Randall Hoven at the American Thinker provides an answer.

In round numbers, the federal government would have to live on what it did in 2005. It would not have to be the end of the world. It certainly would not have to mean default. In fact, it is disingenuous to conflate not raising the debt ceiling with defaulting on sovereign debt.

Check out the details.

(H/T The King Prawn on Ricochet's Member Feed)

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Bryan G. Stephens
Joined
May '10
Bryan G. Stephens

Great link George. I am all for this.

Of course, we used to get by without Social Security and the rest. We can do that again aas well.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

From Bret Baier's interview of John Boehner:

Boehner: "They [Democrats] were never serious about taking the kind of structural reforms to our entitlement programs that will preserve them for the long term, and they continued to insist on raising taxes."

but then...

Baier: "Do you believe he [Obama] is being an honest broker?"

Boehner: "I believe the President is trying... he's trying to get there. But their insistence on us raising taxes is continuing to prevent us from getting this done... and [we need] his willingness to do as much entitlement reform as possible in order to ensure that these programs are solid and sustainable for the next 25 years."

Baier: "You trust him?"

Boehner: "I do."

Of all things to equivocate on, this is among the worst. The latter statement helps Obama pretend to be a centrist and that he's genuinely willing to compromise.

On the other hand, this is exactly what Republicans should be saying:

Boehner: "You know, one of the problems that we got into late last week... is that they would have some ideas but they never would quite put them on paper."

He was doing so well.

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

Aaron Miller: From Bret Baier's interview of John Boehner:

Baier: "Do you believe he [Obama] is being an honest broker?"

Boehner: "I believe the President is trying... he's trying to get there. But their insistence on us raising taxes is continuing to prevent us from getting this done... and [we need] his willingness to do as much entitlement reform as possible in order to ensure that these programs are solid and sustainable for the next 25 years."

Baier: "You trust him?"

Boehner: "I do."

Of all things to equivocate on, this is among the worst. The latter statement helps Obama pretend to be a centrist and that he's genuinely willing to compromise.

Do you think negotiations would go anywhere if Boehner came out an flatly said the President is negotiating in bad faith?  Do you think the Republicans could maintain the upper hand in terms of public image?

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Mark Wilson

Do you think negotiations would go anywhere if Boehner came out an flatly said the President is negotiating in bad faith?  Do you think the Republicans could maintain the upper hand in terms of public image? · Jul 12 at 6:31pm

Didn't we recently have a topic about brutal honesty and its utility or lack thereof in politics?

Western Chauvinist
Joined
Dec '10
Western Chauvinist

Wow! Great link George and King Prawn. Somehow we knew the government could forestall economic Armageddon living on $2.6 trillion, but it helps to see real numbers.

Obviously Hoven isn't arguing for his particular formulation, however, like some of the commenters on the article, I too am concerned about military cuts. I think long-term, savings could be found by closing bases in Germany et al, but I doubt the savings would be realized in the short-term.

Kevin Williamson also has a fine piece at NRO: The One True Debt Ceiling

Edited on Jul 12, 2011 at 6:51pm
Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

The King Prawn

Mark Wilson

Do you think negotiations would go anywhere if Boehner came out an flatly said the President is negotiating in bad faith?  Do you think the Republicans could maintain the upper hand in terms of public image? · Jul 12 at 6:31pm

Didn't we recently have a topic about brutal honesty and its utility or lack thereof in politics? · Jul 12 at 6:39pm

We sure did.  I'm wondering if you think brutal character-defaming honesty is

  1. a good negotiating tactic, and
  2. likely to appeal to 2012 voters who don't necessarily share the same assumptions as you and me about who are the good guys here.
ctruppi
Joined
Apr '11
ctruppi

Mark Wilson

The King Prawn

Mark Wilson

Do you think negotiations would go anywhere if Boehner came out an flatly said the President is negotiating in bad faith?  Do you think the Republicans could maintain the upper hand in terms of public image? · Jul 12 at 6:31pm

Didn't we recently have a topic about brutal honesty and its utility or lack thereof in politics? · Jul 12 at 6:39pm

We sure did.  I'm wondering if you think brutal character-defaming honesty is · Jul 12 at 7:03pm

  1. a good negotiating tactic, and
  2. likely to appeal to 2012 voters who don't necessarily share the same assumptions as you and me about who are the good guys here.

