This fiscal cliff deal is still awaiting a vote by the House today.

I hope they don't accept it.

The wisdom is that you don't raise taxes in a depression. That takes money from the people that can buy stuff.

Add in that I'd like to see $7 a gallon milk. Maybe people will realize that a 1000 pound gorilla has been fucking up the grocery market as well as the stock and commodity markets for most of the past century. Give everyone what they deserve. They voted for it.

You didn't really expect the government to react to a crisis with a ... gasp! ... solution, did you?

The Democrats got exactly what they wanted: they get to spend more while people sigh in relief that the "fiscal cliff" has been avoided. And, if things go wrong - thanks to John Boehner's failure to understand exactly what game was being played all along - they get to blame the Republicans.

Doesn't matter whether the House votes yay or nay, the Republicans are doomed in 2014.

This was never about a fiscal cliff. It was about the 2014 election.

they get to blame the Republicans

You misunderstand.

They will always blame the Republicans. And there are enough insufficiently educated people who've been trained that Republicans are the party hate, dirty air, dirty water, dirty politics that they'll reflexively believe anything bad said about them.

Of course, Boehner also doesn't understand that. So there's that. Or maybe he does understand, but wants to get invited to the best DC parties?

Yep, the Obama administration has successfully marginalized the Tea party and the Republican party. They have recently launched their offensive to marginalize the NRA, the last nemesis of Democrat party.

"Of course, Boehner also doesn't understand that. So there's that. Or maybe he does understand, but wants to get invited to the best DC parties?"

Oh, he understands. But he hasn't a clue what to do about it. That's because his training in politics never anticipated the situation he now faces. Politicians of both parties have believed and preached for decades that the federal government could borrow indefinitely, with no repercussions, because the economy would always grow fast enough to cover it. There are a few people in Congress who know better, but they are spitting into the wind. And Boehner has seen the results of that.

Leftism is Cluster B politics. It is narcissistic, borderline and histrionic in its behavior and its approach to how to practice politics. Anyone who has ever tried to negotiate anything with a Cluster B person knows it is impossible, because their response to an offered concession is always to increase their demands. You cannot compromise with them. You must defeat them.

The GOP is wasting its time attempting to do anything in Congress; it's a fools errand. As Aggie points out, the Washington media will always give all credit to the Democrats and all blame to the Republicans, regardless what Congress actually does. The Democrats will not address the long-term issues because Cluster B's never, ever waste a microsecond thinking about the future. They just assume that things will always work out in their favor.

What the Republicans are going to have to do is wage a civil war of words. They need to concentrate their efforts on state governorships and legislators, working towards getting 37 states to call for a Constitutional convention. Then, they need to be able to dominate the convention. This is the only Constitutional avenue remaining for restoring the protections that the founders intended. The GOP must engage in the civil war of words because if they fail, the remaining course will be the civil war of guns. And I doubt that America would survive a second Civil War.

Conan: "... they get to blame the Republicans.

I'm always amused by comments like this, but also bewildered when they come from posters like Conan and Cousin Dave, whom I esteem to be the wisest of posters on this blog. Evidently, not where politics are concerned.

Like Republicans are the party of personal responsibility and have never, ever blamed Democrats for anything. And the eight years of of the Bush administration blaming everything on Clinton, including 9/11, was just a figment of my imagination.

Until folks realize that both parties are engaged in this dirty business of buck-passing and demonizing, you will never be part of the solution; you will simply be the flip side of the same problem.

Clear enough for you?

As I posted on your Facebook, Amy, it's with a sour, cynical amusement that I note that Congress is congratulating itself for an impending crisis that they engineered. The fiscal cliff was their creation, and they are so pleased with themselves for avoiding it.

If I dug a Burmese tiger pit outside my front door (with the intent of entrapping myself in it), would you congratulate me for successfully avoiding it? Or would you condemn me for being so stupid as to put this lethal obstacle right outside my home in the first place?

