Obama demands debt ceiling hike, rejects negotiating cuts with GOP
President Obama used the final press conference of his first term to
again warn congressional Republicans that he will not negotiate with
them over the debt ceiling, saying that Washington must increase the
limit to pay its bills and such brinksmanship would be “absurd” and
“irresponsible.”
“The issue here is whether Washington will pay its bills,” Obama said. “We are not a deadbeat nation.”
The president’s comments opened the White House event that included a
range of questions, including the topic of likely gun-control
legislation.
Obama, who vowed following the fatal Dec. 14 shootings at a
Connecticut elementary school to try to curb gun violence, repeated his
promise.
“If there’s only one step to take to save a child’s life, I’ll take
that step,” said the president, who is expected to get strong opposition
from gun-rights advocacy groups should he submit legislation to
Congress, as expected.
He said the publicity about strong turnouts at gun shows is “an
effective way of ginning up fear that the federal government is about to
take all of your guns.”
Obama used the press conference to attempt to frame the debt-limit
issue to the American public as one about the perils of not paying past
debts – not future spending.
“Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending,” he said. “These are bills that have already been racked up.”
Obama argued he has already cut more than $1 trillion in federal
spending but is willing to talk about more cuts, including some to
Medicare, but would not make that part of the debt ceiling issue. He
again suggested a potential mix of increasing taxes by closing
loopholes and more spending cuts.
Obama: "We Are Not a Deadbeat Nation"
President Obama used his characteristically demagogic and dishonest press conference today
to attack Republicans and insist that he will not negotiate over the
impending expiration of America's debt limit. In response to a question
from NBC's Chuck Todd, Obama declined to fully rule out unilateral
action on hiking the debt ceiling; he lashed out at the GOP, warning
that their (popular)
demand of dollar-for-dollar spending cuts could damage the economy,
prevent the country from paying its bills, and further erode "the full
faith and credit" of the United States:
The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a
deadbeat nation. And so there’s a very simple solution to this: Congress
authorizes us to pay our bills...If they want to keep this
responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done. And, you
know, there are no magic tricks here. There are no loopholes. There are
no, you know, easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes
spending. They order me to spend. They tell me, you
need to fund our Defense Department at such- and-such a level, you need
to send out Social Security checks, you need to make sure that you are
paying to care for our veterans. They lay all this out for me, and --
because they have the spending power. And so I am required by law to go
ahead and pay these bills. Separately, they also have to authorize a
raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are
paid. And so what Congress can’t do is tell me to spend X and then say,
“But we’re not going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the
bills.” And I just want to repeat, because I think sometimes the
American people understandably aren’t following all -- all the debates
here in Washington. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize
us to spend more. All it does is say that America will pay its bills.
And we are not a deadbeat nation. And the consequences of us
not paying our bills, as I outlined in my opening statement, would be
disastrous. And the -- you know the -- the notion that Republicans in --
in the House, or maybe some Republicans in the Senate would suggest
that in order for us to get our way on our spending priorities, that we
would risk the full faith and credit of the United States, that I think
is not what the founders intended. That’s now how I think most Americans
think our democracy should work.
(1) Those bullies in Congress "order" the poor, helpless president to spend all this money. It's their fault, you must understand. Unmentioned: Obama requests much of that spending -- and if he'd gotten his way, we'd be borrowing more money to finance even higher levels of spending, as outlined in his unanimously-rejected budgets.
He also failed to note that today's elevated spending baseline was
solidified in 2009 and 2010, when Republicans were small minorities in
both the House and Senate. Perhaps Obama's greatest trick is projecting
a studied detachment, as if he's merely presiding over the mismanagement and dysfunction of others. Nothing is ever his fault or problem. And it works.
(2) Based on his new rhetorical framing device, Obama himself voted for American "deadbeat" status as a freshman Senator in 2006. And I quote:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.
It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from
foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. …
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.
Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is
shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children
and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of
leadership. Americans deserve better.
So in 2006, raising the debt ceiling was an indictment of Bush's
disgraceful "leadership failure" and a damning indication that the US
government "can't pay its own bills." In 2013, raising the
debt ceiling is a moral imperative which must be accomplished in order
to demonstrate "that America will pay its bills." And anyone
who attempts to impede that outcome is recklessly endangering the
economy, unlike the high-minded Barack Obama of 2006. The times. They change. So we'll continue to "pay our bills" by borrowing more money.
