'Hence, we arrive at the current impasse in Washington, where a benighted, feckless and reckless do-nothing Congress is now "holding a gun to your [and the national economy's] head," as famed investor and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett puts it.
"We raised the debt ceiling seven times during the Bush administration," Buffett told CNBC on Thursday. Now, the Republican-controlled Congress is "trying to use the incentive now that we're going to blow your brains out, America, in terms of your debt worthiness over time."
As early as April when this theater of the absurd was just heating up, former Bush-era U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill called the people advocating such foolish and dangerous brinkmanship on the deficit "terrorists."
Indeed, as also noted by Finance guru Edward Harrision:
"During the Bush administration, when a budget surplus turned to deficit and debt piled up, Republican leaders in Congress [repeatedly] voted to raise the debt ceiling...increasing the limit nearly $4 trillion. We're talking about Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. Combined, they voted 19 times for a debt ceiling increase without complaint or conditions."
What changed? GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his radical Republican crew thought that the better part of wisdom was to block and impede any sort of progress on job creation or aid for the struggling middle class in favor of cleaving to their ultra wealthy Wall Street benefactors.
They decided early on that their best political strategy was to vehemently oppose any and all of the president's economic initiatives and that gridlock and inaction was a better response than pulling together as Americans to solve our common economic problems.
That gridlock and abject refusal to do much of anything is quite telling, and easy to compare. As noted here in the Chicago Tribune, "The 112th Congress is on pace to be one of the least productive in recent memory — as measured by votes taken, bills made into laws, nominees approved. By most of those metrics, this crowd is under performing even the 'do-nothing Congress' of 1948, as Harry Truman dubbed it."
Dithering during an economic crisis is what they do best. As noted here by Huffington Post writer Kelly Moore:
"Through the first six months of the year, the House and Senate have been in session at the same time for a mere 60 days. That's an average of a whopping two weeks of vacation a month. Meanwhile, the average American (lucky enough to have a job) has put in twice as many work days — 125 to be precise — in the same span of time."
As the Chicago Tribune noted: "From January until the end of May, the last date for which comparable statistics are available, 16 bills had become law — compared with 50 during that period last year, or 28 in 2007, also a time of divided government."
Moore has a capital suggestion — put Congress on a commission pay basis:
"Congress lacks seriousness of purpose. They are too busy tearing one another down. Maybe if they were compensated like so many Americans — by commission — they would get more done. They could receive a base salary, say, equivalent to the median American salary of around $50,000. Beyond that, they would be paid only for performance. No federal budget, no paycheck. National default? No paycheck (and no re-election)."
Sounds good to me.'
To read the complete article it's located here:
http://cartersville.patch.com/articles/how-and-what-to-count