The GOP is in a tough spot.  I think the ghost of '94 and the Contract With America is haunting this Congress.  They want to use leverage and move the issue (which I think they have) but not be seen as trying to "run the country" from The House.  Attacks on Obama's character, IMHO, is not the answer. 

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Mark Wilson

We sure did.  I'm wondering if you think brutal character-defaming honesty is · Jul 12 at 7:03pm

  1. a good negotiating tactic, and
  2. likely to appeal to 2012 voters who don't necessarily share the same assumptions as you and me about who are the good guys here.

Boehner doesn't necessarily have to be defaming to lay out the facts of why the administration and the democrats are being disingenuous in the negotiations. They knew going into the meetings that tax hikes have zero chance of making it through the house. They are using them as a poison pill in order to put on a centrist facade so they can ultimately blame republicans for failure. That, in my estimation, is bad faith negotiating.

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

The King Prawn

That, in my estimation, is bad faith negotiating. · Jul 12 at 7:12pm

You may be right.  But how do we get from here to the goal?  President Obama is still the guy at the other side of the table.

Not that I'm some kind of expert on negotiations, but I think the first person to accuse the other party of bad faith in a deadlock ends up losing ground by appearing weak.  Especially when it's a high profile negotiation and both parties know the other party is susceptible to public scrutiny.

Michael Patrick Tracy
Joined
Apr '11
Michael Patrick Tracy

"We aren't here to opine about each other's honor, we're here to prevent a potential train wreck of debt that is, right now, an existential threat to American Exceptionalism. And that's what I intend to do. I assume the President wants the same thing. Next question."

It's not that <bleeping> difficult to tell the truth without sounding like you're talking about a fellow country club member.

As Prager says: the Stupid Party, or the Dangerous Party. I'm with the Stupid Party.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Mark Wilson

You may be right.  But how do we get from here to the goal?  President Obama is still the guy at the other side of the table.

Not that I'm some kind of expert on negotiations, but I think the first person to accuse the other party of bad faith in a deadlock ends up losing ground by appearing weak.  Especially when it's a high profile negotiation and both parties know the other party is susceptible to public scrutiny. · Jul 12 at 7:32pm

If I had any of those answers I'd be at the table making 4 times what I make now. How about inviting C-SPAN into the room?

Western Chauvinist
Joined
Dec '10
Western Chauvinist

Michael Patrick Tracy: "We aren't here to opine about each other's honor, we're here to prevent a potential train wreck of debt that is, right now, an existential threat to American Exceptionalism. And that's what I intend to do. I assume the President wants the same thing. Next question."

It's not that <bleeping> difficult to tell the truth without sounding like you're talking about a fellow country club member.

As Prager says: the Stupid Party, or the Dangerous Party. I'm with the Stupid Party. · Jul 12 at 7:34pm

Exactly.  And thank you for keeping me from being the only one to quote Prager on Ricochet.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Western Chauvinist: Kevin Williamson also has a fine piece at NRO: The One True Debt Ceiling · Jul 12 at 6:50pm

Edited on Jul 12 at 06:51 pm

Kevin Williamson is one of my heroes, and not just because he's a Texan. In the article he wrote, "The debt ceiling we’re talking about right now is statutory. There’s a law that says the government can only borrow so much." This reminded me of that quote (of whom I do not remember) about not tearing down a fence until you know why it's there. Perhaps the entire debt ceiling debate is missing the bigger and more important point of why we have a statutory debt ceiling in the first place. I submit that we have it because credit only goes so far. At some point every entity must simply acknowledge that it cannot afford to buy any more of what it wants even if it can get the loan. If our leaders cannot acknowledge this rock solid fact of reality then we really need new leaders.

Charles Gordon
Joined
Dec '10
Charles Gordon

If anyone remains incredulous of our historic first Islamic apostate president’s deliberately lackadaisical employment of his time and energy is for the purposes of last-minute negotiating intransigence, demagogy, intimidation, and entrapment of his adversaries into a chaotic tails-I-win-heads-you-lose impasse, then his threat to suspend federal payments in August should put an end to any reasonable doubt that, when he can, he induces disorder to advance his redistributionist agenda.

