Disagreement is not treason
The president used the word "treason" five times within 30 seconds while talking to Fox commentator Sean Hannity, calling the Mueller investigation "an attempted takeover of our government, of our country, an illegal takeover."
Moreover, he has extended that accusation to apply to anyone who disagrees with him on anything in any detail. Earlier, he said in the Oval Office that "There are people out there who have done ... treasonous things against our country."
But criticizing the president, or any government official, is not treason, but an American right and responsibility, protected by the Constitution. Even the laws of libel back away from protecting public figures from severe criticism.
This president, however, takes any disagreement or criticism as the worst possible offense, which should be punishable by law, severely. But there is no law against criticism or disagreement.
At least, not in America. There may be in other countries, and that could be the goal that the current president has set for his allies.
Several days ago, I considered writing about the possibility that the president or his lackeys would call the Mueller report a smear campaign by Democrats who dominate the FBI and the investigative team. I rejected that idea, and decided to wait for further evidence.
But the president himself went even further, using the T word.
There remains another possibility, however, which could be identified by the complete Mueller report, if and when it comes out. For now, we have only a four-page summary put out by Attorney General William Barr, a Trump ally and appointee. But even the summary specifically noted that the president was not exonerated.
That, however, did not stop the president from claiming that the report "totally and completed exonerated" him.
There have been attempts to fix any criticism of the government as treasonous or seditious, through such federal laws as the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 and the Sedition Act of 1918. All have failed, since they conflicted with the First Amendment right of free speech and a free press.
That, however, does not seem to stop some from trying to stifle any criticism by jailing those who disagree.
Early in America's history, then president John Adams signed the Sedition Act, which banned "false, scandalous and malicious writing" that criticized the government.
The current president attacks as "fake news" anything that disagrees with him. Perhaps he might consider suing newspapers, magazines and broadcasters for libel. But if something is true, it's not libel. And opinions spoken and written about public figures, up to and including a president, are exempt from that libel protection, especially if the information is true.
As for any attempt by this president to sue major news outlets, I can almost hear the reaction in the newsrooms and legal departments of The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and others:
Bring it on. This will fill Page One for many weeks. And you can't stop that, either.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Monday, March 25, 2019
Media Collusion
"Fake news" is part of a conspiracy by liberal journalists in collusion with Democrats to foment a coup against the president.
Or that's what conservatives would have us all believe. But there are more than 1,700 daily newspapers in America, plus radio and television operations, magazines and Internet news outlets, all on constant deadlines and competing for the time and attention of readers, viewers and listeners, while trying to keep revenue flowing from advertisers.
So who's got time for collusion?
Besides, reporters are more concerned with getting the story before their rivals than about conspiring, colluding or even cooperating with their competitors than in coordinating news coverage.
This is not to say that reporters are not liberals. Many are, but they don't let their opinions influence their reporting. Rather, they leave that to the editorial/opinion pages and they generally don't talk to them, much less coordinate coverage.
Moreover, there are many news outlets that are avowedly conservative, both broadcast and in print, which slant their coverage to help promote right-wing views. A prime example is the Fox network, which reportedly has the largest viewing population of any of the cable channels. And their rights are equally protected by the Constitutional guarantee of free speech and free press, including television.
But to restrain these rights for liberals in the name of "equal time" and to prevent the alleged stifling of "competing perspectives" puts everyone's First Amendment rights in danger.
Yet that is precisely the danger put forth by an executive order signed by the president that bars federal aid to schools where liberal-minded students outnumber conservatives. The allegation: These schools "stifle competing perspectives."
The danger, however, works both ways.
Disagreement with the president "shouldn't be allowed," some of the more radical on the right say. But they would be the first to protest if liberals made a similar claim.
Who gets to decide what's allowed and what's not?
Or that's what conservatives would have us all believe. But there are more than 1,700 daily newspapers in America, plus radio and television operations, magazines and Internet news outlets, all on constant deadlines and competing for the time and attention of readers, viewers and listeners, while trying to keep revenue flowing from advertisers.
So who's got time for collusion?
Besides, reporters are more concerned with getting the story before their rivals than about conspiring, colluding or even cooperating with their competitors than in coordinating news coverage.
This is not to say that reporters are not liberals. Many are, but they don't let their opinions influence their reporting. Rather, they leave that to the editorial/opinion pages and they generally don't talk to them, much less coordinate coverage.
