Sure they do. They have a budget that says they’re going to spend X dollars. They have a tax plan that will raise Y dollars. And everybody knows that Y < X.
But when they have to borrow more money because they haven’t raised enough revenue, they want to whine about the fact that they’re borrowing money. They’ll yell, they’ll stamp their feet, they’ll talk about how horrible it is that they’re borrowing money.
But they’re borrowing money because they’re sticking to their budget. The budget they have drawn up where they will spend X but only raise Y.
And what they will never, ever do is raise X in revenue. No, they’d rather borrow money and then complain about it.
They won’t really only spend Y either. That would require radically rewriting the budget, and an awful lot of people would likely lose their livelihoods. No, they’ll spend Y of budgeted X, then have a big drama queen snit about borrowing X-Y. Again.
Why not? If Congress mandates the mathematically impossible, why can’t money be spent, raised or borrowed according to executive fiat? It seems to me like a straightforward delegation of congressional authority to the executive branch.
The constraint I see is that while the Treasury could borrow funds, the bonds or borrowings would not have full faith and credit: direct sale to the Federal Reserve might handle that issue, except that financial markets would freak. Other than that, it seems to me that Congress is essentially passing a line-item veto on steroids. The President could legally reverse all manner of Congressional earmarks passed by the opposing party, for example.
Isn’t the problem, and the solution therefore, political? By which I mean, that the people demanding that the debt ceiling be addressed immediately in this radical, unprecedented fashion simply elect a Republican President and a Republican Congress that will steadfastly refuse to borrow any money at all, and will enact only laws that are financed within a budget based on revenues that we are certain we can collect? Easy-peasy.
The people demanding that did elect a Republican House (which is required to vote on raising the debt ceiling). Of course, they will fold anyway like a cheap tent in a hurricane and vote for raising it.
And the President? Do you remember how that vote went?
Oh, well, they did have a Republican President before, who might have been more sympathetic to their concerns–how did George W. Bush respond when they pulled this shit on him? I forget.
Correct. Now respond to the second part of my post, where we elected a Republican President in 2000 and 2004 and the debt was mounting: how did a Republican congress deal with this dire threat then when they had a sympathetic and supportive executive?
The most important part of writing up a budget is to make it for less than expected income, so that there is wiggle room should something happen to the income. If after several years, it turns out that the income is always less than expected, more wiggle room should be left after the budget is drawn up.
What, you want me to write the budget for the country? Or give an example of mine?
Do you not understand budgets?
I understand budgets. I’m fairly certain that all the people bickering over this budget understand them, too. That’s the easy part. Drawing up the budget, and actually sticking to it, are the hard parts.
Agreed, so why can’t they do it? I fear we’ve reached a point where some politicians are willing to risk harming the country so long as the other party suffers for it more than their own does.
That’s the politicians’ triple bribe:
Overspend, to get votes from constituents that benefit from government spending (not to mention kickbacks from government contractors).
Undertax, to get votes from constituents that like the idea of a tax cut (and then have to do it again, and again, to keep them coming back to the polls).
Borrow by selling bonds, to get donations from speculators who use government bonds to hedge their riskier [del]investments[/del] bets.
Balancing the budget would diminish at least two of these three things, and certain political factions are not popular without them, or wouldn’t even be themselves without them.
(Actually, the GOP has a fourth bribe: Deregulation. It’s very profitable in the short term, but sometimes blows up in their faces when things go completely wrong.)
The problem is politicians who’d rather get elected on this kind of thing than on competence, and the constituents who seem to want this kind of thing over competence.
Oh. And because American politicians learn the wrong lessons from history, we have two more wrinkles:
Some people are convinced that deficits are necessary to grow the economy, and that more deficits (through tax cuts!) mean more growth. It ain’t necessarily so, as the saying goes. But those guys will never actually balance the budget, which means they will always have to raise the amount of debt.
Further (and goofier), the fact that the Great Depression ended in the USA with WWII has convinced great numbers of people that war is good for the economy, and that we have to have massive defense spending to keep the economy going. Some even think this is more important than domestic spending on useful infrastructure. Even when foreign wars end up being a drag on the real economy, it doesn’t sink in.
So we have politicians who believe we must throw good money after bad on defense (and only on defense), while cutting taxes so low we can’t even pay for that (because deficits are “good”). Then they have to go home and pretend that they really want to balance the budget so the old-fashioned fiscal conservatives will vote for them.
They folded like a cheap tent in a hurricane. Just like they are going to do now. Woohoo! You proved Republicans suck as much as Democrats do. Congrats.
Sure. It’s the sign of strength to be 16.5 trillion in debt. And it’s going to be even more a sign of strength to be 20 trillion in debt. Hey - let’s go for the even 100 trillion, just think how strong we will be!
No stupid. Slow down, you’re getting yourself riled up.
The debt ceiling isn’t about cutting the budget, it’s about paying for what we’ve already budgeted. If you want to cut the budget, you do it before we agree to pay for X. Otherwise we become deadbeats.