Wednesday, June 1, 2011

REPUBLICANS FORCE CHOICE: THE ROCK OR THE HARD PLACE

The House of Representatives seems to have lost the 'representative' task to the reason for their having been elected.  Tonight they chose to hold the country's future in hostage to get their own way.  They prefer to let the subsidies stand, the rich keep their money, and allow the poor and middle class to carry the bulk of the financial weight as the legacy left them by the previous
Republican eight years of complete mismanagement.

 "The House of Representatives rejected an increase to the statutory debt limit in a move chastised by Democrats as “a political charade,” “political cover” and “political theatre.”.   One media guest called the move by the Republicans '  One media gust described the move by the Republicans as "ideological terrorism"  This definition is the most fitting. 

Parkinson went on to say:  "The measure, which failed by a vote of 97-318 with seven members voting present, stated that “the Congress finds that the President’s budget proposal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, necessitates an increase in the statutory debt limit of $2,406,000,000,000,” and would have raised the debt limit to $16.7 trillion."  The move failed to get the two-thirds majority to pass.  Click here to get the whole article.

I sincerely hope that this stonewalling move is not allowed to devastate our world reputation an make us unable to be seen as a reasonable credit risk by the world.  We must not give the Republicans the power to further destroy our economy and win their clearly stated goal of making Barack Obama's presidency fail.  Wake up, middle Americans!  Wake up, middle and poor Americans.

1 comment:

Frank J. Lhota said...

In 2006, then-senator Obama joined with all of Democratic colleges to vote against raising the debt ceiling. So in 2006, were the democrats holding the country's future hostage, or engaging in "ideological terrorism" as that "media gust" put it?

Both the 2006 democrats and the 2011 republicans had a valid point. If we raise the debt ceiling each and every time we run up debt, what is the point of having a debt ceiling at all? Given the severity of the debt crisis, it is eminently reasonable to require that increases in new borrowing be matched by spending cuts of equal size. Besides the 2006 democrats and the 2011 republicans, many economists endorse this approach; see http://www.cnbc.com/id/43234290