Another Front Page Washington Post Editorial on the Budget

The Washington Post was so upset over President Obama's latest budget proposal to Republican congressional leaders that it used a front page editorial to complain to readers. While the article included several comments from Republicans warning of the dangers of President Obama's not yielding to their demands. It added the additional assertion that the deadlock is occurring:

"with time running out for policymakers to agree on a plan to prevent more than $500 billion in tax increases and spending cuts that could rattle the economy."

This statement grossly misrepresents the reality, since the time will run out "to prevent more than $500 billion in tax increases and spending cuts" more than a year from now. We don't see all of these tax increases and spending cuts on January 1, as the article would lead readers to believe. They would only take place over the course of a full year if Congress and President Obama never reached a deal. For this reason, there is not much reason for concern that the failure to reach a deal by January 1 "could rattle the economy."

"simply canceling the changes [the tax increases and spending cuts scheduled for January 1], however, risks undermining confidence in the nation’s ability to manage its rising debt."

If the paper has evidence for this claim then it should have presented it. The low interest rates on U.S. government debt suggests that the financial markets are not very concerned about the nation's ability to manage its rising debt.

The piece also complains about President Obama's plan to change the structure under which Congress approves the debt ceiling so that it would require a two-thirds vote to prevent the ceiling from being increased. It told readers:

"this change would also deprive Congress of its historic authority over federal borrowing."

Actually Congress would continue to have complete authority over federal borrowing. It can either appropriate less spending or impose more taxes, just as was always the case. The change in rules on the debt ceiling really has more to do with Congress's ability to default on its commitments, since the issue with the debt ceiling is whether the country will pay the bills that Congress has opted to run up. No other country in the world has this sort of restriction on debt.

Fake Math on Steroids
written by Robert Salzberg, November 30, 2012 3:47

Of all the 'Republican math', the idea that not raising the debt ceiling is the essence of fiscal responsibility is the craziest.

The current House has authorized every penny of the spending that it now refuses to authorize to pay for.

President Obama's proposed solution is just an extension of the comprise currently in place that was brought forward by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

While extending the McConnell compromise is fine for now, America should join the rest of the world and eliminate the debt ceiling completely.

The Republicans in general and Speaker Boehner in particular have sworn to serially use threatening the full faith and credit of the United States to blackmail America so either the debt ceiling must go or America will have consented to being serially abused by it's Speaker.

"time running out"
written by Brian Dell, November 30, 2012 4:15

Looking at the full sentence I got the impression that it was McConnell who was contending that time was running out and WaPo was just declining to challenge that.

end defense pork anyway
written by JimmyZ, November 30, 2012 7:13

the fiscal cliff is by design an expedient means to achieve that which is not politically popular, but desired by those who decide upon it, yet speak of it in dreadful terms. this "painting oneself (and the whole USA) into a corner" should ensure that the incumbents get voted out anyway. If they ran against it, then vote for it, they can be replaced by somebody more honest.

To borrow or not to borrow
written by Ryan, November 30, 2012 7:14

Quick question, were Obama not to appropriate money Congress authorized because the ceiling wasn't raised, would he be in violation of the law? Any more so than authorizing borrowing not approved by Congress?

...
written by urban legend, December 01, 2012 12:46

The President could do the country a lot of good by asserting an interpretation of his obligations that comports with the 14th Amendment: that he is going to pay the bills regardless of the debt ceiling because to the extent it is interpreted to prevent him from doing so, it is unconstitutional. There is a lot of high-level analysis supporting that view. It is going to be politically difficult to hyperventilate and blather on the way McConnell and Boehner do -- Fox News and Limbaugh apoplexy will only validate the action -- because Obama says he is going to pay the country's bills. The bolder the better: saying nothing more that "I'm going to pay the country's bills because not to do so would violate the Constitution." It's time for executive branch action to render this absurd piece of legislation a nullity. The all-powerful markets will probably love seeing that, too.

Another Front Page Washington Post Editorial on the Budget

About Beat the Press