Phonies and hypocrits

This quote from an Obama speech in 2006 when he was in the US Senate, and the post below it from the Powerline Blog are all anyone needs to understand where democrats are coming from and who they are.  Where they are coming from is very obvious to anyone.  Democrats do not want to make any spending cuts whatsoever, none, zero.  A compelling case can be made that not only do democrats not want any spending cuts, but they want spending increases.  Otherwise why would they push for, and get, higher taxes on producers, and refuse to even talk about cuts.  As to the question of who democrats are: how about hypocritical demagogues.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government cannot pay its own bills.

It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.'

"Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

— Sen. Barack H. Obama, March 2006

THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW: DEBT LIMIT EDITION

(From the Powerline blog)

Yesterday four Democratic senators–Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray and Chuck Schumer–wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to take all “lawful steps” to increase the debt limit, with or without the Republicans. Byron York points out that all four of these Democrats voted against increasing the debt limit in 2006. At that time, the Democrats pretended to be outraged by the deficits of the Bush administration, which were less than one-half the size of the deficits the Democrats have run up under Obama. In 2006–ancient history, apparently–the Democrats had no concern about the parade of horribles they are now trotting out.

The senators wrote:

As you know, Republican leaders are threatening to bring on an economic catastrophe unless Democrats make deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Defaulting on America’s legal obligations would undermine the American economy and spread global economic havoc. In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis–without Congressional approval, if necessary.

For all these reasons, we support your view that extension of the debt limit is not something for which Democrats should have to negotiate. At the same time, as a separate matter, we agree about the importance of developing a broad, bipartisan agreement on fiscal policy that strengthens our economy and reduces our long-term budget deficit.

As you have said, any such agreement must treat all Americans fairly and include not just responsible spending cuts but additional revenue from the wealthy and the elimination of wasteful tax breaks.

We therefore hope that you will continue to insist that the entire budget be on the table, and that any agreement be fully balanced and fair.

John Hinderaker's comments on this letter:

"It would be a wonderful thing if the entire budget were on the table, but that isn’t what the Democrats have in mind. Still, the Democrats’ evident concern about the debt limit, manifested not just by this letter but by the trillion-dollar coin and other half-baked ideas that are being taken seriously by Democrats, suggests that more of the budget might be on the table than we once thought possible.

Why are they talking about default? Default is constitutionally prohibited by the 14th Amendment. The federal government’s cash flow is more than ample to pay all interest on the national debt and to retire bonds as they mature. Other spending would have to be cut, to be sure; but default will not, and cannot, happen.

The senators telegraph here what they are really afraid of: the House may pass legislation that extends the debt limit along with spending cuts–cuts that will no doubt seem reasonable, not “unreasonable” or “unbalanced,” to voters. I believed that the Republicans wouldn’t be able to get much in exchange for increasing the debt limit because the threat not to do so lacks credibility, but this letter suggests that the Democrats are more worried than I thought.

This is a puzzler. What “lawful steps” could Obama take “without Congressional approval” that would permit racking up more debt? Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive “Power…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Obama has no such authority. Are the senators urging Obama to violate the Constitution? Or perhaps to pursue the trillion-dollar platinum coin gambit? It is impossible to say.

Sure. They want it for nothing, just like Obama wanted tax increases for nothing. The Dems say they are willing to negotiate, they just don’t want the GOP to have any bargaining power:

I think the strategy is to wait until the Democrats take the House, and then strike a “broad, bipartisan agreement” on higher taxes and spending. In the meantime, the Democrats intend to obstruct any change whatsoever in our rapidly-deteriorating fiscal landscape.

Those would be cuts to the defense budget.

But wait! Didn’t Obama just get higher income and investment taxes on everyone earning over $250,000, precisely the higher taxes on the “rich” he has always said he wanted? The Democrats’ greed is never satisfied."