Moreover, there are many news outlets that are avowedly conservative, both broadcast and in print, which slant their coverage to help promote right-wing views. A prime example is the Fox network, which reportedly has the largest viewing population of any of the cable channels. And their rights are equally protected by the Constitutional guarantee of free speech and free press, including television.
But to restrain these rights for liberals in the name of "equal time" and to prevent the alleged stifling of "competing perspectives" puts everyone's First Amendment rights in danger.
Yet that is precisely the danger put forth by an executive order signed by the president that bars federal aid to schools where liberal-minded students outnumber conservatives. The allegation: These schools "stifle competing perspectives."
The danger, however, works both ways.
Disagreement with the president "shouldn't be allowed," some of the more radical on the right say. But they would be the first to protest if liberals made a similar claim.
Who gets to decide what's allowed and what's not?
Sunday, March 24, 2019
It is to Laffer
Cut taxes and the economy will soar, is the rallying cry from conservative politicians. And they point to the curve developed by economist Arthur Laffer in 1979.
What started as a sketch on a restaurant napkin may well look great in theory, but in the real world the policy hasn't worked out. Nevertheless, conservatives keep touting the glory of the concept, and it's back.
The theory is based on the idea that if the government cuts taxes, companies will invest in more production, which means more jobs and lower prices, which means more sales and more consumption, which means more profit, and the circle continues.
Reality check: It's been tried before, in the policies known as supply-side economics and Reaganomics, strongly endorsed by the Tea Party folks. More recently, it was tried on the state level in Kansas. It didn't work there, either.
What really happened was that as firms reaped the benefits of lower taxes, they increased their profits and passed on the added revenue to shareholders.
Logic 101: When faced with the choice of two outcomes, pick the simpler, less complicated one.
These days, politicians in Washington talk a lot about reducing taxes, especially on corporations, and the benefits will be passed on down to workers and consumers in the form of higher wages and lower prices.
Meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest 5 percent and the rest of the people keeps widening.
Can you see a connection?
I knew you could.
What started as a sketch on a restaurant napkin may well look great in theory, but in the real world the policy hasn't worked out. Nevertheless, conservatives keep touting the glory of the concept, and it's back.
The theory is based on the idea that if the government cuts taxes, companies will invest in more production, which means more jobs and lower prices, which means more sales and more consumption, which means more profit, and the circle continues.
Reality check: It's been tried before, in the policies known as supply-side economics and Reaganomics, strongly endorsed by the Tea Party folks. More recently, it was tried on the state level in Kansas. It didn't work there, either.
What really happened was that as firms reaped the benefits of lower taxes, they increased their profits and passed on the added revenue to shareholders.
Logic 101: When faced with the choice of two outcomes, pick the simpler, less complicated one.
These days, politicians in Washington talk a lot about reducing taxes, especially on corporations, and the benefits will be passed on down to workers and consumers in the form of higher wages and lower prices.
Meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest 5 percent and the rest of the people keeps widening.
Can you see a connection?
I knew you could.
Friday, March 22, 2019
Sedition vs Free Speech
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- John Philpot Curran, Irish lawyer and politician (1790).
The current president of the United States often warns of an attempted "coup" against him, and he regularly attacks anyone who criticizes him in any way, from "fake news" in journalism outlets to individuals who do not actively support his every thought and action.
This week, he issued an executive order barring federal aid grants to schools that allegedly "stifle competing perspectives" offered by conservatives.
He apparently did this at the suggestion of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), which objects to widespread liberalism at colleges and universities, supposedly chilling discourse on competing views.
Superficially, this sounds good. All views and opinions should be expressed and heard. But given the history of the radical righteous, this claim for equal opportunity is often a cover for actions to stifle competing perspectives offered by liberals.
Sedition can be defined as conduct or speech aimed at inciting rebellion. It differs from treason, which is a stronger term that calls for violence as well as giving aid and comfort to an enemy. Simplistically, sedition typically involves speech alone, while treason calls for violent action.
Sedition is harder to prove since it conflicts with the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Merely disagreeing is not seditious.
That has not, however, stopped some in government from trying to stifle opposition by alleging sedition. This goes all the way back to 1798, when the federal Sedition Act was used as a weapon against those who disagreed with government policy.
Nevertheless, there remain on the books federal laws against sedition, although they are rarely invoked.
So is it seditious to call for a change in government? If done violently, through a "coup," yes. But if done peacefully, via the ballot box or impeachment, no.
Even so, when a political leader uses the two terms interchangeably, either through ignorance or deliberately as a way to demand support, the nation must be warned.
