debt limit, we will balance the budget in 10 years — something that even the Paul Ryan budget would not achieve. And all this is accomplished with no tax increases.

The Wall Street Journal:

The tea partiers pride themselves on adhering to the Constitution, which was intended to make political change difficult. Yet in this deal they've forced both parties to make the biggest spending cuts in 15 years, with more cuts likely next year. The U.S. is engaged in an epic debate over the size and scope of government that will play out over several years, and the most important battle comes in the election of 2012.

Tea partiers will do more for their cause by applauding this victory and working toward the next, rather than diminishing what they've accomplished because it didn't solve every fiscal problem in one impossible swoop.

The debt-limit deal relies on gimmicks (see: baseline budgeting, the doc fix), the credit rating is still at risk, and our massive federal debt will continue to grow like a malignant tumor. And there's a real risk of tax increases.

How is this a victory for the Tea Party? I'd say it's a very modest victory, at best.

x-posted

UPDATE:

Linked by the Reaganite Republican (to LCR). Thanks!

UPDATE II:

If you think this was a good deal for Conservatives, the Tea Party or Libertarians, read this and this.

UPDATE III:

This is the largest debt hike in the history of the United States of America! Winning!

Discussion: Memeorandum

Of RINOs and Hobbits

For their demands for meaningful spending cuts under the weight of crushing debt, Tea Party activists have been showered with insults from an array of Republicans. Tea partiers have been called "worse than foolish," "unfair," "obtuse," "vain," and perhaps most puzzling, "hobbits."

Even conservative Thad McCotter says the "Time has come for the Tea Party to grow up."

I see all of this a bit differently.

Some Republicans are unprincipled, opportunistic RINOs ― and, yes, a few Tea Partiers are a bit naive and impatient.

But elder Republican statesmen who fancy themselves more sophisticated than the average Tea Partier would do well to demonstrate their level-headed maturity by educating and encouraging the Tea Party.

Republicans who instead endeavor to deride and demoralize the Tea Party are cowards and snobs.

In only two minutes and nine seconds, Mark Levin explains and analyses this story as well as anyone.

Hat tip.

x-posted

UPDATE I:

"Off base," "dangerous..."

UPDATE II:

JCG: Who are these dangerous tea party folk, and what do they want?

UPDATE III:

"noisy," "unfit for governing..."

Today, We Are All Zimbabweans

Via the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, a punk whose knowledge of history goes back at least 100 years, here's one of the bright ideas enjoying considerable buzz in the ultra progressive blogosphere ― magical platinum coins.

Obama could always just solve the crisis with a pair of magical platinum coins. Sure, that sounds preposterous, but Yale’s Jack Balkin argues that this is actually a perfectly legal strategy. Here’s the logic: Under law, there’s a limit to how much paper money the United States can circulate at any one time, and there are rules that limit how many gold, silver and copper coins the Treasury can mint. But the Treasury is explicitly allowed to mint however many platinum coins it wants and can assign them whatever value it pleases.

So the Mint makes a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve moves this money into Treasury’s accounts. And just like that, Treasury suddenly has an extra $2 trillion to pay off its obligations in the near term without issuing new debt.

This Zimbabwe-esque crack political thinking is hardly a tongue-in-cheek proposal. One of Matt Yglesias' favorite ivy league fascists promoted it at CNN, so it must be reasonable ― and it might be inevitable, or something:

It actually seems to me that there’s a colorable argument that President Obama is legally obliged to order Secretary Geithner to order the mint to start creating large denomination platinum coins. The debt ceiling is legally binding. We can’t borrow any more money. But at the same time, the Social Security Act is still valid.

Someone tell John McCain that his friends in the left-wing media are getting a little nutty. We all know how much he hates "foolish," "bizarro," sophomoric ideas.