Waiting for the accusations that I'm a liberal because I point out that both parties are engaged in the blame game.

"Like Republicans are the party of personal responsibility and have never, ever blamed Democrats for anything."

Yeah, but Republican accusations against Democrats don't stick with the media. That was really my point -- political parties are there to be partisan. Media is not, or at least shouldn't be.

"And the eight years of of the Bush administration blaming everything on Clinton, including 9/11, was just a figment of my imagination."

Well, hmm... Bush had not been in office very long when 9/11 happened. I sort of get what you are saying regarding blaming Clinton, although it really had little impact since, to belabor the point, Bush's accusations against Clinton did not stick with the media. The person I actually blame for it is Frank Church, from the 1970s. Jamie Gorelick comes in for a bitch-slapping too.

I'm actually about supporting the party where libertarianism has a chance. Currently, it has a small chance with the GOP. It has no chance with the Democrats. And I don't see a third party as being a practical solution, until and unless one of the two major parties collapses.

I understand what you're saying Cousin Dave, and to an extent I agree with you; however, I still think you're being a tad selective. It sticks fine with media outlets like Fox News. To say nothing of the conservative bastion that is talk radio.

As for 9/11, it's a little difficult to overlook the fact that Bush spent seven of his first eight and months on vacation. At what point, let me ask, does Clinton's responsibility end and Bush's begins? I'm not trying to grill you on this question, but I would like to hear your thoughts. Your reply was quite civil, and I'd like it to stay that way.

Clinton was very proactive in the terrorist movement, and even Reagan's advisors on the subject stated "Overall, I give them very high marks." In fact, one of them complained that Clinton spent too much time focusing on bin Laden.

Like Republicans are the party of personal responsibility and have never, ever blamed Democrats for anything.

Pay attention to what I said. It had nothing to do with GOP=angels / Dems=devils.

Boehner, for all his faults (and they are many), was actually trying to find a way to resolve the fiscal cliff issue that would be satisfactory to both sides. He was naive ... and he got played.

The Democrats were setting up the 2014 elections.

And they played their game very well.

The Dems demanded too much ... in order to keep the debate going while framing the narrative that all delays were due to GOP intransigence.

Once it came down to the last few days, Boehner and the GOP were panicking about not getting a deal done so they pretty much accepted whatever they could get. The Dems, on the other hand, already had what they wanted.

They got the tax increases they wanted, but since it was a bipartisan deal, they don't get stuck with the blame for them.

They got to kick the spending cuts can down the road - again, in a bipartisan deal.

And they were able to create and sustain the narrative of an obstructionist, middle-class-taxing, 1%-coddling GOP that they can use for the 2014 elections - no matter what happens to the economy.

If things stay bad or go to pieces, the Dems simply play the "GOP obstructionism meant we couldn't save the middle class from the fiscal cliff" scenario.

If things are rosy, the Dems play the "the obstructionist GOP almost sent the middle class over the fiscal cliff, but we saved them" scenario.

The GOP came out of this in deep trouble for the next election. The Dems will own the House in 2015 and probably keep the Senate. When Harry Reid finishes imposing his "simple majority" rules for Senate procedures, the GOP won't be able to do much in the Senate but watch.

And what happens when Barry comes up against term limits and his party has near-complete control of the government? Can anyone say "Enabling Act?"

...working towards getting 37 states to call for a Constitutional convention.

I don't think so, Dave.

I'd rather keep the Constitution we already have.

There is no one in politics or government today whom I trust to write an amendment to the Constitution, much less a whole new one.

The US was blessed with a group of men who, despite their considerable differences, wrote a document that enshrined individual liberty, allowed for restrained federalism, and provided clear operating instructions for a nation of 300 million voices.

The trick to the US Constitution is that power is not enshrined in the government, nor in any ambiguous concept like society or the people. It is enshrined in individuals.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say the government grants you freedoms of speech, religion, bearing arms, etc. It says you already have those freedoms and the government is forbidden from abridging them.

