The Corrupt Bargain July 29, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Boehner’s plan, Debt Ceiling, Dr. Robert Owens, National Debt, Tea Party Caucus
5 comments
In American History slogans, catch phrases, and grand titles have often come to serve as signposts marking out eras and pointing the way to popular notions of what passes for an understanding of the national mood or circumstance in a particular period of time. Examples include: “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute!” a slogan which spurred us on to our first undeclared war against the Barbary Pirates. “Remember the Maine!” a slogan used by the newspapers at the end of the nineteenth century to gin up support for a war against Spain, and a war which launched the United States as a colonial power. “The Square Deal,” the “New Deal,” the “Fair Deal,” and the “Great Society” all designate government programs aimed at the redistribution of wealth, and of course “Camelot” immediately brings forth visions of the youthful, inspiring, inept, and immoral Kennedy years.
In an effort to advance the cause of verbal economy by recycling a catch phrase from the past, I propose that we label House Speaker John Boehner’s proposed plan for raising the debt limit as “The Corrupt Bargain.”
Looking back the original Corrupt Bargain refers to the compromise which defeated a hero, elected a president, and ultimately led to that president’s defeat.
In 1824, as today, America’s political system was under unbearable stress. There were two major political parties; the Federalists who were the political descendants of Hamilton and the centralized government party and the Democratic-Republicans who were the political heirs of Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists.
During the election of 1824 the Federalists collapsed as a party while there were five major candidates and scores of minor ones running as Democratic-Republicans. The candidate officially backed by the Democratic-Republican Party was William H. Crawford, the Secretary of the Treasury under President Monroe. He had been chosen by the Democratic-Republican Caucus in Congress and had little popular support.
The confusing outcome of this election showed the growing power of an electorate fast outgrowing the original restrictive voting practices of the Federalist era and beginning to display the impact of mass appeal campaigning. Andrew Jackson, the hero of the battle of New Orleans came out on top with Ninety-nine electoral votes and 43% of the popular vote. John Quincy Adams, the son of the second president and Monroe’ secretary of state, won eighty-four electoral votes and 30% of the popular vote. Crawford won forty-one electoral votes. Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House came in fourth with thirty seven electoral votes. Since no one had enough electoral votes to win, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. They had to choose between the top three candidates, which immediately disqualified Clay, and since Crawford had very little popular support it was immediately seen as a contest between Jackson and Adams.
In this situation Clay, as Speaker of the House, held the commanding position. He held similar views in most areas to Adams and had actually split that wing of the party siphoning off enough votes to deny Adams a win. However, Clay was an outspoken opponent of Jackson ,and after more than a month of bargaining he threw his support behind Adams securing his election as the sixth president. Adams then appointed Clay as his Secretary of State a post that had been the stepping-stone to office for the four previous presidents.
While this politically expedient arrangement worked well for the election it did not work out so well for the administration or for the future of either Adams or Clay. The supporters of Jackson branded it as the “Corrupt Bargain” and used it to immediately launch the bitter 1828 presidential campaign. The Jackson Democrats pointed to the Adams-Clay bargain as the symbol of a corrupt system wherein Washington elites disregarded the will and interests of the people to pursue their own ends.
All of which brings us to Speaker Boehner and his various plans, trial balloons, and phone interviews he is presenting to the nation as a means of raising the debt limit. And make no mistake about it that is his goal. He is a career politician and a quintessential Washington insider. He and the other leaders of the Republican Congressional Caucus are as attuned to the voice of their constituents as the Democratic-Republican Caucus was in 1824. The grassroots Tea Party which swept the 2010 elections and which made him Speaker clearly want an end to yearly deficits and to an ever-increasing debt. Yet every plan the perpetually-re-elected Republicans present including Paul Ryan’s, merely cuts the present deficit and slows the growth of the debt, but they do not end the deficit spending or reduce the debt. In other words they propose to drive us to the poor-house a little slower than their Democrat opponents.
These same neo-conservative progressives caved during the lame duck session after the paradigm shifting election of 2010 breathing life into the freshly hobbled Obama Administration by agreeing to a stealth stimulus in return for an extension of all the Bush tax cuts. They caved during the series of continuing resolution battles allowing more spending in exchange for cuts in discontinued programs and layoffs of none-existent federal workers. They have either colluded or have been out-maneuvered by an administration determined to fundamentally transform America.
Now they stand with the strongest card conservatives have held since the Clinton impeachment debacle. A card dealt by the hard work and strategies of the Tea Party. This card is the ability of the House to just say no to any more deficit spending. By refusing to pass a bill to raise the debt limit the House can stop our slide into the financial abyss. When a shopaholic has maxed out all their credit cards and reached the limit of their available lines of credit the answer is not to give them a higher limit or new cards.