Already, a few months ago, in April, during a bantamweight budget cutting battle to kick the behemoth of debt further beyond their time in office, he threatened that cutting spending would erupt into immanentizing the apocalypse—a government shutdown.

Yet, soon after the self-serving accolades for supreme statesmanship subsided, the advertized savings In the hundreds of billions of dollars added up to be a thousand-fold less as a result of the confluence of his cunning and the connivance or cretinous ineptitude of Republican leadership.

This month’s Theatre of the Absurd is no different from April, or in 2008 when McCain suspended his presidential campaign to attend a three-hour meeting in Washington we were told saved the planet from cataclysmic financial collapse.

Michael Patrick Tracy
Joined
Apr '11
Michael Patrick Tracy

Western Chauvinist

Exactly.  And thank you for keeping me from being the only one to quote Prager on Ricochet. · Jul 12 at 7:41pm

My two favorites on radio are Prager and Hewitt. The latter is the trees, the former is the forest. A great balance. Throw in Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn, and that's pretty much my conservative talk desert island...although if it's going to be a desert island I may want to include Mary Katherine Ham. :)

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Michael Patrick Tracy

My two favorites on radio are Prager and Hewitt. The latter is the trees, the former is the forest. A great balance. Throw in Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn, and that's pretty much my conservative talk desert island...although if it's going to be a desert island I may want to include Mary Katherine Ham. :) · Jul 12 at 8:22pm

Don't forget S.E. Cupp.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

Let me put it this way. Here is how I would have answered those questions.

Baier: "Do you believe he is being an honest broker?"

Me: "Honest brokers make counter-offers. Where's the President's plan?"

Baier: "You trust him?"

Me: "Have you never heard the expression, 'crooked as a politician'? This is Washington D.C. Put it in writing."

Mark Wilson

Do you think negotiations would go anywhere if Boehner came out an flatly said the President is negotiating in bad faith?  

They are not really negotiating. They're just trying to make each other look bad. It's a media game.

Do you think the Republicans could maintain the upper hand in terms of public image? 

Republicans lose either way. This is Obama's game.

If there is a deal, Republicans will look like they caved to their base, Obama will have an easier time pretending to be a centrist compromiser, and Democrats/media will still portray Republicans as evil holdouts.

If no deal, Republicans will be blamed when Obama distributes "revenue" in the worst possible way, stiffing soldiers and senior citizens. The media is already helping him portray this entire economic climate as the Republicans' fault.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

Bottom line:

  • Don't do anything for Brownie points with the media. Republicans will be portrayed as heartless, greedy bigots regardless of what they give to Democrats. History seems pretty clear on that.
  • Don't accept a word out of Obama's (or Pelosi's, or Reid's) mouth at face value. That's just stupid at this point.
  • Don't ignore the base. The Tea Party movement did more campaigning for Republicans than Republicans did for themselves in the last elections. Republicans are notoriously bad at advertising. If they want to win next year, they will need that grassroots fundraising and advertising.
Michael Patrick Tracy
Joined
Apr '11
Michael Patrick Tracy

Aaron Miller: Bottom line: · Jul 12 at 9:04pm

(snip)

  • Don't ignore the base. The Tea Party movement did more campaigning for Republicans than Republicans did for themselves in the last elections. Republicans are notoriously bad at advertising. If they want to win next year, they will need that grassroots fundraising and advertising.

And no more pledges that get violated before the ink is dry.

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

Aaron Miller: Bottom line: · Jul 12 at 9:04pm

  • Don't do anything for Brownie points with the media. Republicans will be portrayed as heartless, greedy bigots regardless of what they give to Democrats. History seems pretty clear on that.
  • Don't accept a word out of Obama's (or Pelosi's, or Reid's) mouth at face value. That's just stupid at this point.
  • Don't ignore the base. The Tea Party movement did more campaigning for Republicans than Republicans did for themselves in the last elections. Republicans are notoriously bad at advertising. If they want to win next year, they will need that grassroots fundraising and advertising.

clap clap and clap.....really a triple clap for point two


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In