In the 11th hour, the Obama Administration, with the cooperation of a functional Senate, released a debt-ceiling bill. It relied on short and long term cuts, created a bipartisan commission to lower the debt, raised the debt ceiling and put through trigger cuts to encourage the commission to come back with a package including entitlement reform in the near future.
It looks as if we will not default...
This Bill will not get unanimous support in the Senate. It certainly will not get close to unanimous support in the House. The TEA Party will vow to punish those Republicans who vote for a rise in the debt ceiling, and Michelle Bachmann will cry about the sky falling.
But, there is one nominee, separated from the fray, who has made a rightward shift. Mitt Romney has again proved that a supposed moderate will turn into an opportunistic pariah if it means they will score political points with the extreme wings of their party. This is the same Romney who passed a widely successful universal healthcare bill in Massachusetts and the same Romney who supported regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to curb global warming.
Romney has released a statement in opposition of the debt ceiling compromise. He has called the 11th house situation a product of "President Obama's leadership failure" and that his "lack of leadership" has put the Republican Party in a difficult place.
If I could write to express how livid I was when I heard this boilerplate, blatantly opportunistic, unproven, disrespectful and bombastic statement that the Romney camp released, I think I would lose some readers.
Romney has remained silent throughout the entire debate, not taking a stand on any of the many plans that have been released by both camps. But, at the last minute, he decides that it is the failure of the president, and that he opposes the current deal. So, I am to assume, because he remained mum throughout, that he completely endorses a default. He is trying to court the most extreme side of the party (TEA) by releasing statements that seem to cow-tow to a position of stubborn principles over market disaster - a hubris above all.
He goes on in his statement to say that he would have "cut, capped and balanced" the budget without putting taxes or defense spending on the table. Seeing as defense spending is a major chunk of government expenses (remember...we are in 3 wars) and even the most orthodox budget hawk Tom Coburn (R-OK)said it was "stupid" to not consider revenues when balancing the budget, he must have his head in the sand (or somewhere else where the sun don't shine).
Mitt...listen. Obama and Reid have put plans on the table have not included defense cuts, taxes, included entitlement reforms and massive cuts, all of which were, at one point, endorsed by mainstream Republicans. Boehner and your merry band of TEA Partiers have rejected every budget, and failed to separate the debt ceiling from the budget debate, leading to an 11th hour deal. Even your own minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), has said that a default would be disastrous for the party. He has more experience and more political savvy than you. He and Reid have pushed the once dysfunctional Senate to find a compromised (yet leaned-right) budget plan. You forget that some of the most important principles to the Democratic party are being ignored (defense cuts) or cut (entitlements). Yet, they will vote in favor. They will put their concern for the financial health of the country above their scruples.
The divisive language that you espouse, championed by the TEA Party and conveyed by the Speaker created the "extraordinarily difficult position" for the Republican party, not Obama or the Democrats.
So, please...keep the comments to yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment