Tanner on debt limit debate
Those following the national debate on whether Congress should raise the federal debt ceiling will find this article from Cato's Michael Tanner extremely interesting.
Tanner criticizes the obstinance of Congressional Democrats and President Obama in failing to give consideration to the modest proposal for spending reform offered by Congressional Republicans even though they have failed to produce one of their own. I find Tanner's remarks extremely poignant and have quoted them at length below:
The president did announce a budget back in February, but he has since disavowed it, and the Senate voted against it 97-0. The president also delivered a budget speech in May. But as the director of the Congressional Budget Office noted, "We don't score speeches." The president still has not submitted a new budget proposal to Congress.
Of course, he's in good company. Senate Democrats haven't produced a budget in two years. This year, in fact, for the first time in memory, even the Senate Budget Committee couldn't come up with a budget proposal. After all, time spent proposing a budget is time that can't be spent denouncing Republican "intransigence" for standing in the way of a deal.
Even if we don't know what the president is for, we certainly know what he is against. And when it comes to "Cut, Cap, and Balance," that's just about everything.
The House Republican plan is surprisingly moderate. First, it would impose $1.5 trillion in budget cuts over the next ten years. That's less than the federal government will borrow this year. Second, it would cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP by 2020. That would still allow the federal government to spend 1.5 percent of GDP more than it did when Bill Clinton was president. And, finally, it would send a constitutional balanced-budget amendment to the states for consideration. The amendment would require that the federal government live within its means except during times of war or when supermajorities waive its provisions. In many ways, it is less strict than the balanced-budget provisions in place in every state except Vermont. In fact, the Republican proposal doesn't even amend the Constitution by itself; that would still require 38 states to approve it.
