Skip to main content

DeLauro and the Debt Ceiling

DeLauro -- churchmilitant.com

There is one simple and effective way to cut excessive spending, the primary cause of debt, when expenditures overflow budget borders and that is to reduce spending. Reductions in spending would also help to mitigate the disastrous effects of inflation. Both these revelations have come as a great affront to state and national Democrats.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have proposed to enforce a current debt limit – sort of – and reduce expenditures over the long run so that Republicans and Democrats in Congress will in future years not be on the same political stump barking at each other.

The national and state debt ceilings, presumed obstacles to unlimited spending, have not prevented the kind of raging inflation that is nibbling at middle class prosperity. Taxpayers tend to be responsible because they know that, unlike the federal government, they cannot print inflated funny money to cover their debts. Still less are they able to borrow unlimited sums of money before being reeled in by banks.

In order to end inflation, raging throughout the country since President Joe Biden had put a stop to fossil fuel production, the federal government has raised interest rates, which curtail borrowing. This, in turn will slow down the economy, demand-siders assert. The chief problem with the economy, of course is not that demand is excessive, supply-siders insist. It is that supply is insufficient to meet demand. Supply increases reduce unnaturally high price inflation.

Rosa DeLauro, the U.S. Representative for Connecticut's 3rd congressional district since 1991, is not worried about inflation, or the reduction of jobs and wages relative to an unsupportable inflation rate of about 8.6 percent, or excessive spending both nationally and in her state. Increases in spending ineluctably lead to tax increases, or the printing of depreciated currency, or excessive borrowing, or business flight to states that are more worried about excessive spending than the phlegmatic DeLauro or Connecticut’s Democrat dominated General Assembly.

The words “cut spending” do not fall easily from DeLauro’s lips, particularly at times when elections demand that politicians offer solutions to problems they themselves have caused through foolish spending. Nor is DeLauro much worried about losing a congressional job she has held for more than three decades. Through the storms and fires of inflation, DeLauro’s assets – she and her husband are multi-millionaires – have remained steady, as was the course of the Titanic before being introduced to the iceberg.

Just now, DeLauro is worried about a national debt limit that, as its title suggests, is designed to “limit debt,” i.e. “limit spending.” Both the poorest of the poor and struggling middle class workers know that debt causes misery. “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness,” says Mr. Wilkins Micawber, a clerk in Charles Dickens's 1850 novel David Copperfield. “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

Debt ceilings, when they are properly applied, reduce debt by reducing spending. You cannot, Mr. Micawber realized when he was hauled off to London’s debtors’ prison, spend your way out of debt.

Here is DeLauro fulminating in an op-ed piece, “I warned Republicans about their debt ceiling bill. I was right,” against Republican Party efforts to reduce the national debt through prudent spending cuts: “On Wednesday, Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy unveiled a bill he claims will fulfill our debt limit obligations. In truth, the bill holds the economy hostage in exchange for slashing investments important to American families.” The McCarthy bill increases the national debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion and freezes spending at 2022 levels.

“In exchange for a short-term increase in the debt ceiling,” DeLauro writes, “the speaker’s proposal drastically cuts spending for 2024, then compounds those reductions by capping investments for the next 10 years. To be clear, Republicans are threatening a default on our debt unless we gut vital programs.”

According to Reuters, “The House bill would increase Washington's borrowing authority by $1.5 trillion or until March 31, whichever comes first, raising the specter of another round of negotiations during the 2024 presidential campaign. The bill would pare spending to 2022 levels and then cap growth at 1% a year, repeal some tax incentives for renewable energy and stiffen work requirements for some antipoverty programs.”

President Joe Biden has refused to meet with Republicans to discuss their measure. Bipartisan compromise on issues of major national importance has consistently been put off the table by this president. Almost every preceding Democrat president has compromised with Republicans on budgets and debt ceilings. Welfare work requirements were imposed by President Bill Clinton.   

In all honesty, what do you call a “debt ceiling” that remains unenforced, so that year after year the ceiling is raised to accommodate more spending, while no sensible provisions are adopted to reduce spending?  There can be no “ceiling” to such spending.  It is because national and state politicians haven’t the common sense of a Micawber that the nation is nursing a debt of more than $31 trillion, while Connecticut is in debt by some $42 billion.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p