Look to California to see what a constitution written today would soon become. Every special interest group in the country would demand input and specific references.

"The U.S. Constitution is less than a quarter the length of the owner's manual for a 1998 Toyota Camry, and yet it has managed to keep 300 million of the world's most unruly, passionate and energetic people safe, prosperous and free."
~ P. J. O'Rourke

====================

...it's a little difficult to overlook the fact that Bush spent seven of his first eight and months on vacation.

Not according to Dr. David A. Sprintzen, Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the Institute for Sustainable Development at
C.W. Post College,Long Island University:

http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/first6.html

He's assembled a long list of the things that George W. Bush did in his first six months in office to destroy the planet, disenfranchise minorities, shoo women back into the kitchen, kill the poor, and enrich the rich.

No one that busy oppressing the rest of us could possibly have spent much time on vacation.

====================

At what point, let me ask, does Clinton's responsibility end and Bush's begins?

According to the idiots who claim Obama didn't ratchet up spending (by lumping Obama's early spending bills into Bush's spending total because BUsh's last fiscal year didn't end until October 1, 2009), a president apparently gets to blame his predecessor for anything done before the end of the predecessor's last fiscal year.

That means Bush's responsiblity only started after the end of Clinton's last fiscal year - on October 1, 2001.

Yep, the Obama administration has successfully marginalized the Tea party and the Republican party. They have recently launched their offensive to marginalize the NRA, the last nemesis of Democrat party.

Better get your guns ready. It's only a matter of time before the Obama administration embarks on its program of putting all conservatives and libertarians in concentration camps.

"I'd rather keep the Constitution we already have."

The trouble is, we don't have the Constitution we have. Most of the protections against government excess have been "nuanced" out of existence. The Constitution as it is interpreted now is basically a carte blanche for Washington.

A new Constitutional Convention could hardly come up with anything worse.

I'd rather keep the Constitution we already have.

There is no one in politics or government today whom I trust to write an amendment to the Constitution, much less a whole new one. -- Conan the Grammarian at January 2, 2013 5:33 PM

Conan,

In general, I agree with your thoughts. But I have suggested some amendments that are needed. You can see them here.

Please feel free to object to any of them.

I would have liked an amendment on term limits. Not necessarily to impose term limits, but any restriction placed upon a number of terms gets imposed on Congress as well. Congress wants to impose two terms on the President? Fine, but they must also suffer a two-term limit.

Conan writes: "That means Bush's responsiblity only started after the end of Clinton's last fiscal year - on October 1, 2001."

That only applies to budgets, however. Nice try.

Cousin Dave is absolutely correct about how our protections have been nuanced out of existence. Amy's hot topic, the TSA, is a case in point.

The problem is vague terminology, such as "cruel and usual punishment," leaving Washington to decide what is cruel or unusual.

"Unreasonable searches" is another good one for Washington to decide upon. They're the ones who decide what is unreasonable. So, how do we solve this? We can't let the general population decide what constitutes an unreasonable search. The majority would throw away every right they have if they thought they were threatened.

Patrick, in the interests of keeping it real, and showing that I'm not a 100% tool (90% is debatable), I'm giving out props to Senator Tom Carper of Delaware. He voted against the fiscal-cliff deal for precisely the reasons we're discussing here: because it's nothing more than a fig leaf. Sen. Carper recognizes what we're really up against and that we have to stop kicking the can down the road. His ultimate goal may be different from mine -- he wants to preserve entitlement programs for future generations, where I tend to think that they are generally harmful and should be scaled way back. But we have a common cause: we both recognize that before either of our preferred outcomes can happen, we have to stabilize the underlying finances. Otherwise it ends catastrophically, which neither one of us wants. The ultimate outcome is a debate we can have later. First things first.

That was Democrat Senator Tom Carper of Delaware. My apologies for omitting that bit. You may now speculate about Freudian motives.

Conan writes: "That means Bush's responsiblity only started after the end of Clinton's last fiscal year - on October 1, 2001."