Note: The original quote by John Philpot Curran is, "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance." It was quickly picked up by American leaders and changed.
Nevertheless, the warning remains as strong today as ever, as some leaders allege that any disagreement is equal to sedition, if not outright treason. The current president has done just that.
The current president of the United States often warns of an attempted "coup" against him, and he regularly attacks anyone who criticizes him in any way, from "fake news" in journalism outlets to individuals who do not actively support his every thought and action.
This week, he issued an executive order barring federal aid grants to schools that allegedly "stifle competing perspectives" offered by conservatives.
He apparently did this at the suggestion of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), which objects to widespread liberalism at colleges and universities, supposedly chilling discourse on competing views.
Superficially, this sounds good. All views and opinions should be expressed and heard. But given the history of the radical righteous, this claim for equal opportunity is often a cover for actions to stifle competing perspectives offered by liberals.
Sedition can be defined as conduct or speech aimed at inciting rebellion. It differs from treason, which is a stronger term that calls for violence as well as giving aid and comfort to an enemy. Simplistically, sedition typically involves speech alone, while treason calls for violent action.
Sedition is harder to prove since it conflicts with the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Merely disagreeing is not seditious.
That has not, however, stopped some in government from trying to stifle opposition by alleging sedition. This goes all the way back to 1798, when the federal Sedition Act was used as a weapon against those who disagreed with government policy.
Nevertheless, there remain on the books federal laws against sedition, although they are rarely invoked.
So is it seditious to call for a change in government? If done violently, through a "coup," yes. But if done peacefully, via the ballot box or impeachment, no.
Even so, when a political leader uses the two terms interchangeably, either through ignorance or deliberately as a way to demand support, the nation must be warned.
Note: The original quote by John Philpot Curran is, "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance." It was quickly picked up by American leaders and changed.
Nevertheless, the warning remains as strong today as ever, as some leaders allege that any disagreement is equal to sedition, if not outright treason. The current president has done just that.
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Cancel Criticism?
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman
Rep. Gavin Nunes (R-Calif) has sued the social media platform Twitter for libel, alleging that because they allow criticism that he claims causes him "pain, insult, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress and mental suffering, and injury to his person and professional reputations" brought on by those who post such criticism, he is entitled to $250 million in damages.
Aw, poor baby.
Aside from the possibility that the avid supporter of the president is using the tactic to build his profile and raise money, there is the greater danger that this is an attempt to weaken or overturn the First Amendment.
I have been trying to find other things to write about, but the continuing attempts by Trumpistas to stifle criticism through legal action and even thinly veiled threats of violence cannot go unchallenged.
It would be easy enough to say this guy is full of hooey and he'll never get away with such nonsense. But stranger things have happened.
Meanwhile, the news of his lawsuit was greeted with a barrage of more satire from late night TV shows.
Several days ago, I wrote that if "government succeeds in curtailing disagreement, punishing satire and penalizing mockery, we will no longer have the right of free speech and a free press."
Now Nunes is demanding that any such criticism be stopped. Satire is a powerful weapon, however, and cannot be silenced. It may go underground briefly, or masquerade as fable, but it never dies.
Many may remember reading "Gulliver's Travels," and initially thinking of it as a children's fable. But it was not written for children. Rather, it was and is a satire on government behavior.
Likewise, "A Modest Proposal," also by Jonathan Swift, is another satire on government failure to deal with the hunger problem in Ireland. And this was more than 100 years before the Great Famine years of the mid-19th Century.
Geoffrey Chaucer was also good at satire, and it appears numerous times in "The Canterbury Tales."
In more modern times, "Animal Farm," by George Orwell, uses satire to challenge the doctrine that while all are equal, "some are more equal than others."
And there is, of course, the heavy doses of satire doled out on network television, most notably on "Saturday Night Live."
Perhaps this is the problem facing certain politicians in Washington today. They give lip service to the American principle that all are equal, but they, like some of the animals on Orwell's satirical farm, are more equal than others and therefore deserve more respect and allegiance.
So it's up to everyone to continue to challenge any attempt to build superiority in the guise of equality, and a satirical pencil is perhaps the most powerful weapon available, whether through the printed page, an Internet connection or the entertainment media.
Let's all remember that any attempt to stifle dissent and satire endangers the Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees.
And let those who can't take the heat follow the words of former President Harry Truman: Get out of the kitchen.
Rep. Gavin Nunes (R-Calif) has sued the social media platform Twitter for libel, alleging that because they allow criticism that he claims causes him "pain, insult, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress and mental suffering, and injury to his person and professional reputations" brought on by those who post such criticism, he is entitled to $250 million in damages.