(3) "America is not a deadbeat nation." We currently borrow 40 cents out of every dollar spent, and the national debt is $16.4 trillion.
(This president's 43 predecessors had amassed $10.6 trillion in debt
through January 20, 2009). When unfunded liabilities and unpaid-for
entitlement obligations are included in the calculation, the debt number
skyrockets to dizzying heights. Keep that in mind as you process the following word salad from today's presser. We're "making progress," or something:
Step by step, we’ve made progress towards that goal. Over the past two
years, I’ve signed into law about $1.4 trillion in spending cuts. Two
weeks ago, I signed into law more than $600 billion in new revenue, by
making sure the wealthiest Americans begin to pay their fair share. When
you add the money that we’ll save in interest payments on the debt,
altogether that adds up to a total of about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the past two years,
not counting the $400 billion already saved from winding down the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we’ve made progress. We are moving towards
our ultimate goal of getting to a $4 trillion reduction.
Isn't that wonderful? We've "reduced deficits" by $2.5 trillion, even
as we've run record-shattering trillion-dollar-plus deficits every
single year of his presidency, while adding nearly $6 trillion to the
gross national debt -- which has eclipsed the size
of our entire GDP. But we're "moving towards" the goal! Obama later
needled the GOP for harboring "suspicions" over (read: insufficient
support for) beloved entitlement programs such as Social Security and
Medicare. Philip Klein's pithy retort:
(4) Obama implied that Republican attempts to extract
concessions in exchange for a debt ceiling hike are extremely rare, if
not virtually unprecedented. Not so. Both parties have routinely negotiated
over the debt ceiling, dating back decades. I'm not entirely convinced
that the debt ceiling crossroads is the most advantageous initiation
point for Republicans' battle against out-of-control spending (I'll
explore this point this week), but the idea that it's totally new and/or
insane is false. Just ask Barack Obama, circa 2006 (see above). CBS
News' Major Garrett called Obama out on this history in a tough question
this afternoon, to which the president basically replied, "yeah, but
that was different." Obama's posturing on the debt ceiling was okay, he
argued, because the US wasn't in danger of a credit downgrade at the
time. He also asserted that 2011's historic downgrade was the fault of
Republicans who were exploiting the debt ceiling as a political leverage
point. This is inaccurate revisionism. Standard and Poors dropped
America's previously-spotless credit rating because of Washington's fundamental and escalating unseriousness about dealing with the actual problem. Our subsequent lack of budgets, increased debt, and debates over trillion dollar coins have vindicated S&P's evaluation.
(5) The president decried Washington's irresponsible pattern of governing by cliff and crisis:
We’ve got to stop lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis when
there’s this clear path ahead of us that simply requires some
discipline, some responsibility, and some compromise. That’s where we
need to go. That’s how this needs to work.
Republicans have been calling for a restoration of normal order for
years. It's Democrats in the Senate who have refused to even introduce a
budget for nearly four years, leading to one countdown cliff after
another. If the president truly wants this appalling ad hoc governance to end, he ought to have a terse conversation with Harry Reid and Patty Murray, not lecture Republicans.
(6) Obama renewed his tiresome calls for a "balanced
approach" to deficit reduction, including additional "revenues." He
painted the GOP as intransigent on the issue, even though they just
agreed to go along with his ill-advised $600 billion tax hike
on the rich (which included no new spending cuts). Also, when the two
sides were locked in intense negotiations over increasing the debt limit
last summer, Obama blew up the talks...despite significant revenue concessions from Republican leaders. Via ABC News:
Boehner held his own press conference after 7 p.m. Friday night and
said the talks broke down because “The White House moved the goal
posts.” Specifically, he said the two sides had agreed on an unspecified
amount of revenue to be included in deficit reduction, achieved by
broadening the number of Americans who pay taxes and lowering general
tax rates. But he said President Obama on Thursday demanded another $400
billion in revenue, which Boehner said “was going to be nothing more
than a tax hike on the American people.” It is clear, however,
that Boehner and Cantor were ready to accept up to $800 billion in
revenue measures as part of a grand bargain. But when that number
jumped, in part because of pressure from Democrats, the talks broke
down.
