It's time to be scared....

I just read this article from the National Journal (yes, it used to be a 'dreaded' left leaning paper, but now basically covers Washington with a jaundiced and mostly non-partisan eye - as you'll note when you go to their site) which simply states the obvious truth: Neither side can budge in any direction that will truly help the middle class. You can read more about this over at my blog.

Obama's sticking point isn't Medicare, SS, or SSD - it's not even repealing the Bush tax cuts - all of which are sticking points for most of us as we watch this ridiculous battle of back-room politics. Obama's real sticking point is the date by which they're allowed to raise the ceiling on the debt. The Republicans were pushing for 6 months (that would be the old guard, you know, the GOP we used to know?) but Boehner's being overruled (duh) by the young guard (that would be the Tea Party some people only think they know) because they want only a 3 month extension on any raising of the ceiling. And Obama's date? If you think for a minute, you'll get it...got it? Yeah, 2013 as in AFTER the elections, at which time he hopes to win back the House and retain the Senate (BTW: I've got news for you, President Obama, if you sell us down the river, no one anyone expects will end up in the White House come 2012)

The article lays it out very plainly, showing the highlights of both parties respective plans regarding the debt. It also states, quite obviously, that yes, the House will pass a bill that the Tea Party gives its stamp of approval on, which will be considerably tougher than Boehner's, but the Senate won't pass it - if they vote at all on it - they could just let it sit there. On the flip side, the Senate (in the form of Reid and President Obama) will come up with their version of a plan, which will be filibustered in the Senate and thus die as sure a death as the Tea Party's plan. So where does that leave us come August 2nd (a date as arbitrary as the debt ceiling itself)?

Only God knows and apparently, he's only talking to Michelle Bachman (sorry, couldn't resist that).

One thing that seems certain, and that's the fact that Obama seems unwilling to use the 14th Amendment to raise the ceiling himself - or shall we say he's been advised by his lawyers not to, even though Clinton has showed him the way, via the Section 4, which reads:

"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

So how does that help the President avoid the 'death of all plans at the hands of each Party'? Well, the 'debt' referred to is those monies incurred for, "...payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
(PS: isn't it odd that the real purpose of the 14th Amendment is about citizenship, slaves and nationalization? Anyway, take time to read it and don't worry, this link came off the Senate website)

Now, to me, based on the above, is that the only part of the debt that can't be questioned (or raised) would be those incurred in suppressing an insurrection or rebellion (can we say Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and so on?) but all other debts appear open for the President to raise. So what about the last part, where the US nor any State can assume or pay any debt or obligation that was incurred as a result of an insurrection or rebellion against the US, that those shall be held illegal and void? Could it be argued that the Tea Party, in their refusal to pass any legislation of our current President are actually revolting? Could this be considered an insurrection by the Tea Party? And if so, does that not also give the President an out? But would it be wise to use it? Would that not finally and irrevocably tear both parties apart more than even the Republican Party is already split? And if he uses the first half, it seems that since the Military Defense budget, which takes up the majority of our debt would be left alone - which would not sit nicely with the Republicans or the military.

BTW: Info on the debt can be found here and, once on the page, go to "Detailed Functional Tables FY10" and click on the links that say "XLS" - you do need Excel to view the budget for 2010 - then go through the budget and try to decide what you'd cut, what items don't have enough money budgeted, then look at the difference between "Discretionary" items and the "Mandatory" items before deciding if you'd switch any of them! It's very interesting and again, imho, part of our responsibility to know something about it!

Maybe you'd like a peek into our taxes and how they're broken down? Check it out under the cut.




Corporate taxes make up only 9% of our revenue while our personal income taxes provide 42%. What we pay into Social Security, etc, equals 40%, but here's the thing: Even the Tea Party says that SS, etc. account for 20% of our spending (along with the Defense Budget, but no one can really pin that budgetary number down, surprise-surprise - but I'm betting it's way more than 20%!).

These are the things we Americans should know - should discover for ourselves and ensure that where we go, is legit. For instance, when I first started trying to find the budget, Google sent me to a sight that said it was the "governmentspending.com" site which sounded damn official. Until I got there and, in spite of the American flag with partial wording implying the site was part of the government sites, alas, no. The clue that it was fake happened to be a link on the left that said, "Tea Party Briefing" and of course, the fact that the first thing on the page was an analysis of the Federal budget for 2012 and Paul Ryan's budget!!! So yeah, make sure you're neither on a right wing site or a left. ALL major government sites (like the WH, Senate, House) have similar banners (blue with a particular logo) and the US Gov site has it's own logo as seen below:







As you can see, they're hard to mistake, but if you don't know what to look for, it's easy to be pulled into the wrong site. :(