Obama has no moral authority on the debt ceiling fight

Karl Rove:
President Obama says he won't negotiate with Republicans over his proposed more than $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling as a matter of principle because Congress "should pay the bills that they have already racked up."

Set aside the obvious—that he championed the spending and signed the measures that racked up the bills, which Republicans opposed. There may be no person in America with less moral authority than Mr. Obama on this issue. Six years ago he led a Democratic effort to defeat a $781 billion debt-ceiling increase.

On March 16, 2006, Illinois's junior Sen. Obama argued on the Senate floor that raising the debt limit was "a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills." He complained that "Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren," and added, "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership."

Even by Washington's lax standards, Mr. Obama's complaints today reek of hypocrisy.

Mr. Obama has since expressed semi-regret for his 2006 comments. He told ABC's George Stephanopoulos last April, "I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator . . . this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt." He acknowledged that was "making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country." But as president, the newly enlightened Mr. Obama said, "you start realizing . . . we can't play around with this stuff."

The experience didn't leave Mr. Obama with greater humility. Instead, this New Year's Day he tartly said, "We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred." Who is suggesting we don't? Not House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, or any other Republican leader. Quite the opposite. They want to cover the cost of the existing debt while cutting spending to prevent a fiscal catastrophe.

Mr. Obama's use of straw-man arguments to misrepresent the GOP's position became tiresome long ago. He does this in part because he can get away with it, thanks to a compliant press corps. His reliance on the tactic may also spring from his recognition that he has a weak case and cannot win the argument otherwise.


For example, in December 2012 76% of respondents in a Battleground Poll favored across-the-board spending cuts and 73% in a Rasmussen survey believed government should cut spending rather than increase it. In a September 2012 Public Notice Poll, 74% did not believe federal spending has helped the economy, while 86% said it has not helped their own personal situation.

There is more.

The Republicans will need to pass specific legislation since they know the futility of attempting to negotiate with some one as intransigent as Obama when it comes to cutting spending.  They will prob ably try to use the Ryan budget as a vehicle for enacting the cuts that the vast majority of the voters want.  They should also be in front of the cameras or in TV ads regularly making the point that they are giving voters what they asked for on spending restraint.

I would also like to see Boehner standing by his dirty car with Sen. McConnell and his dog standing by both asking where is the President who said he wanted to work with the Congress in solving these problems?


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?