Obama is now resurrecting these revenues (which caused liberals some convenient amnesia
just a few weeks ago). Republicans should hold firm that these
potential revenues -- which would come through closing loopholes and
eliminating deductions -- will only be placed back on the table if
they're part of a broader tax reform package that includes lowering
rates across the board. It's also worth mentioning that Congress and
the president authorized a $2.1 trillion debt ceiling hike just 17
months ago. We've already blown through all of it, but playing
a little political hardball to stem the insanity is somehow the height
of irresponsibility. It's going to be a long four weeks years.
UPDATE - Right on cue, the White House has informed the House Budget Committee that the president will not produce his FY 2014 budget on time. Obama has missed 80 percent of his statutory budget deadlines.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/01/14/obama-we-are-not-a-deadbeat-nation-n1488984
MARK LEVIN: I'm not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak
imperial and Obama forgets there's a Constitution. Yes, he keeps telling
us he won reelection. Congratulations, but guess what? The Constitution
wasn't up for election, it's not up for a referendum. He has to comply
with it, too.
He was sent back to Washington, but he's got a strict list of rules that
he has to follow as president. When he gets up there and starts saying,
if Congress doesn't do this, I'm going to do this unilaterally, it
violates separation of power a lot of the times. And this is a man
pushing the edge of the envelope as far as i'm concerned, whether it's
the appointment clause, whether it's his unilateral action on
immigration, whether it's trashing the commerce clause and the tax
clauses under Obamacare. Now they're talking about executive orders on
the Second Amendment. They've issued regulations on First Amendment
attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift
the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What the hell is this? He was elected president. Congratulations. This
guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the
time. I think we have an imperial president, he sounds imperial, he's
arrogant as hell and I'm furious about this and I'm going to tell you
why. We are a magnificent country. We don't need to be turned upside
down. We don't need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He's
bankrupting this country.
He said we've had a discussion about the debt. When did we have a
discussion about the debt? We've had a debate about taxes. The man's
never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me
to be furious when I watch and listen to him.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/14/mark_levin_reacts_to_obama_presser_we_have_an_imperial_president.html
PK'S NOTE: Thank God somebody has sense:
GOP Rep. Threatens Impeachment If Obama Goes Around Congress to Enact Gun Control
Should President Barack Obama decide to
make good on his threat to enact gun regulations through executive
order, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) says he may, among other actions,
file articles of impeachment against the commander-in-chief.
“I will seek to thwart this action by
any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding
for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles
of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement on Monday.
In a statement, Stockman
didn’t hold back, saying Obama is launching an “attack on the very
founding principles of this republic.”
“The President’s actions are an
existential threat to this nation,” Stockman said in a statement. “The
right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation
free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second
Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to
defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive
power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest
legislative force possible.”
Obama said in a Monday morning press
conference that he will make public recommendations from a task force
run by Vice President Joe Biden to curb gun violence in the wake of
shootings in Newtown, Conn. Last week, Biden said some of those
restrictions may be achieved through executive order instead of the
legislative process.
Stockman said tinkering with the Second
Amendment requires due process and the consent of Congress, the
representatives of the American people. Stockman is a former member of
the U.S. House of Representatives who returned after 15 years in January
to oppose John Boehner as speaker of the House.
“The President’s actions are not just
an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of
office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in
danger…If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on
his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to
exist,” he added.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/14/gop-rep-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-goes-around-congress-to-enact-gun-control/
Chuck Schumer Calls on Stores to Stop Selling Legal Guns
New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the same guy who arrogantly smirked at a massacre survivor testifying against gun control in front of Congress 20 years ago, is asking gun retailers to stop selling legal firearms until Congress can come up with something to limit the purchase of....legal firearms.
Schumer on Sunday released a letter he sent to major retailers asking for a voluntary moratorium.
The New York Democrat says consumer demand for guns has gone up in the
weeks since the December mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.
Schumer says Congress is debating the issue, and if measures get
passed that limit these type of weapons, it won't help if more of them
have recently been sold.
A question for Schumer is this: what defines "assault style" weapons.
Should retailers suspend all gun sales? Sale of semi-automatic firearms?
He purposely makes broad statements in order to gain more control over
more firearms down the road.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/14/chuck-schumer-calls-on-stores-to-stop-selling-legal-guns-n1488965
Matt Damon and the Arab oil industry team up to stop fracking
It
seems like Matt Damon's new anti-fracking film, "Promised Land" has
some secret financers behind it. These financers would love nothing
more than to stop fracking in its tracks. Why, you ask? Well because
these financers are actually part of Abu Dhabi, an Arab oil emirate.
