Getty Images
At his press conference the other day, President Obama offered the political world a reminder about reality: "The debt ceiling is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to. These are bills that have already been racked up and we need to pay them."
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said this explanation may seem "compelling," but he disagrees with it anyway.
"It is a compelling message saying we need to pay the bills that we've racked up. But it misses the whole point," Portman told Fox News.
The Ohio lawmaker went on to compare the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling to credit card debt, equating Obama's stated unwillingness to bargain over an extension to a free-spending teenager.
"Think about it in terms of a credit card," Portman said. "If you have a son or daughter who exceeds the limits, what do you do? The first thing you do is probably rip up the card. The second thing you do is say, 'We need to change our spending habits.' This is what the president won't do."
Now, you may be thinking that this sounds like pretty routine rhetoric from congressional Republicans, and it's true -- nonsensical GOP talking points on the debt ceiling are painfully common.
But the reason this quote stood out for me is the background of the person who said it: Rob Portman is the former director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Republican senator, in other words, must realize what he's saying doesn't make sense.
The alternative interpretation is that Portman, a 14-year congressional veteran, and a man who served as the Bush/Cheney budget director for nearly two years, has not yet bothered to learn the basics of budget policy.
And I have to hope that isn't true.
Just in case anyone's inclined to believe Portman, let's once again set the record straight.
Congress approves federal spending, the executive branch follows through accordingly. When the legislative branch spends more than it takes in, the executive branch has to borrow the difference, but in order to do so, Congress has to raise the debt limit, allowing the White House to pay the bills.
According to Portman, these basic facts "miss the whole point." I haven't the foggiest idea what that means in this context. How can the reality of the debt ceiling miss the whole point of raising the debt ceiling?
The Republican senator instead compares the president to "a son or daughter" -- conservatives seem to love equating Obama to children -- who exceeds a credit card limit. First, that's budgetary gibberish, since the president doesn't have the power of the purse, and Obama can only spend when Congress tells him to spend.
But second, even if we use Portman's metaphor, a family that finds itself with bills can't declare, "We have a spending problem so let's stop paying our bills."
How the former OMB director, ostensibly one of the Senate Republicans' more wonky members, can find this confusing is a mystery. I know Portman has a habit of making stuff up during television interviews, but this is ridiculous.
Update: A few emailers remind me of the irony of Portman complaining about fiscal challenges given the deficits he built up as Bush's OMB director, and the fact that Bush-era policies are driving today's deficits. It's a good point.
Leave a Comment:
"Think about it in terms of a credit card," Portman said. "If you have a son or daughter who exceeds the limits, what do you do? The first thing you do is probably rip up the card. The second thing you do is say, 'We need to change our spending habits.' This is what the president won't do."
And of course one of the other things you do is actually pay the bill.
My thought exactly.
Or you might negotiate with the credit card company, asking them for a reduction because they shouldn't have given the kid the card.....
Still nonsensical, because it was the Republicans - and their policies - that drove up the deficit.
Yes, pay the bill Bob, that you helped rack up as one of those "kids' with the credit card during the Bush Administration. Sheesh, the noive.
Think about it this way.
The House of Representatives is responsible for originating all legislation that determines how much money is spent by the executive branch (Article 1, Section 7, US Constitution).
That means that John Boehner is responsible for telling Barack Obama how much to spend, and Republicans are so mad about how much Barack Obama is spending that they don't want to pay the bill.
Schizophrenia (definition from National Library of Medicine - click here):
how many more of his lies and misstatements are you going to publish Benen without stating the obvious - Portman is a clown. a straight up one at that.
Admissible evidence the Republican brand and its intellectual reasoning is FUBAR! -Kevo
The technical term is fracked up from the neck up.
Rubber room ready.
Elevator don't reach the top floor.
Does not have a complete compliment of marbles.
...
All the woes of this United States started on Inauguration Day 2009. Everything was pretty much perfect before that and it would be perfect now had Mitt Romney been elected.
The state of the nation is the fault of voting incorrectly by We the People which the GOP will soon rectify...but until then, we commoners must be punished and punished and punished until we realize that Repubicans are the sole inheritors of God's true knowledge, most of the wealth, and all the looks.
/need I say snark?/
I am pretty sure that the Constitution give CONGRESS the power to spend money, not POTUS.
Of course, Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase without congressional approval. . .
There you go again with yer gol durned fernicity facts.
They're Republicans they don't need no stinkin' facts and that reality stuff.
