When we talk about the looming debt-ceiling crisis, as we did yesterday, I invariably get emails from more conservative readers reminding me that President Obama, when he was Senator Obama, voted against a debt-limit increase, too. Indeed, Dave Weigel noted this clip the other day, which the RNC seemed quite excited about.
For those who can't watch clips online, ABC News' Jake Tapper pressed White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about the fact that Obama, during his Senate tenure, voted against the Bush/Cheney administration's debt-ceiling increases, so the president is hardly in a position to criticize congressional Republicans now.
Carney responded, "There was no threat of default at the time."
Is this explanation compelling? Actually, yes. Indeed, it's precisely why the talk of Obama hypocrisy falls short.
Let's back up for a minute because context offers a more informative picture. Between 1939 and 2010, Congress raised the debt limit 89 times. It was an easy, routine bit of legislative paperwork. But in those 89 instances, the congressional votes were hardly unanimous -- lawmakers would routinely use debt-ceiling votes for good ol' fashioned grandstanding, complaining about the fiscal habits of the president in office at the time.
Democrats did this under Republican presidents, and Republicans did this under Democratic presidents. The grandstanding was about as predictable and habitual as, well, routine increases to the debt ceiling itself.
But those voting against debt-ceiling increases prior 2011, regardless of party, weren't trying to force a default, weren't trying to crash the economy, weren't trying to hold the nation hostage in exchange for a non-negotiable demand, and weren't trying to trash the full faith and credit of the United States in a pique of partisan rage. They were grandstanding in the most harmless and inconsequential way possible. It's exactly what Obama did when he was a senator and he's hardly alone.
In 2011, everything changed.
Congressional Republicans decided pontificating and chest thumping was no longer enough -- they turned the procedural homework into a weapon. There was always the possibility of radicalized lawmakers doing this between 1939 and 2010, but never before were elected officials prepared to hurt America on purpose.
Last year, GOP policymakers made a choice no one in either party ever seriously considered. They declared, without apology, that they would deliberately act against the nation's interests, regardless of the consequences, unless a ransom was paid.
Did Obama vote against the debt-ceiling increase, knowing the debt-ceiling would be raised anyway? Yes. Did he push the nation towards default, threaten to crash the economy on purpose, and hold the nation hostage? No.
With this in mind, to equate Obama's vote with the unprecedented Republican extortion overlooks every relevant detail. The president, before he was president, wasn't prepared to hurt the country on purpose unless he got his way. Congressional Republicans, last year and this year, insist they are prepared to hurt the country on purpose unless they get their way.
These are not the same thing.
Leave a Comment:
I don't understand why people won't call what the Republican party is doing by holding the full faith & credit of our nation hostage exactly what it is. Economic terrorism. You can hate hearing something like that, but it's the truth. They are doing exactly what a terrorist would do (creating fear & uncertainty) by holding our country's ability to make good on it's debts in order to get their way on what they want done.
And I always thought that our government didn't negotiate with terrorists?
How about because the Republicans are NOT holding the full faith & credit of our nation hostage. By virtue of the Constitution and the tax receipts that still come in, there is no chance of default. "Section 4 states, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned." In most situations that would seem self-evident,"
What you should really worry about is whether Obama is going to scare seniors again by threatening to withhold SS checks.
No they aren't. You are listening to the the Obama PR machine that is scaring voters with a lie. Don't be gullible.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2011/07/12/the-u-s-treasury-will-not-default/
Shooter, what you miss is that it's not just real world practical implications (i.e. not actually paying bills). There are severe intangible costs to not raising the debt ceiling. Our credit rating dropped last time, not because the US actually did not pay a bill it owed but rather because the world economy thought that the US was too irresponsible to pay its bills. If the world sees a US government that cannot make routine votes to pay its bills it does not instill confidence in its ability to effectively govern.