That only applies to budgets, however. Nice try.

I was being sarcastic, Patrick - and spoofing a liberal economist's argument.

Presidents are responsible from Day 1 for all aspects of their administration does - with some leeway for ongoing projects, budgets, operations, etc. It sucks, but it's the nature of the job.

That means Obama is responsible for the spending and debt increases he initiated, even if it was in Bush's final fiscal year.

And that means he has increased government spending faster and to a greater degree than any president ever has.

=========================

I would have liked an amendment on term limits. Not necessarily to impose term limits, but any restriction placed upon a number of terms gets imposed on Congress as well. Congress wants to impose two terms on the President? Fine, but they must also suffer a two-term limit.

As originally proposed, that amendment (21st?) did contain a provision for term limits on Congress.

By the time it got out of Congress and was sent to the states for ratification, it did not.

This quote here demonstrates an important misunderstanding this blogger has about the debt ceiling:

"First, the legalized gangsters in the nation's toilet raised the debt ceiling at the 11th hour so that the US government can borrow more and spend more, in spite of the looming budget carnage."

The debt ceiling doesn't simply allow the US government to borrow and spend more.

What it allows is the US government to pay for the debts it has already accumulated due decisions that have already been made. This is why when the debt ceiling ends up being under threat of not increasing it negatively impacts the nations credit worthiness. If we do not raise it we end up defaulting upon the debts we've already accrued.

If all the debt ceiling did was restrict further spending there would be no issues with our nations credit being downgraded.

The point is that even if we cut all additional spending, the government still owes money and interest on previous spending.

Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is in some ways the equivalent of missing a mortgage or credit card payment. The money has already been spent, that you now are in a budgetary crisis doesn't eliminate your obligation to pay for your debts.

When you fail to pay for your loans your credit score drops... the same applies to the US government and toying with the credit worthiness of the US government is not a game anyone should be playing if they are at all interested in the financial well being of the nation.

"The debt ceiling doesn't simply allow the US government to borrow and spend more."

Well, yeah it does. I sort of get where you're coming from -- a hole in the Constitution is that it doesn't require Congress to have funds on hand before it appropriates money. Therefore, Congress can and does appropriate money that it doesn't have, and then it has to go ask Treasury to borrow money to pay for the committments that it already made.

However, the only truly mandatory spending in the entire federal budget is the interest on the federal debt, and so far that amount remains less than revenues. So if the debt ceiling were not raised, the impact on the government's credit-worthiness would not be severe, since the Treasury would (presumably) prioritize the interest payments and make sure they get paid first. Treasury bondholders don't really care if Grandma gets her Social Security check, as long as the interest on the bonds they hold is paid.

And actually, I'd say from observation that continuing to raise the debt ceiling is doing more harm to the government's credit-worthiness than going over the cliff would. Don't forget the the Treasury is now monetizing most of the "borrowing", which means the constant-year dollar value of Treasuries (and all other bonds denominated in U.S. currency) is being reduced. If the rate at which this is done exceeds the interest rate (which has probably already happened, although no one wants to admit it yet), then holders of Treasuries are losing money. That's a sure-fire recipe for a credit downgrade. Which will be the least of our probelms. Hello, Weimar Germany.

Cousin Dave Says:

"So if the debt ceiling were not raised, the impact on the government's credit-worthiness would not be severe, since the Treasury would (presumably) prioritize the interest payments and make sure they get paid first."

Except we've already seen that even the appearance of dysfunction within the government on this issue can result in a drop in the US credit rating.

What do you think would happen if the US actually did end up defaulting on some of its debts as a result of political games?

This isn't simply an academic problem either, there are real and practical consequences of the US credit rating being dropped. In particular, the interest rate on money that the government borrows increases when the credit rating goes down because it implies that we are a riskier investment. This in turn makes the already large debt we have accumulated more burdensome. Just like if you miss a payment on your credit card the interest rate can suddenly jump and you end up in deeper financial trouble than before you defaulted.