If they want reality they'll watch the Bachelor.... or some other fine interpretation of reality
I think what republicans need to do a MUCH BETTER job of explaining is what they're really trying to accomplish. I firmly believe most republicans understand how the debt ceiling works. When they talk about getting spending under control they don't mean to say that not raising the debt ceiling accomplishes that. What they mean is that they feel that rampant spending (ignoring that most of it is Bush) is a huge weight on the economy and they're willing to do anything to get that perceived problem under control. Enter the debt ceiling, while they know it doesn't actually affect spending they're using it because they believe it is leverage to control what they see as a larger problem. Put simply they're willing to threaten economic disaster on an unrelated issue for the purpose of accomplishing the goal of reduced spending going forward.
I don't agree that spending is a problem, in fact I think we should be spending more right now. Nor do I agree with threatening economic collapse in order to accomplish an unrelated goal (it's a bit like tying highway funds to a mandatory 21 year drinking age). However, I think if republicans did a better job of explaining what they're doing they at least wouldn't look like liars/idiots. I know why they don't though, somehow saying "we know they're unrelated but we're willing to hold ransom the economy to accomplish our goals that we know we cannot do legitimately" doesn't sway public opinion.
Honestly, this is something I wish the media would report on more. Often the framing of the issue is that they're either ignorant or lying. I don't think it's either I think it's a problem with them articulating what they're trying to accomplish.
Wrong because to make that true the republicans would have to be introducing bills that either raise the revenue or cut spending but the only bills they have come up with cuts spending to cut more taxes while increasing defense spending, another words for every dollar they cut they give away $3 and some magical number crunching in 40 years will reduce the budget, maybe.
Let me rephrase, perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't really think they're being genuine about their desire for spending cuts. What I think is that they understand the lack of correlation between the DC and spending. They're only even talking about the DC because they think it's sufficient leverage for them to attack the spending they don't actually like (SS, Medicaid, Medicare etc.). I firmly believe that they are not actually deficit hawks and rather just social spending hawks. My point was that I think they know what they're doing with the DC and are just terrified to actually admit it is a hostage situation. Whether or not they actually want to cut spending is another question, the point is they could actually articulate what they're purportedly trying to accomplish. Pointing a gun at the economy in exchange for spending cuts that they feel are necessary (or at least that they claim to feel are necessary when a D is in power.)
They have other venues to get control of spending. For example, they could try harder to pass a budget that would be approved by the Senate and the President. If they really worked at it, I bet they could achieve real cuts using the normal budgeting process. Next month the continuing resolution they passed for the first 1/2 of fiscal 2013 will be on the table. No spending is authorized after the end of that CR. That would be a great time for the budget cutters in the house to fight hard for spending cuts. Sequestration offers another opportunity to fight for spending cuts.
The problem with using the debt ceiling as a pressure point is failure to raise the debt ceiling brings down the world's economy. It is sort of like rattling the nuclear saber. After a while everybody realizes you aren't taken seriously when you treaten to use one of those beasts.
Legislating is hard, shooting of your mouth on Fox News is easy. Tea party members prefer easy.
This is the Definition of stating the obvious!
To carry on with Mr. Portman's parental metaphor: Say you have a child who has a habit of stealing and then reflexively keeps trying to lie about it when they get caught...
You have to start by asking yourself what is more egregious, the stealing, the lying, or the base incompetance
I think it's an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. I think the GOP is trying to rally their base much like Obama is rallying the American people to back him up. If the GOP can convince the general population (they've already convinced their low-information-I-only-listen-to-Fox-and-Limbaugh base) that it's as simple as a credit card limit, when they try to default, it will be Obama's fault for trying to go over the "spending limit". They DO know better but they hope the American public can't tell the difference.
Additionally, the right wing loves, loves, loves to use language that suggests the President is a child, an irresponsible child, who needs controlling by a paternalistic adult. None other than Grover Norquist in an interview came up with the idea of a monthly raising of the debt limit, which the idiot Boehner parroted, which would be raised if he (the President of the United States) was good. Portman and Norquist are playing to their base and their base is just who Colin Powell said they were.
As Clinton said, "it takes some brass." That's all I can really say. On Portman's watch we went from a surplus to a huge, massive deficit. Now the best he can come up with is a pack of lies about the very President who came in, lowered spending and cleaned up the mess Portman was part-and-parcel of. It takes some brass.
"Congress approves federal spending..."