Additionally, I read the article you linked. He makes a good point but his ultimate argument is that while we won't default we will have to cut spending elsewhere to make up for the payments on the debt and interest. The programs that will see a cut were authorized by congress and are an obligation of the US government to pay until they are eliminated. If I face a funding issue in my own life and I have to choose between paying my credit card bill or paying my gas for my home I cannot call the gas company and say, hey I know you supplied me gas and I promised to pay for it but I need to pay my credit card instead, but don't worry I'm not going to default on my credit card so it's fine. The US government cannot promise to make payments to a program and then say, well we've decided we didn't actually want to spend that so we're going to default on that debt instead of this debt.
Not sure what your point is, here Shooter - Your Section 4 argument seems to say that Congress doesn't even have the authority to authorize/not authorize the debt ceiling, but the article you linked to basically says that we should pay what we have the authority to pay, and cut everything else.
Sorry shooter. You can deflect and obfuscate as much as you want. But we've seen the effects of the prior hostage taking of the debt ceiling to our nation, and you can bet that it would be just as bad, if not worse, should the Republicans pull the same stunt again.
I don't need to listen to any so-called 'PR machine'. The actual descriptions of what can and/or will happen if the Republicans pull their stunt again has already been explained by people much more educated in the effects of such actions. Plus we have the history of what happened the last time as proof.
Not to mention, if the debt ceiling is not raised, the country also cannot take on any new debt until it is, so therefore the workings of the government can and will stop until such time as it is raised. So I would say those senior citizens and those who rely on safety net programs DO have a lot to worry about.
You people deserve the hemorrhoids. Enjoy them.
"Economic Terrorism"
When I read that, I suddenly had a thought that the debt ceiling hostage situation kind of reminds me of a James Bond plot. Kind of like Goldfinger or that other one where London's banks were to be hacked or something. In any case, the plot definitely puts the GOP in the camp of the bad guys.
i agree nothing short of economic terrorism.
almost borderline treasonous as well.
and just out right cowardly of them.
The Republicans hate the United States of America. They want to destroy our country just as badly as any radical fundamentalist terrorist does. They ARE radical fundamentalist terrorists.
And this makes you two gullible.
shooter,
just in case you forgot, we are still paying for the two wars and medicare part D that w. bush PUT ON THE CREDIT CARD. w. bush signed the second part of the bush tax CUTS the same month (march 2003) he invaded iraq. we were told to go shopping with those tax cuts, while only a few americans paid with their lives, with injuries and time away from their families to fight a war that HADHING TO DO WITH 9/11, 2001.
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, two wars, AND Medicare Part D kept OFF THE BOOKS by w. bush.
ARE YOU EVEN AWARE OF ANY OF THIS?
we still have to pay for all of that.
YOU ARE THE GULLIBLE ONE. maybe if you would get your facts straight, you wouldn't look so foolish.
repubs' hypocrisy is unbelievable, WHEN THEY SIGNED ON FOR EVERY DIME BUSH WANTED TO SPEND.
Tomorrow's headline - Village Press Hallucinates Hypocrisy
To conjure a straw man of hypocrisy instead of focusing on the unprecedented departure from sane national politics is to do dishonor to Sevareid, Murrow, Mencken and G. Seldes!
If our Village Press is giving the Republicans a bye when it comes to their exuberant support of the debt ceiling extensions under President Bush, and their now strategy of holding us hostage, well, Village Press = Village Idiots! -Kevo
Then Senator Obama was "grandstanding." He didn't mean it. Continuing to borrow money is not unpatriotic, it is what America does. It's harmless. Why it's just money on paper, not real money. You couldn't take Senator Obama serious then but you can now. Now he's looking out for everyone. That was then, it was different. He was happy President Bush was sending the country more and more in debt, just like he is now.
It's okay to say raising the debt ceiling is wrong, just don't do anythng about it. Trying to actually stop raising the debt ceiling, now that would be wrong. Why, let's just do away with the debt ceiling all together and then we don't have all this confusion.
