Republicans and Debt: Blackmailers Without a Cause
By: Paul Krugman (nytimes)
This iz inflammatory!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Stop me if you've heard this before: Two years after a Democratic president took office and pushed ambitious policies through Congress, Republicans have regained control of the House. They don't have the votes required to repeal the president's achievements, but a quirk of U.S. law — which requires that Congress vote a second time to authorize the borrowing that results from already enacted spending and tax legislation — seems to give them an opportunity to engage in blackmail, threatening to create a financial crisis unless their demands are met.
Actually, however, you haven't heard this before. True, there are some parallels with the debt ceiling crisis of 2011. But there are also huge differences. Elite opinion has changed — the debt obsession that gripped Very Serious People in the media and beyond a dozen years ago has vanished. Democrats also seem made of sterner stuff, much more determined to resist extortion.
But the most important difference is that this time Republicans aren't making coherent demands. It's completely unclear what, if anything, they want in exchange for not blowing up the economy. At this point they're blackmailers without a cause.
Some of the reporting I've seen on the debt standoff describes Republicans as unable to agree on which spending should be cut. This might give the impression that there are factions within the G.O.P. that have different priorities. But as far as I can tell, no influential players within the party are advocating anything that might make a significant dent in the budget deficit, let alone achieve the balanced budget Kevin McCarthy promised as part of the deal that made him speaker.
As always, the fundamental fact about the budget is that the federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the military dominate spending, and it's impossible to do much about deficits unless you either raise taxes — which is obviously not part of the G.O.P. playbook — or make major cuts to these programs.
In the past, Republicans did try to change safety net programs in ways that would in effect have amounted to major cuts. George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security. Republicans almost made a deal with President Barack Obama that would have reduced Social Security cost of living adjustments and raised the age of Medicare eligibility. In 2017 Paul Ryan, speaker of the House at the time, declared that he had been "dreaming" of cutting Medicaid since his college days.
But the G.O.P., perhaps remembering the political backlash after Donald Trump tried to dismantle Obamacare, has since become much more cautious. McCarthy has already declared that cuts to Social Security and Medicare are "off the table"; if his party ever gets around to making specific proposals, it will find out that Medicaid, which covers even more Americans than Medicare, is also extremely popular, even among Republicans.
Nor is political caution the only reason Republican leaders have become reluctant to attack the safety net. The G.O.P. base has also lost interest in spending cuts, turning its attention to culture wars. As my colleague Nate Cohn recently noted, in early 2021 far more Republicans reported having heard about a decision to stop publishing some of the Dr. Seuss books than about President Biden's $1.9 trillion spending bill.
Inevitably, some Republicans are trying to make the budget a culture-war issue, claiming that large sums can be saved by eliminating "woke" spending. But what spending are they talking about?
I've been trying to find specific examples of federal outlays that conservatives consider woke, bearing in mind that right-wing think tanks and politicians have a strong incentive to find big-ticket items that sound outrageous. The results of my search were, well, embarrassing. For example, the spending listed in a Heritage Foundation report thundering against "woke earmarks" totaled about $19 million — less than the federal government spends every two minutes.
So the bottom line on the debt crisis is that there is no bottom line: Republicans denounce excess spending, but can't say what spending they want to cut. Even if Democrats were inclined to give in to extortion, which they aren't, you can't pay off a blackmailer who won't make specific demands.
Unfortunately, the emptiness of Republican fiscal posturing is no guarantee that we'll avoid a debt crisis. If anything, it may make a crisis more likely. MAGA may lack policy ideas, but it's rich in nihilism; Republicans don't know what policies they want, but they definitely want to see Biden fail.
So far, the Biden administration's strategy seems to be to flush Republicans out of hiding, force them to propose specific spending cuts, then watch them retreat in the face of an intense public backlash. There are also, I presume and hope, contingency plans to avoid crisis if this strategy fails.
But it's hard not to be worried. It's dangerous when a political party is willing to burn things down unless it gets its way; it's even more dangerous when that party just wants to watch things burn.
Tags
Who is online
405 visitors
How will this be destroyed?
Why in the world is there even a debt limit to begin with? The whole idea is a joke.
Never fear...in spite of the all the angst and hysterical titillation, the limit will be raised at the last moment.
Both parties simply don't give a crap about the debt, and both are guilty of expanding it.
1917 when the US entered WWI Congress invented the debt Ceiling to prevent themselves from being overwhelmed with individual requests for payments, they opted to give the money to Treasury with a limit to keep the executive branch in check.
It is unconstitutional and should be eliminated.
Agreed
Isn't Krugman the idiot who said that Trump would throw the entire planet’s economy into a recession?
Sounds like someone you should run from, not someone whose opinion you embrace.
Krugman has long been an idiot, about the VA Health System, he wrote:
I citation without a reference. Wow....
I guess you didn’t read his editorial, wow:
If the most recent Krugman error you are aware of dates to 2011...
Not the most recent at all, but as a veteran, I remember reading that nonsense at the time.
You have a good memory. 2011 is a long time ago... particularly for passing events.
The date of the article explains why you didn't give it.
The date of the article only means that Krugman has written stupid shit for years.
You're floundering...
Hardly, he has a history of ban analysis and predictions to include:
- The Euro will fail as a currency
- The stock market will flounder under a Trump Presidency
- Argentina is a remarkable, economic success
- The internet will slow and have no more impact on business than the fax
If you know about those predictions, then you should know that he has recognized his error in every case. He has explained why he made the error, and what he intended to do in the future to avoid repeating it.
How many pundits do you know who have done anything similar?
I’ve never read were he has admitted to allowing partisanship to get in the way of objective analysis.
Have a nice life.
Thanks, it’s been pretty good so far.
That's typical Bob.
It must be hard even for Krugman to deny facts proving him wrong.
Both Krugman and Turley do this for a living
and for that reason alone should be ignored.
They both want a reaction.
What is "this", precisely? They're both pundits... but other than that I don't see them often in the same boat.
So far the only specific cuts I've seen from this Congress are about $6 million for LGBT community centers and services. While I understand that these give very little benefit to non-gay people, Republicans need to realize that gay people pay taxes too and have just as much right to benefit from their tax money as any Nebraska corn farmer.
Besides, $6 million isn't even enough to qualify as a decent rounding error.
Why should the taxpayers fund LGBT community centers and services?
Why should taxpayers fund right wing pregnancy centers.
Because LGBT people pay taxes.
A fact that is ignored.
Like pregnancy centers, do LGTB centers welcome everyone in their buildings or do you have to have some sort of gay ID or secret gay handshake to get in?
[deleted]
So do regular people
So those who identify as LGBTQ aren't 'regular people'?
We have now reached the point where taking care of and offering aid to pregnant woman is “right wing.” That says it all.
First of all, gay people are regular people. The last time you went to the grocery store you probably walked right by a dozen of them without even realizing it. Gay people's taxes pay for things like school lunches even though they're much less likely to have children. The only difference is that they aren't constantly whining about it. What other things are Republicans going to cut to reduce debt? It kind of seems like they're targeting the LGBT community.
“The only difference is that they aren't constantly whining about it.”
Is it not everyone’s desire to be accepted into a society, regardless of personal or political persuasion?
It is when others try to define what is ‘acceptable’ is when we have lost our humanity.
Those reich wing pregnancy centers just lie and misinform women until it becomes too late to get an abortion before the 12 week viability.
Considering they make up less than 3 percent of the population, that is highly unlikely.
Economically, when left to their own devices, the gop spends like drunken sailors to grow the economy and keep voters in their districts happy with all their bacon. But first they cut taxes to the bone to please their oligarch overlords. The end result is always the same. First comes the bubble and then the bubble bursts into a recession. Their's is an irresponsible sugar high of spending and tax cuts that blows up the deficit and ends in catastrophe. Then Democrats must clean up the gop's mess and impose necessary economic measures to right things regardless of temporary pain. Cutting the deficit and drastically reducing the deficit is working...
If the gop was serious about our debt they would propose a real balanced budget but that would require raising taxes some. But No! Get Real! The gop will never do that!
"Economics is just math" - Bill Clinton
“Considering they…”
Interesting. At what point do ‘they’ deserve recognition? Deserve the same rights ‘we’ enjoy?
Yes, no huge bipartisan COVID Aid bills.
According to some, 'they' don't deserve recognition.
You got that right, they should not get any tax money if that is way they operate.
Biden's sensible leadership is working. An economy does not turn around a dime. It was George HW Bush who gave Reagan's irresponsible supply side economic nonsense the name Voodoo Economics.
"So those who identify as LGBTQ aren't 'regular people'?"
Are they getting something special?
“Are they getting something special? “
Only if you consider passed or proposed legislation that diminish their rights.
Yet old men are not welcome to hang at youth centers and little kids are not welcomed at senior centers. Do 4-H Clubs and FFA welcome anyone as members no matter the eligibility? Good Lord Man! There are countless groups served by various levels of government. Do you resent anything that does not personally benefit you? Parks? Schools? Libraries? Pools?
I'm sorry I brought it up now. The article is about budget cutting. Do you know of other specific things that the Republicans are planning to cut? I understand that military is now off the table. My bet is they'll be coming after our social security.
That is how they operate.
In about half of all states it is still legal to discriminate against LGTBQ persons in housing and employment. That is special treatment, but not the kind you meant...
No they are not. What makes you think they are?
The Biden economy, no the US economy. What would the numbers be had we not suffered the COVID pandemic, no one knows.
If he takes credit for these numbers, will he take responsibility for a recession?
I have no idea what you are responding to or are trying to argue something not said, but I replied to a post stating that one would probably pass by a dozen LGBT people in the grocery store.
Because LGBT make up a VERY small portion of the population, again, that would be highly unlikely.
Now, maybe you can go back to debating something actually said.
What recession?
We all know these centers are only anti-abortion centers. They are fooling no one.
That's exactly what they are Ender.
Why should they fund Planned Parent Hood and other left wing abortion clinics? I know Planned Parenthood offers other things besides abortion such as contraceptive care, etc. But the point is exactly the same. Planned Parenthood is a left wing organization with a left wing PAC that funds almost exclusively Democrats.
That's it right there. Almost like teacher unions!
You voted up charger's comment when he was referring to my comment about reich wing anti-abortion clinics, who misinform and lie and delay until it is too late to get an abortion by 12 weeks.
The point is exactly the same. Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides many things. Reich wing anti-abortion clinics don't offer anything but lies and mis/disinformation.
PP to Democrats:
Please continue funding us so we can continue to give you 'campaign donations"!
They don't take care of pregnant women or offer any type of aid, they lie and mis/disinform.
So do single people who don't have any kids. Your point? In fact I hate kids in general. Don't care if they are religious, atheists, straight, gay, whatever gender they want to identify themselves at the current moment. They all suck. Yet my tax money still goes to their lunch program. Heard of the general good? I get to hear about that all of the time. Specialty centers that support only LGBTQ(alphabet)+ isn't part of the general good.
No, some of them are constantly whining about being perpetually offended and trying to force themselves on people they know want nothing to do with them. Like forcing Christian bakers to design and cater gay weddings. Forcing religious institutions to marry them; and hold ceremonies on their property.
Getting rid of the Michelle Obama 3 million dollar trail near Atlanta. I know 3 million isn't much; but pork is pork. It Atlanta really wants to make a trail named after the former first lady they can fund it themselves.
Several Republicans are talking about cutting military spending (gasp, the world is coming to an end!). Which will be damn hard with Brandon, Democrats, and Establishment Republicans depleting our military with Ukraine largesse. Seems that supporting a very corrupt pro Fascist government's borders is far more important than anything else. Especially not spending the damn money and ballooning our debt.
Both parties spend tax payer money recklessly and stupidly. Neither party cares about the debt. Democrats have just outdone themselves with Brandon in charge; and being in control of the House and Senate.
“They all suck.”
[deleted]
Some of them want to, but they have been publicly blocked by their own leadership. Now they are trying to do an end around using the courts. See the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals October ruling on CFPB
This is exactly what Rick Scott is trying to do with all government funding -
Yep. Exactly like Biden tried to do back in 1975.
True, and that was 48 years ago and he has changed his mind on the matter. It's hilarious to me that Rick Scott whose company was guilty of the biggest medicare fraud in history (at that time) and fined $1.7 billion dollars, Scott skated on the charges, would be pushing this. That was in 2000 and 2002.
It's 2023 right now, but your attempt to deflect is noted.
No, not a deflection but an attempt to point out something that you don't want to acknowledge. Both parties have talked about putting sunset limits on spending bills in the past and in a lot of cases it's a good idea. I happen to agree that if it's a good bill then it shouldn't have a problem being re-allocated for in the future and if it's a bad bill designed mainly for political payback then ending the funding is a good thing.
I don't give too much credit to anything Biden says today, why would I give 2 shits about something he said when I was 8?
If they haven't done it in 50 years it can't be that good of an idea.
Oh, my.
Best use the proper terminology when discussing Democrats.
I do believe the proper term is "evolved".
The debt limit is retarded on its face. It is basically deciding on whether or not your gonna pay your tab or dine and dash.
The downside is the US gets a massive credit dowgrade, global markets tank, and the most secure asset on earth (US Debt) becomes mostly worthless.
But hey, if making that happen gets you on Fox or some retweets, totally worth it yeah?
Chief Economists Say Global Recession Likely In 2023, But Pressures On Food, Energy and Inflation May Be Peaking
The Recession Will Begin Late 2023 Or Early 2024
A recession in America by 2024 looks lik ely
Have you read your own links?
Méliès, The Trip to the Moon
This is nonsense, when we have problems selling US treasury bonds let me know, until then there isn't a problem unless the right creates one by not raising the debt ceiling.
That is it in a nut shell. US Treasury Bonds are US debt. They are gobbled up as fast as they are offered because EVERYONE knows the US government will honor those bonds. US debt is considered to be the most secure asset on planet Earth, unless retarded republicans have something to say about it.
Exactly, we sell them to finance past debt and interest. It’s like using credit card B to pay credit card A’s charge and card C to pay B’s etc.
Yep, and it make the world go round. Most of that interest we pay to ourselves anyways.
You make good points but I wish you would stop using the word retarded so often. It's demeaning and I don't give a shit about republicans in any way shape or form but it's just not nice, or whatever.
Agree, just replace "retarded" with any term for shit or ass hole and then the comment would be "nice", right?
Of the $31 trillion debt, $24.5 trillion is owned by US public.
That should make us all feel better. Just like most of our credit card debt is to US companies.
Exacty, imagine no mortgages, no car loans, no business loans, no consumer credit. Wouldn't that be much better?
GTFOOH!
Of course, the ever increasing government debt is of no concern as long as the majority of creditors remain US.
Our national debt would not increase if Congress had the nuts to balance our budget by raising taxes appropriately...
How about the worthless who pay no federal taxes who live in this country pony up their fair share.
The working poor are not worthless. Including all the other taxes they pay they often pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than some very rich, who often pay little or no taxes because of tax breaks!
Yeah, look at all the years the worthless trump paid no taxes. As of 2015 he had paid no federal income taxes in 10 out of 15 years. Then for a couple of years he only paid $1,500. In 2020, while he was still President, he again paid nothing.
Exactly, we need a VAT like our progressive European cousins have.
What are you talking about?