Supporting the anti-fracking movie is just their way of silencing the competition - American oil and gas producers.
Not only does Image Nation Abu Dhabi finance the "Promise Land," but the Abu Dhabi government owns the media company that subsidizes Image Nation.
The
film's Abu Dhabi connection is significant, because the UAE is the
world's third largest oil exporter, according to 2011 figures from the
U.S. Energy Information Agency. The country also holds the 7th largest proven reserves of crude oil and natural gas in the world. The UAE was ranked 17th in the world in natural gas production in 2010, according to EIA. (Courtesy of CNS news)
The
fact that the UAE is one of the major producers of gas and oil is
important. US natural gas producers have seen an increase in production
thanks to fracking, which allows them to access once unreachable gas
reserves and oil wells. This puts US natural gas producers in steep
competition with the United Arab Emirates, because fracking is such a lucrative business for the US oil and gas industry.
The more the US oil and gas industry
utilizes the method of fracking the more the Arab oil countries feel
threatened. Not to mention the UAE loses money, which keeps their
country afloat.
Matt
Damon's financers are using his movie to demean fracking. These
financers hope that negative public opinion will put an end to their
competition. However, one problem with such a plan is that basing
something on a lie always comes back to bite you where it hurts the
most.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/matt_damon_and_the_arab_oil_industry_team_up_to_stop_fracking.html
The Real Redistribution of Wealth
We
have heard the phrase "redistribution of wealth" often in recent times,
and Obama's phrase is generally taken to mean taking money from the
wealthy and giving it to lower-income people. Various observers have
commented that increasing taxes
on the wealthy would operate the government for a few more days, and
calculations have shown that even taking 100% of the income of rich
people would only go a few months toward paying the federal government's
bills.
In
the recent election, many voters interpreted "redistribution" to mean
"take it away from the other guy and give it to me." They failed to see
the comparatively short-term nature of the transaction. "Entitlement
reform" is always a maƱana topic; it gets postponed every time it's
brought up in Washington. Because of America's ability to borrow money, the day of reckoning has been postponed ... for a while.
The real "redistribution of wealth" that is taking place is an intergenerational transfer. Money gets transferred to
today's voters, via borrowing. The trillion-a-year debts being run up
nowadays are to be paid off by some future generation, either our
grandchildren or those not yet born. The present-day voters are
transferring money to themselves, and handing the debt to workers
several decades further downstream. Very few of those future taxpayers
are aware of the debt burden they'll assume.
However,
they will find out someday, and will be mad at the old people who took
away all that money previously. Their very natural reaction will be to
try to shift costs back to the old people. That is most easily done
by trimming Social Security benefits
to subsistence levels and "pulling the plug" on all the expensive
elderly with physical ailments. New laws, official policies and review
panels for health care will see to it that this happens.
They
will miss their target by about a generation; all us present oldsters
will have died by then, and their anger will fall upon those who are
about 30 - 50 today. It is our adult children who will have the plug
pulled early.
Obviously
there is a major downgrade in the value of human life implied here.
What will likely happen in America is an increase in "hospice care,"
accompanied by the understanding that you must check into a hospice a
whole lot earlier than medical technology makes possible.
The
Ponzi scheme that underlies America's entitlement programs might have
been sustained, and its consequences averted, if not for the killing of
about 1/3 of American babies (for over a generation now) via abortion
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/the_real_redistribution_of_wealth.html
We Await our Caesar
Civilized
cultures are mortal; they have a predetermined life span just like an
organism. There are numerous examples from antiquity whose skeletal
remains are still with us. Each example represents a unique metaphysical
enterprise that has expired. We can only imagine what the lives of the
peoples were like and wonder at the remnants of the once vibrant
cityscapes. The civilization into which we were all born, which has
shaped our world view, was itself born on European soil around the turn
of the first millennium.
Today
we stand upon a mature cultural foundation that was built gradually
over the last thousand years. Western civilization, as we call it, has
exhausted the wealth of possibilities that were mere germs around the
time of Charlemagne. The fact that our academics today have contempt for
the whole grand enterprise is itself a testament to the advanced age of
our culture.
We
Westerners are no longer inspired by the ideals of our forefathers. The
period from the Enlightenment to today has been a gradual
deconstruction of the traditions and beliefs that were behind the great
art and architecture of Europe's golden age. From the completion of the
first Gothic cathedral to the last notes of a Mozart string quartet
something magnificently creative was going on. Ever since then there has
been a battle between the forces of tradition and those of revolution;
what we today label as conservative and liberal.
