Well, we started with Economics in class today. So let’s dive right into some discussion on everyone’s favorite topic: debt!
Photo credit: AP
Today, the
House voted on and passed a bill to increase the government’s borrowing limit
(debt limit) with no conditions. This is a surprising turn of events, as
Speaker of the House John Boehner has previously been defeated bringing
legislation with policy attachments, and it is unexpected that he support a
simple no-strings-attached bill now. Some are calling Boehner weak for this
action, what do you think? Why might Boehner “compromise” on this matter?
In the past, Republicans have asked for “dollar for dollar
spending cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.” (Source). Many are shocked by
this change on both Boehner’s behalf in addition to other Republicans. This
article offers an interesting analysis, saying that most of the Republicans who
supported the bill are not facing tough re-election fights; and therefore they
are not pressured to support this bill because they are seeking re-election.
There are a lot of facets to this story, and it makes for an interesting
discussion. Below are some suggested background/beginning articles to get you
started.
3 comments:
Very interesting! I think its fairly reasonable to conclude that election politics has at least some influence on this turn of events. There isn't an added pressure to take as hard-line an approach that a Republican's constituents may seek in a candidate.
Elections aside, its very curious that 28 Republicans, including House leadership, would take such a bold move. Its very probable that given the overwhelmingly negative response that the public has delivered towards gridlock in Congress, specifically toward the Republican party, they seek to conform to the inevitable rather than cause another media spectacle. The debt ceiling must be raised simply because spending is so disproportionate to revenue that to eliminate the deficit would mean significant cuts to all parts of the federal government, including discretionary spending that so impacts so many Americans including those depending on welfare programs to make ends meet.
There is no scenario in which the Republicans can get what they want, so rather than generate another circus, they're choosing the more sensible path.
Interesting points, Brandon. I more took the election aspect to mean that normally, around election time, Republicans have to compromise more to appear more accommodating (since voters in their districts may want more compromise and the republicans have to appeal to these voters). And that the Republicans were being surprisingly accommodating given that they didn't have to appear accommodating. Sorry, that's a bit convoluted, but perhaps you're right?
Interesting thought, I wonder if the Republicans in Congress are actually looking to get on with the inevitable rather than push it back as far as they can (as recent history would show they have done). The media for the gridlock hasn't been 100% bad, but perhaps bad enough to get them to make some concessions.
I doubt this will be a trend in the coming months, but what do you guys think? Is this a shift or just an anomaly?
Here's an update definitely worth reading since the Senate passed the bill today:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579379140420941048?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303704304579379140420941048.html
Post a Comment