Aw, poor baby.
Aside from the possibility that the avid supporter of the president is using the tactic to build his profile and raise money, there is the greater danger that this is an attempt to weaken or overturn the First Amendment.
I have been trying to find other things to write about, but the continuing attempts by Trumpistas to stifle criticism through legal action and even thinly veiled threats of violence cannot go unchallenged.
It would be easy enough to say this guy is full of hooey and he'll never get away with such nonsense. But stranger things have happened.
Meanwhile, the news of his lawsuit was greeted with a barrage of more satire from late night TV shows.
Several days ago, I wrote that if "government succeeds in curtailing disagreement, punishing satire and penalizing mockery, we will no longer have the right of free speech and a free press."
Now Nunes is demanding that any such criticism be stopped. Satire is a powerful weapon, however, and cannot be silenced. It may go underground briefly, or masquerade as fable, but it never dies.
Many may remember reading "Gulliver's Travels," and initially thinking of it as a children's fable. But it was not written for children. Rather, it was and is a satire on government behavior.
Likewise, "A Modest Proposal," also by Jonathan Swift, is another satire on government failure to deal with the hunger problem in Ireland. And this was more than 100 years before the Great Famine years of the mid-19th Century.
Geoffrey Chaucer was also good at satire, and it appears numerous times in "The Canterbury Tales."
In more modern times, "Animal Farm," by George Orwell, uses satire to challenge the doctrine that while all are equal, "some are more equal than others."
And there is, of course, the heavy doses of satire doled out on network television, most notably on "Saturday Night Live."
Perhaps this is the problem facing certain politicians in Washington today. They give lip service to the American principle that all are equal, but they, like some of the animals on Orwell's satirical farm, are more equal than others and therefore deserve more respect and allegiance.
So it's up to everyone to continue to challenge any attempt to build superiority in the guise of equality, and a satirical pencil is perhaps the most powerful weapon available, whether through the printed page, an Internet connection or the entertainment media.
Let's all remember that any attempt to stifle dissent and satire endangers the Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees.
And let those who can't take the heat follow the words of former President Harry Truman: Get out of the kitchen.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Mockery
Some politicians just can't take a joke. Or even a mild teasing, much less full-out mocking.
On the other hand, the current president revels in mocking others, insulting them, alleging collusion with Democrats and with Russia and even calling for a federal investigation of TV shows that specialize in satire.
Never mind that the show "Saturday Night Live" is not a news program, and that the federal regulation calling for equal time was dropped decades ago, as broadcast and cable news operations proliferated, or that the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech and a free press to everyone, not just those who agree with any particular politician.
Note that the equal time rule applied only to news operations, not to entertainment shows.
In addition, the president attacked the Fox network for suspending Judge Jeanine Pirro's program after she claimed on her program that a newly elected congresswoman who happens to be Muslim would probably follow sharia law rather than the U.S. Constitution.
News flash: Freedom of speech works both ways. But this president seems to want to muzzle those who criticize and mock him, but give bigger platforms to his supporters.
So how long will this two-way mocking continue?
As long as the Constitution remains in effect. Once government succeeds in curtailing disagreement, punishing satire and penalizing mockery, we will no longer have the right of free speech and a free press.
But that may just be what the current president and his cohorts want. Which means there may only be one news and entertainment source available to Americans.
A better solution: If you don't like a particular TV program, change the channel.
Symbolism
For the first time since he took office, the president today, St. Patrick's
Day, went to church.
He chose an Episcopal church, which historically
has close ties with the official High Episcopal Church of England, and he wore a
red tie, not green.
Is there some symbolism there, indicating favoritism towards Britain, or is it simply ignorance?
Or both?
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Paddy's Day Problem
For many years, it has been traditional for the president of the United States to host a visit by the prime minister of Ireland to the White House on March 17.
This year, however, may well be exceptional.
Typically, the Irish PM visits the White House while his/her partner is hosted by the vice president. But the current prime minister of Ireland happens to be gay, and Vice President Mike Pence has been outspoken in his belief that homosexuality is a problem that can be cured with electric shock therapy and spiritual counseling.
So far, there has been no report that the Irish leader's partner will accompany him on the visit to America. Prime Minister Leo Varadkar did visit America last year, but this year there is speculation in Ireland that the prime minister's partner will not attend.