To which, I say, "Let's stop paying our bills!!!!" Fine, call Obama a hypocrit if it will make you feel better. Fine, support those who vote "NO" loudly and happily to raising the debt limit. After all, do we really know what will happen? Maybe nothing at all. Do you know? Sounds like a great plan though. Sounds like a good plan to get people back to work. Surely sounds like an awesome plan to beat Russia, China, and other EM's for 21st century superiority. Yup, racing to the bottom will get us there!! And before you and Shooter reply with insanely illogical nonsense (deadbeats who order lobster and wine then skip out on the tab usually find the darndest of excuses), please explain why raising the debt limit (to pay for things already bought) was OK in previous years but suddenly not now? Don't worry. I get it. Stop ordering lobster and wine. Sure, but not paying your bills is the most wrongheaded of ways to do that, RobDon.
ps: If you will - Lobster & Wine = Bush tax cuts, medicare part D, two wars on the credit card, and refusing to make Medicare and Medicaid more efficient. All Republican positions.
I'd like to know how you could possibly know this?
When did then Senator Obama ever say this? So you're not confused as to the specific question I'm asking, I'll be perfectly clear: When did Senator Barack Obama say raising the debt ceiling is wrong?
You just stated President Obama's position. I agree with this position
What Rob has is amnesia. It's as if 2001-2008 NEVER happened. Sadly, most people refuse to understand that the past is a guide to the future. They'd rather forget and simply ignore the sign that says "Bridge Out Ahead".
Maybe then senator Obama voted "no" on the debt ceiling increase because he knew it was going to be funding the wars, that he also voted "no" on. I see it as consistent behavior. I agree on the economic terrorism, I also believe that the Republicans with the "Corporations are people, my friend", are creating economic slavery in this country. GOP - Greed Over People, plain and simple.
Here's a quote from Senator Obama:
It sounds like he was saying it was "wrong" to me. I would think something that "weakens" us domestically and internationally would be "wrong." Do you agree?
@Rob. So..at the time of this quote, had we gone through the second WORST recession in American history? At the time of this quote, who was President? At the time of this quote, were some of the same players who voted YES then now also voting NO, today? Oh, and did the Tea Party exist in Congress then?
Absent the circumstances and facts raising the debt limit in 2004 vs 2011/2013, your point might be worth considering. On it's face, I might agree with you: Obama Edition 2004 mirrors Republicans version 2011 (& 2013). But, once you add all these facts, your point falls flat. The quote has little significance, AT ALL.
Ok. I'd like for you to answer my central point. Why is raising the debit limit now wrong, but ok then? And since when is engaging in extortion a valid negotiating tactic, with the country's (perhaps the World!) well being on the line? And if the tactic is solely to extract cuts, explain when and where did Obama say he's against cuts? And when on God's green Earth are you and Republicans ever going to identify the cuts you think should happen?
I think that dodging taxes, showering tax cuts on people who don't need them (and will only pocket them), trying to buy elections, eliminating worker protections and rights, having multiple positions on everything, lying incessantly about everything, focusing on abortion, marriage rights, and imposing your religion on others (my God the list goes on....); all of THAT also weakens us domestically and internationally. And that's the 2012/2013 edition of Republicans.
What I don't get is why people aren't on the Republicans for this. Specifically that this is just agreeing to pay the bill for the things that Congress (not the President) has already decided to spend money on. If the Republicans in the House truly want to demonstrate "Fiscal Responsibility" as they like to insist then they should be all for this.
we are paying for things that W. bush decided HE WANTED TO SPEND MONEY ON-the afghanistan war, the Iraqi war and medicare part D.
we are still paying for those things, mostly because of the tax cuts that bush signed into law the very month (march 2003) we invaded iraq. tax cuts for an illegal war based on lies. that's the reason we need a debt ceiling hike.