Even by saying that "the only truly mandatory spending in the entire federal budget is the interest on the federal debt" demonstrates an extremely superficial understanding of government finance.

While it is true in the technical sense (just like in life the only "truly mandatory" things you need to do are breath, excrete bodily waste, and sleep... note that on this list even drinking and eating are technically optional) in a realistic sense we can't just hand over the unilateral authority to make politically impactful decisions to a handful of unelected bankers and still call ourselves a democracy. Within the system you've described those bankers would have the ability to defund every branch of the military, shut down the post office, shut down the IRS (please note how counterproductive that action would be in this case), close the FBI, eliminate the CIA, get rid of the coast guard, defund the national park system, close down the national science foundation etc... Keep in mind that this is just a short list of what these unelected individuals would have the ability to do based entirely upon how they would prioritize things.

While there are certainly superfluous expenditures within the federal government, to treat all payments beyond the interest on the debt as non-mandatory is dramatically oversimplifying the situation.

Now I understand that in your explanation you figure that they will prioritize these issues in some rational way. The problem remains that no one elected these individuals and now they would be the ones essentially making military decisions and decisions that could defund any system simply because they didn't suit their particular brand of politics. No one has given these people that authority and just handing it over isn't somehow better for our republic than raising a debt ceiling to pay our debts.

If we want to reduce our spending that is great, but the way to do it isn't by some clumsily manufactured political device that ends up making the treasury the equivalent of congress. If the current politicians can't do the job then they need to be replaced... but they need to be replaced by other duly elected representatives.

"Within the system you've described those bankers would have the ability to defund every branch of the military, shut down the post office, shut down the IRS (please note how counterproductive that action would be in this case), close the FBI, eliminate the CIA, get rid of the coast guard, defund the national park system, close down the national science foundation etc"

Yeah yeah yeah. I get it. The govenrment should be able to put a gun to the heads of taxpayers and extract whatever it wants. How are you ever going to get any spending cuts out of that? There's only one way it's ever going to happen: a hard, unworkaround-able Constitutional spending limit. That's what the debt ceiliing is supposed to be, but now we have a President saying that the whole concept of limiting government spending is obsolete. How does your theory account for that?

Cousin Dave Says:

"The govenrment should be able to put a gun to the heads of taxpayers and extract whatever it wants."

This is a strawman argument.

Just because I object to the idea of handing over political authority to a group of unelected individuals who don't have to answer to the general public for any decisions they happen to make does not mean I support the current state of affairs in Washington.

Instead my position is that if we do not support the behavior of the politicians we have elected then the proper course of action is to elect new officials.

"There's only one way it's ever going to happen: a hard, unworkaround-able Constitutional spending limit."

Then support a constitutional amendment that would make such a thing legal.

Just because you don't like the way the government is working right now doesn't justify tossing out all of the procedures in the constitution because you feel it will get the job done.

Once you hand over that kind of political authority to a bunch of unelected individuals you have no ability to get it back.

Our current system may not be perfect (in fact it has many flaws), but the one thing we managed to get right is that we can oust people from power through democratic elections.

If you honestly feel that politicians can't be trusted to get things right when they exist under the potential threat of losing their job, what hope is there that the bankers in charge of the treasury will suddenly do an amazing job when they don't answer to the electorate at all.

The job of the treasury department is to pay the governments bills... not to decide which bills get paid and which ones are "unimportant".

Also, just to add some information to this discussion let me add the following link:

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/pages/debtlimit.aspx

Here is the relevant quote:

"The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments. The debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past."

That is from the department of the treasury and it sounds exactly like I described the problem and not at all like you have.

As I said, the "debt ceiling" is a clumsy and artificial political device that doesn't do what many people think it does.

Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is the personal equivalent of ordering a meal at a restaurant, eating it and then deciding once the bill shows up you aren't going to pay because you've exceeded your monthly spending limit.

You don't get to make that decision after you've rung up the bill. That decision had to have been made prior to ordering the meal.