Yes, the alternative will be tough but we have spent our way into this corner and we have to work and save our way out. Since neither party seems willing to drain the swamp it is time to flood the swamp with calls, letters, and visits. Demand that our representatives represent us and not themselves or their fellow insiders. Stop the deficits! Pay down the debt! And don’t make a Corrupt Bargain that will lead us and our posterity further down the road to serfdom. Don’t sacrifice the future for the expediency of the present. Don’t mortgage the innocent lives of the unborn for the fleeting luxury of a self-indulgent present or we will all endure a shabby future in a second-rate Chinese financial dependency that was once the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
Uncle Sam Plays You Pay April 15, 2011
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.Tags: Continuing resolutions, Debt Ceiling, Dr. Robert Owens, National Debt, Ryan Plan
add a comment
America is careening towards a financial Armageddon. The president proposed a budget for 2012 that projected a deficit of 1.6 Trillion dollars. That is trillion with a “T.” Gone are the innocent days when one of the perpetually re-elected could quip, “A billion here and a billion there and soon we’re talking about real money.” Now billions disappear into the federal sinkhole at the rate of 4.08 billion per day. What does a trillion look like? If you went into business the day Jesus was born, and you lost a million dollars a day, 365 days a year, it would take you until October 2737 to lose a trillion dollars.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the budget deficit just for February 2011 hit $223 billion, which means more debt was added in just that one month than was added in all of 2007. The personal share of the federal debt borne by every tax-paying citizen is now increasing at the rate of $50 per day seven days a week, 364 days a year. That is an increase of $1,500 per month and $18,250 per year per tax payer.
That sounds serious. However, it doesn’t appear as if our elected officials take it seriously at all. The Republicans propelled into the majority by the grassroots activism, high energy and victories of the Tea Party Movement promised to cut 100 billion from the 2011 budget. President Obama submitted that budget which spends 3.7 trillion with a deficit of 1.6 trillion dollars in 2010. It was never passed even though the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. This left the door open for the Republicans to use the continuing resolutions necessary to keep the government operating as vehicles to wring spending cuts from the Democrats. After theatrical bi-weekly dramas these cuts were in the range of ten to twelve billion dollars.
Then finally, with the Democrats imposing an artificial deadline for the passage of a budget that was almost half expended and which they had failed to pass when they had undisputed control, the two parties of power struck what they hailed as a “Historic” compromise. They first told us they slashed thirty eight billion from the budget. The actual number, according to the Congressional Budget Office has since dwindled down and down until today it is estimated to be less than a billion. The Federal Government will still increase the national debt by several trillion dollars this year and our leaders expect us to celebrate their conversion to fiscal sanity. Isn’t the definition of insanity to continue doing the same thing and expect different results? Just because they’re crazy doesn’t mean we have to cheerfully put on an economic straight-jacket and walk voluntarily into a padded cell at the poor house.
Representative Paul Ryan (R. WI) introduced a budget which he says takes on the sacred cows and gores the sacred bulls by cutting six trillion from the projected budgets of the next ten years. The Democrats immediately assaulted this plan as cruel, heartless, and inadequate. The President announces his latest plan which he assures us he meant to introduce all along once someone else had opened the debate. In His plan Mr. Obama plans to cut the projected deficit by stopping waste and abuse in government programs and by taxing the rich.
There are two problems with this approach: if we had all the money politicians have promised to save by stopping waste and abuse we would have a surplus, and the rich don’t have enough money. It has been estimated that if you confiscated every dime every person who makes over one million dollars per year makes it would only generate enough money to run our debt addicted government for less than one year. What would we do for the next year? And the fact of the matter is that the tax increases the President wants are not confined to the rich. They would target everyone with a combined gross income above 250,000. That group includes most small business people. This approach will take money out of the pockets of the greatest creators of jobs: small business people. And it still won’t generate enough money to stop the red ink.
Now the battle looms to raise the debt limit. This is an inside-the-belt-way shell game wherein the parties of power each beat their chests and growl at each other about who is the most responsible before they both vote to increase the limit on their collective credit card. Wouldn’t it be great if we could all just raise the limit on our credit cards indefinitely? And now with the Federal Reserve buying our own debt to finance the repayment maybe we could increase the limits on all our cards so that we can pay our Visa with our MasterCard and our MasterCard with our Discover and our Discover with our Visa. How could that ever go wrong?
The storyline we are supposed to believe now is that in exchange for raising the debt limit there must be meaningful movement towards a balanced budget amendment. That sounds so encouraging. If we just had a balanced budget amendment the problem will be solved. As always there are several spare balanced budget amendments lying around in Congress waiting for enough votes or at least an opportunity to get to the floor for a debate before they are stuffed back in a committee until the next time the shopaholics on the Potomac need to convince the great unwashed in fly-over country that this time they are serious about curbing their over-spending.
Even if they were passed what good would they do? The President and the Democrats have already shown that they think the way to solve the deficit problem is to raise taxes. The Republicans have a plan that appears very dramatic but at the end of a decade still has not ended the deficit spending, which means the debt is still growing.
The International Monetary Fund has looked at these plans and says it appears America is not serious about dealing with its addiction to debt. If we don’t do something soon our creditors are going to stage an intervention, and they will dictate how we must restructure our lives and our nation if we want any more credit. And we are addicted to credit.
A balanced budget amendment merely requires a balanced budget, and budgets can be balanced by increasing taxes instead of decreasing spending. What we need instead is a spending amendment which would limit federal expenditures to a reasonable percentage of the nation’s income. If we can’t stop the spending we will eventually destroy our credit, collapse our economy, and curtail our liberty. In other words, no matter what we the people want Uncle Sam will continue to spend, spend, spend as long as we pay, pay, pay.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.
Like this article? Want to see it in your local paper? Call the editor and make a request.
Dr. Robert Owens Chronicles the History of the Future 