(Update: Varadker visited the president at the White House on Thursday, before traveling to Chicago for the parade this weekend. Varadker's partner, Matt, did come along and visited the vice president. No report yet on how that went.)
Perhaps neither will feel welcome. And how this snubbery will affect voter attitude is yet another issue.
Also, a visit to Ireland by the U.S. president planned for last September was cancelled after the Irish people scheduled massive protests in greeting.
This year, however, may well be exceptional.
Typically, the Irish PM visits the White House while his/her partner is hosted by the vice president. But the current prime minister of Ireland happens to be gay, and Vice President Mike Pence has been outspoken in his belief that homosexuality is a problem that can be cured with electric shock therapy and spiritual counseling.
So far, there has been no report that the Irish leader's partner will accompany him on the visit to America. Prime Minister Leo Varadkar did visit America last year, but this year there is speculation in Ireland that the prime minister's partner will not attend.
(Update: Varadker visited the president at the White House on Thursday, before traveling to Chicago for the parade this weekend. Varadker's partner, Matt, did come along and visited the vice president. No report yet on how that went.)
Perhaps neither will feel welcome. And how this snubbery will affect voter attitude is yet another issue.
Also, a visit to Ireland by the U.S. president planned for last September was cancelled after the Irish people scheduled massive protests in greeting.
Monday, March 11, 2019
Bias
Fox network commentator Jeanine Pirro said on the air that the newly elected Muslim Congresswoman who wears a hijab is more likely to follow sharia law rather than the Constitution.
That kind of talk is similar to the allegation that John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was likely to take orders from the Pope rather than follow the Constitution. The fuss was so loud and strong for so long that the candidate had to go on national television to say it ain't so.
As for those who insist that the U.S. is a Christian nation and therefore its government officials should also be Christian, perhaps they should read the Constitution, where it says, in Article VI in the main body of the document, that "no religious affiliation shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." In addition, there is the First Amendment ban on establishing an official religion.
And for those who still insist that the U.S. is a Christian nation, surveys indicate that Christians are a minority in America, outnumbered by agnostics and atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, those of the Baha'i faith and, of course, Muslims and Jews, not to mention Wiccans and the odd Druid here and there. In addition, there are shamanic practitioners who regularly contact their spirit helpers but do not say shamanism is a religion.
The U.S. Census, by the way, is prohibited by law from asking about religious affiliation, so any numbers come from the groups themselves or from surveys.
That kind of talk is similar to the allegation that John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was likely to take orders from the Pope rather than follow the Constitution. The fuss was so loud and strong for so long that the candidate had to go on national television to say it ain't so.
As for those who insist that the U.S. is a Christian nation and therefore its government officials should also be Christian, perhaps they should read the Constitution, where it says, in Article VI in the main body of the document, that "no religious affiliation shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." In addition, there is the First Amendment ban on establishing an official religion.
And for those who still insist that the U.S. is a Christian nation, surveys indicate that Christians are a minority in America, outnumbered by agnostics and atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, those of the Baha'i faith and, of course, Muslims and Jews, not to mention Wiccans and the odd Druid here and there. In addition, there are shamanic practitioners who regularly contact their spirit helpers but do not say shamanism is a religion.
The U.S. Census, by the way, is prohibited by law from asking about religious affiliation, so any numbers come from the groups themselves or from surveys.
Monday, March 4, 2019
Speculation
Voters: You're fired. Get out.
Office Holder: No, I won't, and you can't make me.
Speculation has already begun that the president may refuse to leave office if he loses a re-election bid next year.
He spent so much time complaining that the presidential election was "rigged" against him last time around that it must have been a surprise when he won. Actually, some say the election was indeed rigged, but he did the rigging.
Nevertheless, he insisted that he really did win the popular vote, had it not been for massive and sweeping fraudulent and illegal voting by undocumented aliens nationwide. He became president because he won the electoral vote, but that didn't stop him from whining that he also won the popular vote despite all evidence to the contrary.
Will he reprise the same chant next year and use that as a reason not to leave office in January 2021?
TV commentators are already talking about that possibility, and that raises the question of what the Secret Service and the White House police force will do.
The White House police force was formed in 1922, initially supervised directly by the president or his representative. It became part of the Secret Service in 1930 and is now known as the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service.
Suppose the president refuses to recognize the election results and refuses to step down, following the example of the current president of Venezuela? Will the Secret Service escort the American president from the White House, forcibly if need be? And how will his supporters react?
The Secret Service is responsible for the safety of current and former presidents, but the agency's loyalty may well be tested if the president refuses to leave office.
