T

The Hill:

The Treasury’s cash balances have reached a dangerously low point. Henceforth, the Treasury Department cannot guarantee that the federal government will have sufficient cash on any one day to meet all of its mandated expenses,”

“The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate.

“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.”

Those were the words of Ronald Reagan nearly 3 decades ago, in a letter sent to the Senate Majority Leader, urging Congress to increase the Debt Ceiling.

Democrats across the political spectrum have been holding up the Republican icon, Ronald Reagan, as a compelling reason why the debt ceiling has to be raised. 

According to the Huffington Post, even Barbara Boxer is suggesting that Republicans recall Reagan’s words:

 “All they have to do is look at their icon, Ronald Reagan, and understand you don’t play with fire when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America.”

She was far from alone.

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to all the Republican members of the House to remind them of the Gipper’s feelings as expressed in a 1983 letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) — the same letter Boxer quoted.

So we have either come full circle or  the political scene has shifted very far right–so far right that Reagan is now seen as a centrist.  Considering the fact that I once voted for Ronald Reagan, that all makes sense.  He couldn’t get elected today in all probability.  Too much of a RINO. 

Let’s listen to Reagan’s own words:

<

 

 

So the question now becomes, how would the Gipper have handled this situation?  Could he even be elected today with the Republicans scurrying around and running scared of the Tea Party (that party without a leader)?

Reagan’s original letter to Howard Baker

 

22 Thoughts to “Have we come full circle or have the goal posts moved?”

  1. Wolverine

    The Gipper would having been chopping down the federal budget like crazy.

  2. Wolverine, surely you have seen the charts. He also raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his presidency. Perhaps you have idealized him? The Gipper added to the deficit.

  3. Wolverine

    An impression which may be somewhat misleading, Moon. I seem to recall that every budget the Gipper submitted to the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives was tossed into the Hill circular file as DOA. It was the Dems in the House who wrote those budgets. So, perhaps the deficits could be called the Tip O’Neil deficits? I am sure you recall that scene at one of the Gipper’s appearances for the State of the Union where he hefted this monstrous stack of paper onto the podium and remarked that the federal budget was a disgrace. And the Dems always refused to allow him to effect some important savings by eliminating the Department of Education completely. The Gipper’s desire for increased military spending with a defined purpose of grinding the Soviets into the dust does give him some partial responsibility. I do not believe, however, that he was ever given a serious opportunity for off-setting cuts elsewhere. But, as warrior in a hot war and then the Cold War, I certainly enjoyed winning that one.

  4. Nah, my political memory if fairly short. It is all one big blur. However, vague as it might be, I seem to remember the Senate being R controlled and the house being a half n half. I thought that Reagan pretty much controlled the House too.

    The Dept of Ed only came into being in 1979. Why would they want it eliminated? They fought hard to get it as its own department.

    Regardless, I think he is a good person to be referencing now, even though he probably could not get elected in today’s political atmosphere.

  5. Starryflights

    Conservative Repugs should listen to their hero, Ronald Reagan and heed his advice and counsel. One must always honor one’s debts. Failure to do so is dishonorable and would surely lead to an economic disaster, just as President Reagan said would happen years ago.

  6. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Starryflights :
    One must always honor one’s debts.

    Is that what one must do? I’m going to give a slightly different spin. One must endeavor to live outside of debt. Debt is the currency of slaves.

  7. Kelly3406

    As I posted on a previous thread, Reagan and Top O’Neill made a deal to raise revenues (taxes) in exchange for future spending cuts three times as large. The spending cuts were never delivered by Tip O’Neill and Reagan was blamed over the years for the larger debts and deficits. The moral of the story: future cuts never happen. Rather than following what the Gipper did, we should learn that the Dems never carry out their end of a deal that involves spending cuts.

  8. Elena

    Reagan could NEVER be elected in this republican puritanical environment.

  9. Cargosquid

    Puritanical?

    Really? When the Log Cabin Republicans are a major force in the party. When the Tea Party’s overriding message is fiscal, not social. Yes, Bachmann signed some pledge and she’s popular. She’s popular because of her attacks on the fiscal irresponsibility of the current regime. But she’s not getting the nomination.

    Reagan would be nominated in a heart beat. His message is STILL popular among the conservatives.

    1. @Cargo, How come this major force, the Log Cabin Republicans are often made to sit in the cloak closet? I think that is such BS. How about that other gay group that many Republicans refused to sit in the same room with?

      If Reagan were alive he would be taking names and kicking ass over endangering the country.

  10. Cargosquid

    Just because some Republicans don’t like them, doesn’t mean that they don’t have a voice. CPAC is the org that was boycotted because the Log Cabin guys were there. And guess what? Those that boycotted got more heat than CPAC.

  11. I actually know a few and they don’t describe their existence in the party as warm and fuzzy. They do their usual attitude: We’re Near. We’re here. We’re Queer. Get over it.

    The people I am thinking of who were boycotted weren’t log cabin. Some other name.

  12. Pat.Herve

    But the R’s for all the grand standing that they do – did nothing to reduce spending (actually increased spending) is all 6 years of having the House, Senate and Presidency – so their grandstanding with me does not hold water. Cantor voted for UNFUNDED Part D – and now, he does not want to raise the debt ceiling to pay for it.

