In his Aug. 9 op-ed columnEugene Robinson missed the mark by saying progressive Democrats should be “ashamed” of voting against the final debt-ceiling bill. Beyond the tally of yeas and nays, he failed to distinguish the refusal by Democrats (including progressives) to threaten the creditworthiness of the United States from Republican recklessness and intransigence. Progressive Democrats, myself included, voted for both a clean debt-ceiling increase and Senate Majority Leader Harry originalbill, which paired the debt-ceiling increase with deficit reduction.
Sadly, the final bill has done little to calm markets and less to reduce long-term debt by taking off taxpayers’ backs the very things that have not been paid for and contribute to more than a third of that $14 trillion obligation: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a prescription drug giveaway, and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. What we need in this stubborn economy are more revenue and spending in the short term so 20 million Americans can get
to work building roads, fixing bridges and ancient water pipes, and making things
Progressive Democrats never questioned the necessity to avoid default. We questioned the substance, but we negotiated in good faith to lower spending, save Pell grants, and protect the social safety net and retirement security from ill-considered hacking. Democrats showed a willingness to compromise even when it was painful.
The writer, a Democrat, represents Maryland’s 4th Congressional District in the House of Representatives.Matt Miller was rightObama hasWashington Forum, Aug. 12]. Still, asthat does not mean the president should have told the House that he would raise the debt limit himself and “see you in court.” Had he assured them that the limit would be raised anyway, Republicans probably would have voted against raising it under any circumstances (just as Sen. Obama voted against raising the Bush debt limit, knowing he would be outvoted).
After all, forcing the president to act unilaterally would have created a new issue that was likely to resonate with many voters: Can the president violate laws to send the country further into debt? And it would not have done much for the nation’s credit, as purchasers would be offered bonds subject to litigation and interest rates would probably reflect that.
Looking at the pictures published Aug. 12 of the members of the deficit “supercommittee,” I wasn’t surprised to see a lot of white, male faces, but I was disappointed. For a committee that will play such an important role in determining the direction of trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts, it should be of concern to all Americans that there is only one womanone African Americanone LatinoIt certainly does not represent the America I see every day nor the America that is going to feel the pain of these cuts for many years to come.
Sadly, the final bill has done little to calm markets and less to reduce long-term debt by taking off taxpayers’ backs the very things that have not been paid for and contribute to more than a third of that $14 trillion obligation: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a prescription drug giveaway, and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. What we need in this stubborn economy are more revenue and spending in the short term so 20 million Americans can get
to work building roads, fixing bridges and ancient water pipes, and making things
Progressive Democrats never questioned the necessity to avoid default. We questioned the substance, but we negotiated in good faith to lower spending, save Pell grants, and protect the social safety net and retirement security from ill-considered hacking. Democrats showed a willingness to compromise even when it was painful.
The writer, a Democrat, represents Maryland’s 4th Congressional District in the House of Representatives.Matt Miller was rightObama hasWashington Forum, Aug. 12]. Still, asthat does not mean the president should have told the House that he would raise the debt limit himself and “see you in court.” Had he assured them that the limit would be raised anyway, Republicans probably would have voted against raising it under any circumstances (just as Sen. Obama voted against raising the Bush debt limit, knowing he would be outvoted).
After all, forcing the president to act unilaterally would have created a new issue that was likely to resonate with many voters: Can the president violate laws to send the country further into debt? And it would not have done much for the nation’s credit, as purchasers would be offered bonds subject to litigation and interest rates would probably reflect that.
Looking at the pictures published Aug. 12 of the members of the deficit “supercommittee,” I wasn’t surprised to see a lot of white, male faces, but I was disappointed. For a committee that will play such an important role in determining the direction of trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts, it should be of concern to all Americans that there is only one womanone African Americanone LatinoIt certainly does not represent the America I see every day nor the America that is going to feel the pain of these cuts for many years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment