(With apologies to Jesus.)
Say what you will about the ideals or organization of the Tea Party movement, but they have won the battle for dominance over political messaging in the run up to and aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections. This relatively small, yet extremely well-funded and highly vocal, group has succeeded in advancing ideas previously regarded as belonging to an unrepresentative fringe, even by Republican standards.
Perhaps the most insidious of the Tea Party positions which have been incorporated into Republican doctrine in the 112th Congress is that a vote against an increase in the debt ceiling will set the country on a path toward fiscal responsiblity and long-term solvency. While focusing on the symbolic significance of a ‘nay’ vote on increasing the federal government’s debt ceiling, Tea Party Republicans and Republicans, in general, are missing the real world implications of a breached debt ceiling. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Or do they?
There are a number of reasons why establishment Republicans may have adopted an intransigent stance on the debt ceiling. According to a McClatchy-Marist poll, most Americans want the federal government to focus on debt reduction over economic stimulus. This perplexing stance comes in spite of the fact that an even larger majority believes the country is still in a recession. Establishment Republicans want to stake out the high ground on debt reduction, a position they hope to use as a cudgel against the president and congressional Democrats in the 2012 elections.
Nate Silver suggests that the Republican Party is merely trying to capture the spirit of its base in the hostage crisis which is the debt ceiling negotiations. Certainly he’s correct, but I think the truth is more insidious than that. While debt reduction, and its attendant budget cutting, is popular with the party’s conservative base, the congressional Republican leadership’s approach to the debt ceiling has been nothing less than feckless and cynical. Are Republicans really willing the risk the full faith and credit of the United States government to score a few points with their base? If nothing else, the Republican leadership’s primary goal is to harness the vitriol of the Tea Party movement and translate it into campaign contributions and votes come 2012; nothing short of co-optation will do.
While fecklessness typifies the establishment position on the debt ceiling, faithlessness in the American government is the backbone of the Tea Party movement’s ideology. Tea Partiers want to destroy or dismantle the federal government as we know it; Ron Paul, the movement’s ideological godfather, advocates disestablishing the Federal Reserve and the re-adoption of the gold standard, abolishing income taxes and the Internal Revenue Service, and eliminating federal regulatory oversight, including abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency and handcuffing the Food and Drug Administration. For Tea Party-affiliated members of Congress, a breach of the debt ceiling is just one step down a long road toward their goal of an ineffectual federal government. For the unimaginably wealthy benefactors of the Tea Party movement, clearing their businesses from the fetters of government regulation would greatly enhance their bottom line.
If the ultimate goal of the Tea Partiers is to dismantle government regulation and services in favor of allegedly lower taxes and, consequently, more freedom through the market, what is an acceptable level of privatization of heretofore public goods? Should we have an entirely privatized road network paired with a private mass transit system? How about outsourcing federal and local law enforcement? Could we decommission our armed forces and use private contractors (read: mercenaries) to defend our vital national interests? All of these questions challenge deeply the notion of a social contract in this country; a narcissistic few yearn to opt out of the responsibilities of society while wrapping themselves in the rights and privileges conferred by the Consititution.
If one were to analyze the rhetoric of Tea Party movement sympathizers, one would quickly observe a culture of quasi-apocalyptic, militaristic preparation. In the fringe libertarian roots of the Tea Party lies a desire for the complete dismantlement of the American government’s regulatory and welfare-protecting apparatus in favor of lawless, Wild West-style free marketism. One begins to wonder whether an ideal world for many Tea Partiers looks something like a cross between Waterworld and The Postman, two classics of American cinema. (Kevin Costner campaigned for Barack Obama, by the way.)
Why would we, as a nation, want to follow the policy prescriptions of a group of people who are doing everything in their power to accelerate the collapse of the American government as presently constituted?
The answer to that question is not particularly clear. In contrast, the consequences of a breached debt ceiling and the impacts of a potential government shutdown and default are absolutely clear. As David Min at the Center for American Progress highlighted last October, failure to pass a debt ceiling increase would “forc[e] the immediate cessation of more than 40 percent of all federal government activities (excluding only interest payments on the national debt), including Social Security, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance.”
President Obama summarized the ramifications in the capital markets during his Twitter town hall thusly, “Potentially the entire world capital markets could decide, you know what, the full faith and credit of the United States doesn’t mean anything. And so our credit could be downgraded, interest rates could go drastically up, and it could cause a whole new spiral into a second recession, or worse.”
The shining irony of Republican posturing on the debt ceiling and the national debt is the following, a default would potentially drive up interest rates for Treasury bonds, making the cost of government borrowing much higher. A downgrade to the government’s credit rating would make any future borrowing, beloved by Democratic and Republican administrations alike, increasingly more difficult and more expensive. The ultimate outcome of a default would certainly be an increase in the federal debt, passing the pain of one stupid decision down to all the generations that follow.
The Republican leadership is threatening to subprime mortgage the future to win the present. President Obama has come to the negotiating table willing to compromise with the Republicans. It’s time to pass a debt ceiling increase.
