Debate Forum Topic, 8/9/11

Debate Forum Topic, 8/9/11

U.S. debt ceiling raised; financial Armageddon averted

By John Sherrifus

By John Sherrifus

Two days after the new Congress took up business last January, the leadership of both parties was informed by Treasury Secretary Geitner that unless the U.S. debt ceiling was raised, that sometime in August the U.S. would run out of money and face default. A dire picture was portrayed of an economic Armageddon, which would likely occur if the U.S. defaulted on payments to holders of U.S. debt. Concern was raised that such a default would jeopardize the “full-faith and credit” of the United States’ credit standing. For the past seven months, the issue of raising the debt ceiling has been the major issue of debate between the Obama administration and the divided Congress.

As a result of the threats of a downgrade from international bond rating agencies like Moody’s, the U.S. government began to push Congress for legislation authorizing an increase to the U.S. debt ceiling. Perhaps of equal concern to foreign investors, who hold U.S. bonds, are the mounting U.S. debt and the need it has created for deficit spending. The U.S. has reached a point where it now borrows 40 cents of every dollar it is spending. Polls would seem to indicate the American public wants Congress to rein in the rate of spending. Some would argue the midterm elections of 2010 were an expression of the public’s desire to curb the appetite of the federal government.

As the debate over the debt ceiling developed, the newly elected Republican House majority saw an opportunity to tie the vote of increasing the debt ceiling to an effort to reduce government spending. In order to pass the higher debt ceiling, the Republican caucus was demanding spending cuts. The House passed two versions of spending cuts that also required a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be submitted to the American voters. Both Republican plans failed to get any support in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The sticking point for most Democrats was that the Republican plan didn’t include any tax increases.

The Obama administration has for months urged the passage of what it termed a “balanced approach” to solving the issue. In conjunction with the Senate Democrats, the administration wanted tax increases for those making over $200,000 and for the tax code to be amended to close numerous corporate loopholes that allow some corporations to avoid taxes. This approach, they argued, would avoid saddling the middle class and the poor with the brunt of the spending cuts.

Enter the Tea Party members of the Republican House caucus. Many of the newly elected Republican members of the House belong to the Tea Party wing of the GOP. They made it clear to Speaker of the House John Boehner that, among other things, they would not support any deal to increase the public debt ceiling that included increasing any taxes. The two separate bills forged by the conservative wing of the Republican Party and passed by the House never saw the light of day in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In the end it was a compromise between Speaker Boehner and President Obama that carried the day. No one is particularly happy with the legislation, but each side got something that they wanted. The President got enough of an increase in the debt ceiling that it will not be an issue again until after the next Presidential election. The Republicans got a start to the spending cuts they wanted and no tax increases.

 

Forum Question of the Week:

Regarding the recently passed legislation which raised the U.S. debt ceiling limits, who are the winners and who are the losers?

One Response to “Debate Forum Topic, 8/9/11” Subscribe

  1. Kevin S. August 9, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    The losers are the American people. Now was not the time to cut government spending. Not with unemployment over 9%. The debt needs to be lowered in the long term, but every time you cut government spending, you take money out of people’s pockets. Either somebody’s not getting a benefit or subsidy check or a government worker loses a job. Either way, that’s money that person won’t be spending buying goods and services, further depressing demand. If demand goes down, there’s no incentive for businesses to create more goods and sevices and thus no need to hire more people.

    The winners: everybody who wants to see the U.S. become a banana republic.

Leave a Reply

News of the weird 10/21

By Chuck Shepherd Lead Story – Signs of the times “Selfie fever” has begun to sully the sacred Islamic pilgrimages to […]

The last word

Thanks for reading By A.J. Wagner This will be my last week writing the “Law and Disorder” column for the […]

The art of organization

Yellow Springs Artist Studio Tour & Sale returns By Alyssa Reck Photo: Elaine Lamb of Mud Mothers Pottery will showcase […]

Waste not

The Plastic World of Mary Ellen Croteau By Shayna V. McConville Photo: Mary Ellen Croteau, “Endless Columns,” plastic bottle caps […]

On not getting by in Dayton

The long-term effects of poverty By A.J. Wagner I have been penning “Law and Disorder” for the Dayton City Paper […]

News of the weird 10/14

By Chuck Shepherd Lead Story – Bionic shoes Police in Japan’s Kyoto Prefecture raided a shoe manufacturer in July and […]