Let’s Go Over The Fiscal Cliff With A Bungee Cord

Posted on December 21, 2012

18


Some day the debt time bomb will take the US and most of the rest of the world down the rabbit hole called financial collapse. We don’t know when that will happen so why not have a little fun while we wait for our doom. I have never tried bungee jumping, but I’m sure it must be an adrenalin rush like nothing I have ever experienced. At my age, I am not likely to actually do it. But, we could metaphorically do it by going over the fiscal cliff with a suitable bungee cord to save us from hitting bottom.

Yesterday my friend John Galt, at America’s Chronicles, made a cogent defense of John Boehner’s negotiating tactics on the fiscal cliff. His argument went something like this. If the House was to pass Boehner’s Plan B, restoring the Bush tax cuts for everyone except those earning a million dollars per year or more. The Senate and Obama would reject Boehner’s plan and we would go over the fiscal cliff with Obama and the MSM putting the blame on the House Republicans. So, how is that a good thing for the country or the Republicans? Well, this is what I call the bungee cord in Galt’s diabolical plan. When Congress opens for business again in January, the Democrats and Obama will be so full of their victory over the Republicans, they will want to show themselves as the saviors of the tanking economy and so the House Democrats will introduce their bill to return the Bush tax cuts to everyone except those make over $250,000 per year and little or no spending cuts.  Obama then will dare the Republicans not to pass the tax cuts for the middle class. BOING! BOING!  Boehner doesn’t even bring the Democrat’s bill up for a vote. Instead the majority Republican House passes a  bill that lowers middle class taxes even more than the Bush levels and layout some meaningful spending cuts. In this way, Boehner will have flipped Obama’s trap back on Obama and the Democrats. Could they turn down even better tax rates for the middle class to avoid spending cuts?

In my comment to Galt’s post, I told him I liked the scheme very much, if that is really what Boehner was up to. And,  if it was, Boehner needed to mend fences with the conservative Republicans, whom he has alienated and whom he has kept out of the loop, because otherwise they may not support his Plan B. That, of course, is what happened. Boehner had to pull his Plan B bill last night because he didn’t have enough votes to pass it. But, that doesn’t change anything. Galt’s scheme is still in play or, at least it could be.

John Galt did not try to elaborate on what “meaningful spending cuts” might be. So, let’s have some fun with that. Bill Weckesser, writing for American Thinker today, has some interesting ideas on how we could down-size our government.

Conservatives need to turn the table on the debate.  Instead of arguing that entitlements will soon swallow everything else, so let’s cut them, let’s work on cutting all the rest.  House republicans should consider making every cut a tradeoff versus cutting  Social Security/Medicare.  For instance, either downsize the EPA…or cut Social Security/Medicare.  Reduce the Energy department…or reduce Social Security/Medicare.  Scale back the Department of Education…or trim Social Security/Medicare.  The list is endless.   A lot of Americans have more affection for Social Security/Medicare than any government agency.  This could be a stealth way to pursue some healthy de-regulation.  Would this meaningfully reduce the deficit?  Of course not.

But, to paraphrase Reagan, “entitlements are a big enough problem to take care of themselves.”  In the meantime, maybe conservatives can win some other battles.

So, Mr. Speaker, are you up for this? Go mend your fences with the conservatives, tie on that bungee cord good and tight, and let’s do this thing!

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

About these ads
Posted in: Fiscal Cliff