The debt ceiling: Boehner's genius
Conservative groups aplenty are aghast that House Speaker John Boehner gave up the fight for spending cuts in return for raising the U.S. debt ceiling.
More than one group called for the Ohio Republican's ouster; one of them issued a hardly veiled threat that it will punish those who don't vote to strip him of his speakership. Another intimated that there must be something mentally wrong with Mr. Boehner, in particular, and the House GOP leadership, in general.
Never mind that Boehner should be considered a genius for the move. Yes, that's right — a genius.
The House on Tuesday passed what's known as a “clean” debt-ceiling increase. It will allow the Obama administration to borrow what it needs for the next 13 months to meet U.S. debt obligations without “offsets.”
“It's the president driving up the debt and the president wanting to do nothing about the debt that's occurring,” Boehner said. “So let his party give him the debt-ceiling increase that he wants.”
Thus, the GOP should be licking its lips: Thanks to spendthrift Democrats, federal debt held by the public will equal about 74 percent of gross domestic product by the time voters head to the midterm polls, notes Doug Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office. And that ratio is a surefire death knell for long-term economic growth.
Additionally, such a debt load hamstrings policymakers faced with “unexpected challenges,” Mr. Elmendorf says. To wit, investors would demand high interest rates to buy more government debt.
So instead of drawing, quartering and disemboweling John Boehner and feeding his boiled and broiled innards to the rabid, conservatives need to screw their heads back on and take stock of this reality:
Boehner made Mr. Obama and his profligate Democrat acolytes not only fully own their fiscal disaster but, come November, hopefully, choke on it, too.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Remember our troops
- Thanksgiving 2014: Pausing in unison
- American contrasts: Post-Ferguson
- Ford City’s police: A taxing question
- PSEA oops: Letters & the law
- Obama’s amnesty: Abuse of power
- The turnpike scandal: More wet noodles
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The Hagel ‘resignation’: Toadies need apply