Some headlines this morning:
GOP turns hard right on debt
Budget experts raise concerns over McConnell debt limit fallback plan
71% shun GOP handling of debt crisis
In case you haven’t noticed, the drumbeat has begun in earnest to blame Republicans for the failure of talks on the debt limit and any bad reaction to it from the markets.
Today’s hysteria is being generated because the GOP wants to include the unreasonable, the radical, the extreme notion that the government – eventually – should have to live within its means.
The balanced budget amendment doesn’t mandate cuts in the budget. It will force a cut in the rate of growth in government spending, gradually bringing to down to 18% of GDP – with increased GDP growth accounting for most of the difference. And the amendment says, that if you want to fund a study to find out whether the penis size of a gay man is connected to his sexual health, you have to get 2/3 of the House and Senate to agree that this is something on which the government should be spending tax dollars, if the cost of that study would cause a deficit to accrue.
Who is being unreasonable? Politico:
Final revisions made Friday submerge conservative demands to reduce all federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product – a target that threatened to split the GOP by requiring far deeper cuts than even the party’s April budget. But Republican congressional leaders still want a 10-year, $1.8 trillion cut from nondefense appropriations and have added a balanced-budget constitutional amendment that so restricts future tax legislation that even President Ronald Reagan might have opposed it in the 1980s.
Indeed, much of the deficit-reduction legislation signed by Reagan would not qualify under the new tea-party-driven standards. And even the famed Reagan-Tip O’Neill Social Security compromise – which raised payroll taxes – passed the House in 1983 well short of the 290 votes that would be required under the constitutional amendments being promoted by the GOP.
Would Reagan have objected to a 2/3 vote in congress to raise taxes? My guess would be that if The Gipper were swept into office with the national debt approaching $15 trillion, it is more likely that he would have supported such a plan than not. Worse, it is ridiculous to make the attempt to reach back in time and pull events forward, trying to make a lame point about how congress would have voted in any given circumstance. That’s not even good alternative history. The debt situation is 7 times more dire than it was during the 1980’s, while the deficit is 5 times larger today than it was during the Reagan administration. Only a rank partisan hack would even make the attempt to draw similarities between two extraordinarily dissimilar situations.
Read More at American Thinker by Rick Moran, American Thinker