George
Washington and the Founders may have been revolutionaries, but they
revered the noble traditions and were inspired by religious belief.
Robespierre and Napoleon were true revolutionaries in the real liberal
sense of the word. They were out to destroy the old order of privilege
for the sake of their own power. They used the same slogans that we
would see repeated by all the twentieth-century demagogues.
The
very words "conservative" and "liberal" lay out the fundamental
opposition; one seeks to preserve an existing order, the other to
liberate from an existing order. The one reverences the traditions of
the past; the other seeks a future free from the restraints of the past.
One seeks to live up to high standard inherited from their ancestors;
the other seeks to create a new order based upon their own ideas.
Great
civilizations are grand metaphysical enterprises that transform the
physical landscape in accordance with the underlying belief system. The
appearance of liberal ideology can be best understood as a metaphysical
virus that spells the doom of the metaphysical body politic. The great
institutions and traditions that conservatives seek to preserve and pass
on to their children are looked upon as a problem and a source of
inequity by the liberal ideologue. Conservatives are doomed to fail when
confronted with an enemy that does not share their value system. The
system itself is the enemy to the liberal/progressive.
The
spiritual organism that is a grand civilization lives out a destiny as
do all organisms. In old age we are less able to fend off disease. The
great civilizations were all victims of their own success; they died of
old age, a shadow, if that, of their former greatness. The glorious
Roman Republic succumbed to the same cultural rot that we today are
experiencing. Caesar was able to manipulate a demoralized mass of city
dwellers to topple the aristocracy long since grown corrupt in exchange
for food and games. The modern welfare state is the reflection of that
Roman rot in our time.
Consider
the dichotomy; liberal versus conservative. By definition the one wants
to free itself of unfair restraints in the name of a freer order;
liberal. The other wants to cling to the values, traditions and
institutions of their ancestors; i.e. conservative. Liberals consider
themselves open minded and free thinkers. This comes in stark contrast
to the conservative who thinks of himself as the custodian of a noble
tradition whose standards must be maintained.
Civilizations
are built and nurtured by a very conservative man; a religious man who
views his duty in terms of the wishes of his Creator. Civilizations
decay and eventually perish from the deconstructive influences of the
liberal man who views the religious man as a fool and whose sole purpose
in life is self gratification; personal power. The conservative
understands that freedom and liberty are fruits of a morality and of a
faith in God. The liberal sees little difference between liberty and
license.
As
far as the body politic is concerned, liberals are the cancer cells,
the change agents bent on destroying an order that is perceived as
unfair. There are no clear alternative visions other than utopian
longings. They are as destructive and shortsighted as was Robespierre.
They leave only destruction behind. The conservative is the white blood cell that attacks and destroys the cancer cell
in the name of the health of the culture; the body politic. It took
hundreds of years to build the palaces and cathedrals of western
Europe.. The builders were believers in a higher good. It took no time
for angry mobs spurred on by liberals to destroy these monuments to
human good.
Since
the body politic is not a physical body but a metaphysical one it does
not suffer physical decay in old age, it suffers moral decay. The
Egyptians as well as the Romans were not conquered as much as they were
overrun by uncivilized warlike nomads; the collapse was psychological.
The will to do anything but survive left these populations defenseless.
We are witnessing the loss of a once proud morale to a narcissistic
ethos that expects to be taken care of.
Corrupt
politicians are eager to take advantage of this dependence to
institutionalize their power and wealth. Eventually they too will be
exposed as weak and defenseless in the face of a true tyrant dictator
the likes of which we are certain to see in the future. The once noble
halls of government in the Roman Republic had long since lost all
respect and had earned the contempt of the people. When the time was
right, the people welcomed a strong warrior to restore order and punish
the corrupt.
We
now wait for our Caesar. With the inevitable continuation of the
current rate of corruption and decay it is only a matter of time before
the groundwork is complete and our Caesar takes center stage. As our
government continues to purge its ranks of all strong and noble men in
favor the weak and decadent in order to pillage the treasury at will, it
unwittingly clears the deck of all worthy opposition to a ruthless
dictator. This dictator, as did Caesar, will usher in the final end to
Western Civilization. He will be followed by others increasingly brutish
and cruel as was Caesar.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/we_await_our_caesar.html
No comments:
Post a Comment