It wouldn't matter if it were a bill for a trillion dollars in Cheesecake it's still money we spent and debts we have to pay. We don't get to pick and choose because we don't like it. People are looking to place blame for the mess we are in and that's easy Congress and therefore ultimately us.
Dragoon,
you are correct. it doesn't matter what the trillion dollars were spent on, we still have to pay our debt. personally, i believe it is helpful to point out the hypocrisy of the repub party, and WHOSE SPENDING got us to where we are.
when President Obama said at the beginning of his Presidency that he would no longer lie to the american people about the cost of the afghanistan and iraqi wars, KEPT OFF THE BOOKS BY W. BUSH, the american people, i believe, blamed Obama for this increase in spending. many repub/baggers who post here don't know that W. bush kept the WARS OFF THE BOOKS, and are unaware that we are still paying for them. fox news has certainly never mentioned this very important part of our debt CAUSED BY W. BUSH.
it makes me feel better to point this out, even though most repub/baggers who come here don't believe me. i believe that BLAME should be placed where MOST of it belongs, and repubs' hypocrisy should be pointed DIRECTLY AT THEM.
TRUTH matters, even if repubs don't believe it, or don't want to hear it.
I agree with you and I think the point is entirely valid but I can't let it stand without the caveat that the Democrats who were/are in congress aren't entirely off the hook either. A lot of them went along with Bush era spending and are just as much responsible for the current mess as anyone else.
That said the idea that we won't pay our bills and get our national household in order simply because Mom and Dad want to fight over who signs the check is ridiculous
I disagree on one point. I'm not sure it was strictly political grandstanding on Obama's part.
There's a big difference in what the respective President's want to spend money on. With Bush it was tax cuts for the wealthy, war(s) and unfunded mandates like Medicare part D.
There's a moral case to be made here as well.
The reason people are not angry with the GOP on this issue is because people don't understand the debt ceiling and how it works, they see it as an increase in spending. What President Obama needs to do is explain to America that the debt ceiling is NOT the equivalent of putting more on your US bank card, it's the equivalent of having $6,000 on your US bank credit card then calling US bank and telling them "hey I know I just put $2,000 more on my card but I've decided my debt limit that I'm willing to pay back is $6,000 so I'm not going to pay the full $8,000 even though I already spent it." People need to understand what this is and what it is not.
I do understand this. And while it certainly is no the same as "an increase in spending," it is the vehicle by which spending is allowed to continue to increase. If the debt ceiling did not continue to rise, we could not continue to increase spending.
Rob, I don't think you understand at all how this works. Not one bit.
I think RobDon answered your question, tiger, as to why Obama hasn't done it.
RD says he understand it and yet he still pretends to be or chooses to remain ignorant.
Exactly, the debt ceiling DOES NOT affect new spending. Congress can say no to raising the debt limit and then pass a bill that will cost money (they just won't pay for it). the debt ceiling is about money already spent and our moral, ethical, and practical obligation to pay that debt.
If congress wants to stem the tide of spending the ONLY way to do that is to eliminate programs prospectively. What it cannot do is say, "shoot we really wish we hadn't authorized that program in the past hey lets not pay the bill that'll solve the problem." If congress wants to eliminate food stamps to balance the budget (obviously I know it would not actually do much for hte budget, just by way of example) it can eliminate the program going forward, then hopefully next time we have to raise the debt ceiling it will be by a lesser amount because we did not spend as much that time around. The fact is though that refusing to pay our current bills does NOT lower or stem the debt increase at all, all it does is say to the world that America is a poor investment and our government cannot be trusted to pay for the things it promised to pay for.
It's impressive how stupid RobDon is.
Disgusted, please quote from my comment and tell me where I am incorrect. Thanks.
@Rob. One way to avoid being picked on is to think about what your about to type. Perhaps do a little research on your point. You can have an opinion, but you can't simultaneously equate that as fact. Re-read 8.4. It's pretty close to explaining why you're wrong on this.