Jacobson Is Right: Forget About The "Big Deal"

Some on the right have been fantasizing about a "Big Deal" with Obama. Can we hope for modest entitlement reform in exchange for a little compromise on tax increases? William Jacobson says no. I agree:

We just have to last another 18 months and win the presidential election, and then our long national nightmare will come to an end. Until then, we’re just trying to limit the damage.

Until he put forth his “plan,” Mitch McConnell was on the right track.

You can’t make a “big deal” with this President and this Senate. The best you can do is limit the damage done by the (Nancy)-Harry-Barack tag team.

McConnell’s plan wasn’t damage control; to the contrary, it made Republicans participants in the continuing damage.

There is a way out, spending constraints short of an overhaul of entitlements and no tax increases. At the end of the day, Obama will have to take it.

And if he doesn’t, the damage is on him.

Obama is ideologically incapable of making a deal that's good for America. (If you think that's an overstatement, examine his record.)

A big deal with Obama will do big damage. A smaller deal will do less.

In addressing the looming debt limit, the GOP should make the smallest possible deal ― just to get us all across the November 2012 finish line. After that, there may be hope for real progress.

Debt Limit: Obama Presses, But Boehner Stands Firm

Behold the power of the Tea Party:

The influx of freshman Republican lawmakers, propelled into office by Tea Party support last fall, has hardened the party’s stance on limiting government spending and on rejecting any legislation that hints of raising revenues.

Cantor referred repeatedly to the GOP’s “Pledge to America,’’ unveiled weeks before the elections in November and filled with key goals of Tea Party groups.

“Our members did not come here to raise taxes,’’ Cantor said. “Sprinkled throughout is our pledge not to raise taxes on the American people.’’

Some Republicans said the president’s suggestion that Tea Party politics are dividing the Republican caucus and hindering its ability to compromise are off base.

“I have a core belief that I’ve maintained that raising taxes doesn’t solve the problem,’’ said Representative Frank Guinta, a New Hampshire Republican who was elected with support from Tea Party activists. Guinta suggested that the talk of a divided GOP is a tactic of Obama’s.

But Brandon of FreedomWorks agreed with the president that Boehner has a difficult task in corralling his caucus.

“Boehner’s problem is Obama’s problem. Both of these guys are struggling with credibility when it comes to debt issues,’’ he said. “Every single debt vote has been a fait accompli. Because of the Tea Party, for the first time it isn’t. I think that’s a healthy thing.’’

A healthy thing indeed.

Don't let the GOP cave in to Obama and his loyal allies in the media. Call your Congressperson today.

Hat tip: The Other McCain

Hitting the Debt Limit ≠ End of World

Contrary to popular Washington memes, hitting the debt limit would not end the world as we know it:

The [Bipartisan Policy Center] study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, Powell said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).

That leaves you with about $39 billion to fund (or not fund) the following:

• Defense vendors ($31.7 billion)
• IRS refunds ($3.9 billion)
• Food stamps and welfare ($9.3 billion)
• Unemployment insurance benefits ($12.8 billion)
• Department of Education ($20.2 billion)
• Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion)
• Other spending, such as Departmens of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS ($73.6 billion)

The decision to prioritize payments would fall on the Treasury department, and Powell points out it would be chaotic picking and choosing who gets paid (in full or partially) and who doesn't.

Powell notes, however, that Congress made sure during a budget standoff in 1996 that Social Security recipients would not be affected. “In 1996, during an impasse, [Treasury Secretary] Bob Rubin gave the Congress notice that he would be unable to pay the March ’96 Social Security payment. Congress immediately—and I mean, immediately—passed a law that allowed the Treasury to borrow money specifically for that purpose and exempted that borrowing from the debt limit.”

Why should we cut another blank check for Obama and his cronies when American voters believe that spending cuts are a much better idea?

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters now think decreases in government spending help the economy. Twenty-four percent (24%) believe decreased spending hurts the economy...

Now is the time for the GOP to stop listening to the New York Times, Politico, the Washington Post et al. and do what's right ― for once.