Say what you will about the ideals or organization of the Tea Party movement, but they have won the battle for dominance over political messaging in the run up to and aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections. This relatively small, yet extremely well-funded and highly vocal, group has succeeded in advancing ideas previously regarded as belonging to an unrepresentative fringe, even by Republican standards.
Perhaps the most insidious of the Tea Party positions which have been incorporated into Republican doctrine in the 112th Congress is that a vote against an increase in the debt ceiling will set the country on a path toward fiscal responsiblity and long-term solvency. While focusing on the symbolic significance of a ‘nay’ vote on increasing the federal government’s debt ceiling, Tea Party Republicans and Republicans, in general, are missing the real world implications of a breached debt ceiling. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Or do they?
There are a number of reasons why establishment Republicans may have adopted an intransigent stance on the debt ceiling. According to a McClatchy-Marist poll, most Americans want the federal government to focus on debt reduction over economic stimulus. This perplexing stance comes in spite of the fact that an even larger majority believes the country is still in a recession. Establishment Republicans want to stake out the high ground on debt reduction, a position they hope to use as a cudgel against the president and congressional Democrats in the 2012 elections.
Nate Silver suggests that the Republican Party is merely trying to capture the spirit of its base in the hostage crisis which is the debt ceiling negotiations. Certainly he’s correct, but I think the truth is more insidious than that. While debt reduction, and its attendant budget cutting, is popular with the party’s conservative base, the congressional Republican leadership’s approach to the debt ceiling has been nothing less than feckless and cynical. Are Republicans really willing the risk the full faith and credit of the United States government to score a few points with their base? If nothing else, the Republican leadership’s primary goal is to harness the vitriol of the Tea Party movement and translate it into campaign contributions and votes come 2012; nothing short of co-optation will do.
While fecklessness typifies the establishment position on the debt ceiling, faithlessness in the American government is the backbone of the Tea Party movement’s ideology. Tea Partiers want to destroy or dismantle the federal government as we know it; Ron Paul, the movement’s ideological godfather, advocates disestablishing the Federal Reserve and the re-adoption of the gold standard, abolishing income taxes and the Internal Revenue Service, and eliminating federal regulatory oversight, including abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency and handcuffing the Food and Drug Administration. For Tea Party-affiliated members of Congress, a breach of the debt ceiling is just one step down a long road toward their goal of an ineffectual federal government. For the unimaginably wealthy benefactors of the Tea Party movement, clearing their businesses from the fetters of government regulation would greatly enhance their bottom line.
If the ultimate goal of the Tea Partiers is to dismantle government regulation and services in favor of allegedly lower taxes and, consequently, more freedom through the market, what is an acceptable level of privatization of heretofore public goods? Should we have an entirely privatized road network paired with a private mass transit system? How about outsourcing federal and local law enforcement? Could we decommission our armed forces and use private contractors (read: mercenaries) to defend our vital national interests? All of these questions challenge deeply the notion of a social contract in this country; a narcissistic few yearn to opt out of the responsibilities of society while wrapping themselves in the rights and privileges conferred by the Consititution.
If one were to analyze the rhetoric of Tea Party movement sympathizers, one would quickly observe a culture of quasi-apocalyptic, militaristic preparation. In the fringe libertarian roots of the Tea Party lies a desire for the complete dismantlement of the American government’s regulatory and welfare-protecting apparatus in favor of lawless, Wild West-style free marketism. One begins to wonder whether an ideal world for many Tea Partiers looks something like a cross between Waterworld and The Postman, two classics of American cinema. (Kevin Costner campaigned for Barack Obama, by the way.)
Why would we, as a nation, want to follow the policy prescriptions of a group of people who are doing everything in their power to accelerate the collapse of the American government as presently constituted?
The answer to that question is not particularly clear. In contrast, the consequences of a breached debt ceiling and the impacts of a potential government shutdown and default are absolutely clear. As David Min at the Center for American Progress highlighted last October, failure to pass a debt ceiling increase would “forc[e] the immediate cessation of more than 40 percent of all federal government activities (excluding only interest payments on the national debt), including Social Security, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance.”
President Obama summarized the ramifications in the capital markets during his Twitter town hall thusly, “Potentially the entire world capital markets could decide, you know what, the full faith and credit of the United States doesn’t mean anything. And so our credit could be downgraded, interest rates could go drastically up, and it could cause a whole new spiral into a second recession, or worse.”
The shining irony of Republican posturing on the debt ceiling and the national debt is the following, a default would potentially drive up interest rates for Treasury bonds, making the cost of government borrowing much higher. A downgrade to the government’s credit rating would make any future borrowing, beloved by Democratic and Republican administrations alike, increasingly more difficult and more expensive. The ultimate outcome of a default would certainly be an increase in the federal debt, passing the pain of one stupid decision down to all the generations that follow.
The Republican leadership is threatening to subprime mortgage the future to win the present. President Obama has come to the negotiating table willing to compromise with the Republicans. It’s time to pass a debt ceiling increase.
No comments:
Post a Comment