That raises the question of whether the agency's loyalty lies primarily to Individual 1 or to the nation.
Let's hope that question never comes up. But considering current and past behavior by this president, it might.
Office Holder: No, I won't, and you can't make me.
Speculation has already begun that the president may refuse to leave office if he loses a re-election bid next year.
He spent so much time complaining that the presidential election was "rigged" against him last time around that it must have been a surprise when he won. Actually, some say the election was indeed rigged, but he did the rigging.
Nevertheless, he insisted that he really did win the popular vote, had it not been for massive and sweeping fraudulent and illegal voting by undocumented aliens nationwide. He became president because he won the electoral vote, but that didn't stop him from whining that he also won the popular vote despite all evidence to the contrary.
Will he reprise the same chant next year and use that as a reason not to leave office in January 2021?
TV commentators are already talking about that possibility, and that raises the question of what the Secret Service and the White House police force will do.
The White House police force was formed in 1922, initially supervised directly by the president or his representative. It became part of the Secret Service in 1930 and is now known as the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service.
Suppose the president refuses to recognize the election results and refuses to step down, following the example of the current president of Venezuela? Will the Secret Service escort the American president from the White House, forcibly if need be? And how will his supporters react?
The Secret Service is responsible for the safety of current and former presidents, but the agency's loyalty may well be tested if the president refuses to leave office.
That raises the question of whether the agency's loyalty lies primarily to Individual 1 or to the nation.
Let's hope that question never comes up. But considering current and past behavior by this president, it might.
Friday, March 1, 2019
Ceiling Crash
Don't look now, but the U.S. government is about to hit its self-imposed debt ceiling and risk being unable to borrow more money to pay debts, salaries and other obligations.
Result: Another fiscal crisis and even potentially a shutdown of government operations, but this time it's not related to manipulation from the Oval Office. Rather, it's brought on by big spending by those who campaigned for budget cutbacks. Instead, they kept spending at an even faster rate, with money they didn't have.
Can you say "hypocrisy"?
The Congressional Budget Office noted that currently there is no statutory limit on the new federal debt, but that temporary suspension expired today, March 1, 2019. Tomorrow, Saturday, March 2, 2019, the debt limit will be automatically reset, but that too will expire in a few months and the Treasury will run out of cash in September.
If that happens, the government won't be able to pay its bills, it will default on its debts and won't be able to support its activities. So does that mean another shutdown? Unless Congress raises the ceiling again, yes.
Want some numbers? The previous debt ceiling was $20.5 trillion. As of January 31, another $1.5 trillion had been borrowed, raising the new limit to almost $22 trillion, which will be hit this weekend.
As that happens, the Treasury won't be able to borrow any more money, except to pay off debts that are maturing.
So whatever money the government has available will go to repay its creditors, and little or nothing will be available to support other programs.
And that is tantamount to another shutdown of government programs, including those intended to help those in need.
So much for campaign promises to trim the federal budget and reduce debt.
Wait a minute, maybe that's the plan, and so what if some people get hurt. Investors have a higher priority.
Unless Congress raises the ceiling, thus enabling deeper debt.
Result: Another fiscal crisis and even potentially a shutdown of government operations, but this time it's not related to manipulation from the Oval Office. Rather, it's brought on by big spending by those who campaigned for budget cutbacks. Instead, they kept spending at an even faster rate, with money they didn't have.
Can you say "hypocrisy"?
The Congressional Budget Office noted that currently there is no statutory limit on the new federal debt, but that temporary suspension expired today, March 1, 2019. Tomorrow, Saturday, March 2, 2019, the debt limit will be automatically reset, but that too will expire in a few months and the Treasury will run out of cash in September.
If that happens, the government won't be able to pay its bills, it will default on its debts and won't be able to support its activities. So does that mean another shutdown? Unless Congress raises the ceiling again, yes.
Want some numbers? The previous debt ceiling was $20.5 trillion. As of January 31, another $1.5 trillion had been borrowed, raising the new limit to almost $22 trillion, which will be hit this weekend.
As that happens, the Treasury won't be able to borrow any more money, except to pay off debts that are maturing.
So whatever money the government has available will go to repay its creditors, and little or nothing will be available to support other programs.
And that is tantamount to another shutdown of government programs, including those intended to help those in need.
So much for campaign promises to trim the federal budget and reduce debt.
Wait a minute, maybe that's the plan, and so what if some people get hurt. Investors have a higher priority.
Unless Congress raises the ceiling, thus enabling deeper debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)