I was merely ridiculing flat earth economic illiterates who make lameass comments on articles about economics without even the slightest understanding of how modern economies work today...
How about taxing private jets, yachts, ...
Thanks for the reply, I totally missed your original intent.
States are way ahead of you with yacht sales tax, use tax, property tax on yacht and slip if you own it. Additionally, there is a federal 10% luxury surcharge tax on boats worth over $100,000, and aircraft over $250,000. Private aircraft have the same state taxes as Yachts.
They do, 50% pay NO federal income tax, why should they get a free ride?
Rachel Maddow proved that trump paid over 36 million in 1 year alone, that’s more than the current president will pay in 20 years, why is trump paying the Biden’s share?
Either you know about income taxes and salary taxes... and you're being duplicitous... or... you need to learn about them so as to not speak nonsense.
In the years Trump paid zero taxes, what was his tax liability?
How much do you think he owed?
I have no idea.
I don't know how much he (or rather his companies) earned. I don't know how much is "earned (ha ha) income" and how much is capital gains.
I think that a billionaire should be paying millions.
Maybe that is something you should address to your Congress-critters then.
I always figured leftists were all about paying what you legally owe like the almost 50% that don't owe anything most years.
I wonder why the criteria changes when "the evil rich" are involved?
So if the government defaults on it they are only screwing us again.
So what else is new?
That is if most of that debt isn't really held by IRA's, 401k's, Mutual Funds, etc that might be US owned companies- but have customers from all over the planet.
There is a reason that every time the government plays this game over seas interests get weak in the knees; and then downgrade our credit rating.
In a global economy there is no escaping that US debt is interwoven everywhere.
Sorry, not enough rich in the US to pay for the bloated ever increasing budget even if Congress taxed every rich person in the US 100% and removed all tax loop holes and subsidies. (Considering how many multimillionaires there are in Congress it would be against their own best interests. Politicians never act against their own best interests regardless of party.)
How much do you want to raise taxes on the rest of us?
Remember, corporations don't pay taxes- they just pass the cost along to the rest of us by tacking it on to whatever they sell.
Speak to Ronin about that also. He just spouts nonsense and expects to be believed.
How about taxing people who own multiple cars, motor homes, boats, jet skis, motor cycles, ATV's, vacation homes, time shares, etc?
How about taxing people's saving accounts, checking accounts, and retirement funds (I mean how dare people have money the US government can't touch until they retire!)?
I am sure the poor are looking at the middle class who have all of that and thinking- "why the fuck are they not paying more in taxes?! Were barely making ends meet; and look at everything they have!"
I am sure we can tax the planet right into a full blown recession if we try hard enough!
You make no sense.
Sounds like you are falling back on the go-to answer when leftists are asked "What is their fair share?" and the answer usually is "More".
Weak, very weak.
Speaking of work: Can we now assume the US military had their radar set up in such a way that we've missed all these intrusions for years?
You're boring everyone, Tex.
C'mon, Vic... I haven't been hard to live with on this seed... but how on Earth can this post be on-topic?
Your continual spouting of your party line is pretty boring.
I know this isn't nearly as exciting for you as flinging your jello.
It's as on topic as all those comments on work.
We are into the # 7 thread. Are you going to define topic now?
I will NOT be flinging jello at your open mouth, Bob!
You're boring everyone , Tex. We all know what you're going to say s-o-o-o long before you say it.
I know the Usual Suspects don't really care what the seed says - rarely read it - but hey!
What would John Durham do?
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan
You make Reagan seem like a modern-day Nostradamus!
That nonsense ignorance about the poor - who don't make enough to pay taxes - is just that - nonsense ignorance.
The uber wealthy who don't pay their share are the welfare whores, not the working poor.
Yes, that may be part of the explanation. NORAD probably looks more at the polar region and at fast movers.
It's scary isn't it?
What is so very difficult to understand about the Republican position? Raising the debt limit is not new revenue available to spend.
