by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:
You quote Massie: "Reagan, I'm pretty sure, would take the deal and lift the debt ceiling." Yes, yes he would. In 1983, Reagan wrote a letter [pdf] to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker clearly calling for an increase in the debt limit and practically shuddering at the thought of failing to do so:
Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.
So sayeth Saint Reagan 28 years ago. So sayeth reasonable Democrats today.
Another writes:
I think it is helpful when conservative columnists like David Brooks write these columns calling out the fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP. But one continuing and crucial problem made by Brooks and most others is to pretend that this Republican behavior is motivated by a quasi-theological desire not to raise taxes, and that this anti-tax position is threatening a debt default or massive spending cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the SEC, etc. To the contrary, gutting these popular social programs and regulatory agencies is the end goal pursued by Republicans here and insisting on no new revenues (while demanding trillions of spending cuts) is the tactic Republicans have adopted to achieve these specific goals.
So, as I just heard Chris Mathews incorrectly put it on his TV show, the question is not whether "Republicans are willing to default on the U.S. debt because of intransigence on taxes?" No. Republicans are threatening a disastrous debt default to extract long held goals to gut Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the SEC, etc. This is "starve the beast" on suicidal steroids.
The above is not revelatory information, nor does it require a "conspiracy" mindset. These are long held, openly acknowledged political goals of the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan made his early name in part by advocating against Medicare. George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security. Paul Ryan's budget would end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. A debt default – in Republican eyes – would be "useful" only as a way to push funds away from these programs in the context of a crisis. In the last Republican debate, Michelle Bachmann said that her "jobs program" would be to get rid of the "job killing EPA." Mitt Romney suggested that it would be good if we privatized FEMA.
Indeed, the lunacy of framing this debt ceiling standoff as being about Republican "intransigence on taxes" is demonstrated by the fact that no meaningful proposal to raise taxes is even on the table for Republicans to oppose. So, David Brooks is left to scratch his head in puzzlement about the Republican approach, but only because he pretends that this stand-off is really about taxes and not the Republican's long stated goal to gut social programs and regulatory agencies.
Republicans ability to frame the media debate around their tactics, rather than their goals, has been doubly effective. Not only has it obscured what is really being fought over, but the average person who is not a political junkie just hears that Republicans are really hard-assed about keeping taxes low. That sounds reasonable, no?
The Dish 