Plain and simple: Raising the Debt Limit has NO BEARING ON HOW MUCH WE WILL or CAN SPEND IN THE FUTURE. (That's Congresses job to determine and approve.) IT SIMPLY ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE BILL FOR PAST SPENDING.
This charade is dumb on every level. Corker and Graham are basically saying this: "Congress approved spending the President asked for, but now we don't want to pay for that unless we reduce future spending." In what world does this make any sense??? And since you clever Republicans love to compare the government to a business or household, tell me what household or business functions this way?? Further, these cowards won't say in precise terms what spending they want to see reduced. Instead, they come up with numbers and generalities (entitlement reform, close loopholes, yadda, yadda, yadda). They want the President to own the specific cuts so they can say it wouldn't have been the spending they would've cut. Classic playing both sides of the fence.
Bottom line: Pay your bill.
718bknyc,
I never said that raising the debt limit had any bearing on how much we will or can spend. I fully understand the process. Quote where I was incorrect.
It does, however, play a role. If this wasn't the case, there would be no need to raise the debt limit. You are incorrect to say it is simply about paying bills. When a budget is passed it includes spending that has not been ordered, started, or initiated in any way...so there is no bill YET. You simply don't order or start it, and there will be no bill.
I fully recognize that is a rather oversimplification, but so is saying "pay your bill." Just because spending has been authorized, doesn't mean that it a) has to occur, or b) someone is left not being paid.
I don't feel I'm being "picked on," I just wish someone would quote the sentence that is incorrect and explain why instead of attributing concepts to my comments that are not present.
More gotcha journalism from the WHPC.. Honestly though, these are questions that need to be asked, I just wish that they might ask the same of members of the GOP. Of course, that may undermine the mystery of what they're trying to accomplish; a "spoiler" if you will.. At least the press won't ruin the ending for everyone!
Obama was not speaking from a foundation of lies and deceit like the modern Republicans are, thats the stark difference. These lies come from Republican Leadership, although that sure sounds like an oxymoron.
Anyone who would intentionally go out of their way to hurt this Country and it's citizens belongs in jail and charged with being a traitor. All the GOP's games have been exposed. They are all acting like a bunch of spoiled brats, we are here on this planet to prove only one thing, that we can live together in peace and harmony, who is holding up the wheels of progress, as we anxiously anticipate the day, when we could at last get to know all walks of life from all the different Countries and cultures, That is life, and that is what I fully support. Not sabotage. The rich and famous have had their fun, tearing us apart, now it's our turn to respond, wake up! Analyze your goals then, ask yourself why? Too many people are getting trampled on, with the decisions that have been made by the Republican party.
NOTE TO ADMINS. You may want to make this correction to the article:
The 14th amendment says that no Congressman or Senator is allowed to serve if he is involved in any insurrection against the government. Isn't that what this blackmail scheme is? (section 3). And section 4 says the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Why are people saying the president should not invoke the 14th amendment. It sounds pretty clear to me.
I think this just proves why we shouldn't have a debt ceiling at all. At best, it's a pointless vanity exercise for members of the minority to get a chance to yell at the majority. And at worst... Basically, there's no upside at all, and a potentially catastrophic downside.
It's way past time the news media et al stopped refering to the event of the cost of running the government and paying the bills we owe as "raising the debt ceiling". The term is too confusing to those who maintain an unawareness of how government works, including, it would seem, those "legislators" who occupy the House of Representatives. It is mandated and legislated--that is, written--in the Constitution that this government will pay it's bills, and voting against that is voting against the Constitution, is it not? So, please--all who are involved in getting out the news Let the people know in no uncertain terms! that paying one's debts is very important, and the United States is no exception!
The term "Raising the debt ceiling" needs to be changed to "Bill-paying time" or the like, and all citizens should be aware of the fact that it is written in the Constitution that this government pays it's debts. Period.