Krugman, himself, points out that an increase in the debt limit has become necessary because of new spending by the Biden administration and a Democrat Congress. Krugman is trying to claim those spending bills, paid for with debt, are an achievement. But all the new spending must be paid for by borrowing more money; that's Krugman's explanation for why the debt limit must be raised to pay for those achievements. The money was spent before there was revenue to pay those obligations.
People like Krugman like to claim that the government doesn't have a problem selling treasuries. But those government treasuries are bought with real money. The government can't build houses, hire teachers, or improve healthcare with treasuries that have already been sold; that money has already been spent. Selling treasuries takes money out of the economy and stuffs it under a mattress where it can't be used for anything. Since the government sells treasuries at a discount, paying for new spending by selling treasuries actually takes more money out of the economy than the new spending puts into the economy.
What is the republican position? Whine about the debt when a dem is in the WH, but completely ignore it when your own p[arty holds the seat?
Pretty easy to understand, hence why most people tell them to fuck off when they try to make an issue of it ever 2 years.
What’s the Dem position? Claim that growing debt is a sign of a healthy economy? Pretending that Medicare and Social Security trust funds aren’t going broke?
Government debt is not inherently a bad thing. US debt is mostly owed to ourselves (the biggest holder is the Social Security Trust Fund) and is a safe haven in economic downturns. Maybe congress should pay SS back all the money they have been raiding out of it for decades. Or, IDK and this is crazy, lift the cap on the SS tax from 100k to unlimited. But you know, easy, logical shit, so it won't get done
Doesn't the government predict that the SS Trust Fund will be bust in 2032?
They will have to borrow that much more to pay it.
I think the limit for s $160,200 this year.
IMO that is a historically accurate observation. Republicans spent the future, too, when neoliberal politics was in vogue. It may seem small but Republicans flatly stating that SoSec and Medicare are off the table is more significant than it appears. And there hasn't been much noise about using the debt limit to get tax cuts, either. There has even been noise about Republicans demanding defense cuts. Imagine that. Politics has certainly changed.
To me it appears that Republicans are trying to hold their own feet to the fire, too. And they are not used to doing that. Don't be surprised if Republicans bring small tax increases to the table this time.
The MAGA upheaval has beaten neoliberalism and Republicans haven't figured out what to do yet. Bit by bit Republican priorities are changing. This time Republican demands for fiscal responsibility may actually mean something.
What the fuck is neoliberalism?
The republicans/gop/gqp don't give a fuck about fiscal responsibility unless a Democrat is President.
Exactly and the dems don't give a fuck about fiscal responsibility regardless of who is President.
that's exactly what I was thinking!
neither party is fiscally responsible.
if they were our debt wouldn't be so astronomical.
Another deflection.
Just like in the 'opinion piece' on Germany and EVs
I realize that's all you have
Bless your little heart
Deflection is to attack or blame another person (Party) rather than accepting criticism or blame for your own actions: When someone deflects, they are trying to feel less guilty, avoid negative consequences, and put the blame on others.
I agreed with you observation on repub fiscal responsibility. On the German EV Opinion piece I neither attacked or blamed anyone.
I realize that you're frequently careless with your assertions.
Bless your little heart
No need to bury yourself over your mistakes.
"Two years after a Democratic president took office and pushed ambitious policies through Congress, Republicans have regained control of the House. They don't have the votes required to repeal the president's achievements, but a quirk of U.S. law — which requires that Congress vote a second time to authorize the borrowing that results from already enacted spending and tax legislation — seems to give them an opportunity to engage in blackmail, threatening to create a financial crisis unless their demands are met."
I never understood the rationale of going on a one party spending binge and then telling the new majority that we must pay for what we couldn't afford to spend. That being said, the Republicans are playing a weak hand. After taking the entitlements off the table (they are the #1 cause of the deficit), there really isn't any meanigful cuts to be made. So let us concentrate on controlling the spending on the next budget and place our poltical Capitol elsewhere.