    Boehner can grand stand all he wants – he voted for Part D – with no funding – expected to cost $1.4Billion over 10 years – he voted for the War in Iraq, and borrowed the money – where was his hell no then? And the tax cuts, and the tax rebate – all borrowed money.

  13. Cargosquid

    @Pat.Herve
    Of course that’s why the Tea Party showed up. Cantor is not popular with the Tea Party. Tax cuts are not borrowed money. Tax rebates are. And yes, Congress should have pushed for better funding, but even with the war, deficits under Bush were reducing. What’s Obama’s excuse?

  14. Pat.Herve

    Tax Cuts are borrowed money when you are in deficit spending already, and you reduce the revenue stream without reducing the spending.

    Under Bush, the deficits were reducing because of the roaring Housing industry, but in 08, the Bush deficit greatly increased as the Housing bubble came to an end. Bush and team were praying on a daily basis that they could keep the bubble going until after he left office. And, Bush needs some credit for the 09 deficit.

    One of the main reason’s for the deficit’s under Obama is that the revenue’s are reduced (recession) at the same time as the automatic spending increases – increase unemployment, increase medicaid and other welfare costs. The Housing industry is still in the crapper, which is a major part of our economy.

    Why did 23 Republican Senators vote NO on a deficit reduction commission?

  15. Cargosquid

    “without reducing the spending. ”

    “Why did 23 Republican Senators vote NO on a deficit reduction commission?”

    Because the Republicans were acting like Democrats.

    And that is why 87 Tea Party members were elected.

    The 08 fiscal year deficit was about 450 Billion, about double the 2007 fiscal year. You are absolutely right.Then the Democrats wrote their first budget for the 09 fiscal year which they DID NOT submit to Bush. OVER 1 TRILLION DOLLARS. And its been that way since.

    If tax cuts are borrowed money, yet Obama’s deficit is due to decreased revenue, then HE SHOULD HAVE CUT SPENDING. NOT doubled down on spending with that idiotic stimulus democrat slush fund. It did nothing to build jobs. Part of the reason that the housing market is still in the crapper is that his financial bills, like Frank-Dodd, force banks into holding onto assets at inflated prices.

  16. Cargo said:

    And that is why 87 Tea Party members were elected.

    Think what you want. Want to place any bets on next election?

    Because the Republicans were acting like Democrats.

    It shows that Republicans were putting country before party. Good for them.

  17. Cargosquid

    Sooo…you’re not so independent.

    Acting like a Democrat is “putting country before party.” even though the GOP was putting party before country when they were acting like Democrats?

    Ok. The GOP was spending to get votes. The GOP was not living up to the ideals of their own party. The GOP was spineless. We had ONE party. The Democrats and Democrat lite.

    I’ll place a bet with you. We can negotiate it over email. I bet that Obama loses and the GOP makes gains in the Senate and we’re still a majority in the House.

    If I’m wrong, I’ll bet that, if Obama wins the election, we go into a depression, energy prices shoot up, job losses rise to over 9.4%, more businesses move overseas, our debt skyrockets, taxes go up, and we get nothing for our money.

    1. @Cargo, if that is at me, I am an Independent. I have voted for equal number of R and D’s for president. I have spent time in both parties. I ‘divorced’ the R’s when I saw too much infusion of social issues. I have spent time as a D. I divorced them over a couple of issues that are too long and involved to go in to here.

      I don’t belong to either of them. Right now, I am extremely angry at what the Republican party has become and at the behavior. That doesn’t make me a Democrat but it does make me more sympathetic to them. I started off being very neutral over Obama, maybe even a little on the negative side in the beginning. Nothing makes a girl love Obama like a bunch of elephants on a rampage. The only time I was really a true donkey was during the Clinton years.

      Now let me defend Rs for a minute. There are a few good Rs out there that can think for themselves. I actually think it is wrong to call them spineless. Just because they don’t conform to your politics doesn’t mean they are spineless. It means you disagree on policy. Now that is what I cannot stand about the tea-jaddists–all that binary stuff.

      I will have to think about betting. I don’t want to jinx anyone. I have a tendency to do that. You hope all that happens. I hope it doesn’t.

  18. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Hope it happens? So you’re saying that I hope we collapse?

    Again, you impugn my motives.

    I’m AFRAID that it will happen because I’m looking at what is going on now.

  19. Elena

    Cargo,
    Name ONE president that had to jump through these hoops to have the debt ceiling raised! Yeah, that’s what I thought, hearing crickets Cargo, hearing crickets.

  20. Cargosquid

    Sure. None.

    So what? If he can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. His resignation would make the markets skyrocket. Biden, at least, isn’t an ideologue like Obama. Biden is similar to the Democrats that were in Congress in the past, like O’Neal.

    We’ve never had a President or party so reckless in spending. The Democrats started spending in fiscal year 2009 like they had control of the prin…oh, yeah. They did.

    This battle is about control and vision. One side was elected with a mandate to control spending. The other side is completely dependent on spending programs to get votes.

    The conservatives feel that the spending is a danger to the nation. The liberals feel that the precedent of raising taxes to “pay” for the deficits is more important than cutting spending.

    Unfortunately, the conservatives still have to deal with the mainstream GOP that feels reducing the rate of spending is enough. Business as usual.

    Remember, though, at one time, Obama thought that it was perfectly fine to NOT raise the debt limit. He even voted that way. What’s different now?

Comments are closed.