Oh, dear. The Republicans have done it now. They’ve gone and made the effete left-wingers at the New York Times so miffed that they felt the need to write an editorial full of many harsh words.
House Republicans have lost sight of the country’s welfare. It’s hard to conclude anything else from their latest actions, including the House speaker’s dismissal of President Obama’s plea for compromise Monday night. They have largely succeeded in their campaign to ransom America’s economy for the biggest spending cuts in a generation. They have warped an exercise in paying off current debt into an argument about future spending. Yet, when they win another concession, they walk away.
This increasingly reckless game has pushed the nation to the brink of ruinous default. The Republicans have dimmed the futures of millions of jobless Americans, whose hopes for work grow more out of reach as government job programs are cut and interest rates begin to rise. They have made the federal government a laughingstock around the globe.
They have kicked puppies! They have collected $200 even though they did not pass GO. Their intransigence has caused the death of honey bees. They have stolen candy from the mouths of hungry babies! Their reckless wreaking of recklessness reeked of wreckage! They have caused dogs and cats to live together in total hysteria!
Well! Far be it from me to interrupt a bunch of progressives intent on working up a historic case of the vapors, but the compromise they seek is already before them. Yes, there is a debt ceiling plan that has already garnered bipartisan support, the only one to do so. This plan would raise the debt ceiling by as least as much as the President has demanded. It would forestall default not just this year or next, but for many, many years into the future, which satisfies the President’s demand that it not be a “short-term” solution. The plan would put government spending in line with national historic norms, tie it to known levels of revenue, and have plenty of room in it for tangible debt reduction now rather than 50 years from now. It has actually lost the support of members of its own caucus because of the compromises it contains.
That plan is called Cut, Cap, and Balance and I suggest to the New York Times editorial board that it meets all of their requirements. Well, all except the one requirement they didn’t actually mention. Cut, Cap, and Balance doesn’t allow progressives to use taxpayer money to bribe voters into voting for progressives. I suppose we can forgive the Times for leaving that one out, though. Who can remember everything when you’re caught in the throes of a fist-shakey, foot-stompy temper tantrum?