The GOTP really hasn't the foggiest idea of how government is supposed to function, they reaffirm that to me every time they open their mouths. That Portman was W.'s OMB director also speaks to why OMB wasn't really functioning very well - he didn't have a clue about what he was doing then, or now for that matter. As Congress has the "power of the purse" and the debt ceiling is to allow the President to pay for the bills that Congress has racked up, then maybe Congress should stop putting in all of those "pork projects" (bridge to nowhere for example), allow for wars, keep increasing their Defense Contractor pimps along with the rest of the 2% pimps that they gift with taxpayer funded WELFARE - that would "curb" all of the spending that "the government" does! I mean what about those "free-markets", why aren't those "businesses" out there on the world stage selling their wares - oops, my bad - we spend more than the next 10 western nations do on "Defense", so much for those "free-markets"!
Second, Mr. Portman a majority of Americans don't provide their 12-17 year olds with a credit card, and those that do - don't squawk about paying the bills. But let's go with his analogy - if I gave my 12-17 year old a credit card and he/she "overspent" then he/she would need to get a part time job to pay that sucker down - which teaches the child to be responsible for their money - what we wouldn't do would be to have a tantrum and say "we're not going to pay" - which is essentially what the Congress is doing currently!
What is it they say - "when you're in a hole, stop digging" - when are the GOTP going to figure that one out?
That is what middle class people do, the wealthy on the other hand just keep giving the teen more money to flush down the drain just so they can avoid having to deal with the kid. That is why GWB, Mitt and all of the rest of the spoiled republican frat boys behave the way they do, they never have faced responsibilities of their actions.
One big problem with Portman's analogy is that Congress is the 12-17 year old.
Refusing to raise the debt ceiling isn't like reaching your credit limit on your credit card. Instead, it's like ordering stuff and then, when you get it, stopping payment and then, when the credit card company asks why you stopped the payment, answering "because I didn't want to go deeper into debt."
And its not just sort of like that. It's exactly like that. Including the part where credit card company cancels your line of credit and craters your credit score.
And here's another write-up about the car accident that is the Republican Party, have we not gawked enough at their indefatigable idiocy? I for one would like to hear more encouraging news about what the sane people of politics are saying and doing by my favorite blogger (yeah, I mean you, Steve).
Anyone else? lol.
Once you push a lie, it's difficult to then shift gears to the truth. Ask Lance...
...and of course the teenager is who?..why it is non other than, well let's see...Congress...!
What the intellectually dishonest Steve Benen also knows but won't dare to say the is the fact that the congress is repeatedly turned down by the senate and the whitehouse when they bring up "common sense" spending cuts. Maybe the evil republicans in congress are not going about it the right way. they should defund everything new until the budget is balanced. Oh yeah, we haven't had a budget for over 6 years. What the senate thinks is no budget ,no debt ceiling. Lets just keep spending money we don't have and making interest payments forever. What a load of crap.
You would be taken more seriously if YOU realized that Congress IS THE House AND the Senate. Number 2 would be to understand what happens when you don't pass a budget and they pass a series of continuing resolutions. Who does that you ask? The CONGRESS. The last time the U.S. passed a real budget was in 1997.
The Republican idea of "common sense spending cuts" is to gut Medicare, privatize Social Security and get rid of Medicaid... Not once have they suggested that those who live the high life, who get lucrative tax subsidies and corporate welfare, pay one red cent...
Republicans want to rob those who can't afford it, to fill the pockets of those who can... And when President Obama calls them on their anti-poor theft, they cry "class warfare"...
The final goal of the Republicans is to create a permanent "indentured slave" class... With them as the slave masters...
That's what Bush did! Just kept spending money for wars he couldn't pay for, etc. etc. There is just no use Republicans, your arguments have no basis in fact...ever!
Inspector: You are memorializing the fact that right wingers won't get specific on "spending cuts" unless it involves Planned Parenthood or the PBS. C'mon, educate us Benen followers, outline those "common sense" cuts.
Mego
So why do they call them senators and congressmen? According to your logic the senate is redundant. BTW I never worry about being taken seriously by anyone that agrees with the premise that there should be unlimited spending on useless programs that are designed to keep the poor voting democrat.
David
Your whole post is just a conspiracy theory that is no different from the ones from the birthers and pro gun nuts.
Tractor
Bush was a lousy president too.
Really you repeat that lame sorry old talking point about the poor causing the deficit problems which has been proven to be a lie more times then Reagan said it. Tell me why if GOP policies are so wonderful that in 1979 Reagan was running around the country whining that the US was loaning to much money to other nations. Oh yeah thats right Reagan fixed that problem by making the US the biggest borrowing nation by 1982 and the GOP have been borrowing every since Reagan started borrowing and the real problem is the GOP have refused to pay back all of the money they borrowed these last 30+ years just so they could give more tax cuts to the wealthy. Even more stupid is back in the 90's the GOP told you that reforming welfare would cure the deficit problem so they reformed it then found new scapegoats to blame the deficit on to get people like you to throw your parents and grand parents under the bus. What I want to know is when mom and dad lose their retirement funds what you plan on doing when mom and dad show up on your doorstep demanding that you repay them for the 18 years they spent supporting your dead beat behind.
Whomimay
repeal of the tax cuts for the filthy rich for one year will only fund the government for 6 days. Why do you think that was the only problem? Welfare reform is only one of the steps that should be taken, along with foriegn aid (which we borrow money to pay) The list goes on. If you don't have the money, don't buy anything. It really is that simple. If my parents were still alive and asked me for it I would pay them back in a New York minute. You see I never do anything I can't pay for.
Right because 30+ years of GOP borrow, spend and refuse to pay can be cured in 1 year. Which shows why only morons listen to the GOP. You can repeat that talking point lie until Reagan raises from the grave and it will never happen because nothing the GOP wants to do lowers the deficit. In fact for every dollar the GOP cuts they manage to give away $3. So go take your GOP fuzzy math elsewhere we don't buy it.
Lebowsky
Here are your common sense spending cuts. 20% across the board for starters. Then any congressman or senator that loads a bill with pork gets hanged in the public square.
LOL here we go again a guy who supports pork spending for the wealthy whining about pork spending. Really I seen better solutions from a Chinese fortune cookie.
whomitmay you forgot to blame bush and the two wars on credit card.
Inspector- How is a 20% across the board cut either common sense or specific, as Mr. Lebowsky requested? The problem with getting any budget passed is that the House Reptilians won't get specific about anything. They just throw out a number, just like you did, and then demand that the Democrats come up with specific proposals that fit into their number, which they will promptly ignore or attack.
I have yet to see any specific proposals by the Reptilians. The quickest way to end an interview is to ask them for some. They can't get out of the room fast enough. So once again, can you give me any specific proposals, or at least direct me to where any of the Reptilians have made some?
Inspector: My fantasies sure seem more fun than yours. Hint: mine do not involve spending cuts or spending increases...
Whom
Where did I say anything about supporting any pork? (except for pulled pork, I really love that stuff) What the heck does across the board mean to you? It means :EVERYTHING the government spends money on. And BTW I think ANY private company should not be allowed receive subsidies from the government . If you are in business you should take all the risks and all the rewards. That is the main reason I was against all the bailouts.
Inspector...
Would those spending cuts include any of the interest accrued on all the money borrowed by the Bushies for the wars and the tax cuts? Because that's where most of the money the government takes in now disappears to...
We have to keep making those interest payments, to "maintain the full faith and credit"... yadda, yadda, yadda...
So what do we tell other nations when we start cutting THAT "20% across the board, eh?...
I never understood why a man with Portman's obvious lack of financial I.Q. could have been Bush's finance director. Is it any wonder we have so much to do to clean up the mess.
Oh I don't know...just think about 'you're doing a heckuva a job Brownie' and look at GWBush's other picks.
Portman's financial accumen follows an obvious Republican pattern. It's the same rationale as John Boehner for House Speaker, Michelle Bachmann on the Intelligence committee and Paul Broun on the Science committee. It's the same rationale for putting forth people for the Executive Office as Bush Jr. or the cast of characters for GE 2012 the nomination of which the likes of Mitt Romney won.
There's no intellectual pattern here, rather it's a pattern of installing weak personalities armed with little more than an ideology and a lowbrow ignorance who are willing to capitulate America's future to further the GOP brand.
Republicans will lie, cheat, or even talk of killing others to get their way.
Portman, however, is a Bush incompetent. He and most Republicans don't understand economics or much of anything else for that matter. How did Rumsfeld put it? "We will create our own reality." Good thing for them because they and their multinational and economic monopoly supporters can't seem to create any new capital in this country much less jobs or long term growth.
The American wealthy and industrialists have become as clueless as their Wall Street counterparts who don't even try to hide the fact that all they do now is gamble instead of invest. It's all about equity manipulation and liquidation with conservatives. Where is the meat?
It's a lucky thing that there are still a good number of innovators and progressives cultivating new technologies because this country would surely die on the vine if it was up to the Republicans to come up with just one "new idea" worth pursuing. They keep on looking to the 18th century for their inspiration.
Excuse me. That quote is attributed to Karl Rove, but Rumsfeld said just as many crazy things...hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths are collateral damage, democracy is messy sometimes, etc.
OK. After picking myself up off the floor laughing hysterically I've come to the conclusion it's time For Mr. Portman to have a Sarah Palin style interview with Katie Couric. So, Congressman Portman... what books DO you read ? Anything on budgeting or accounting ? Tell me, does your wife do the budget at your house ?