From Think Progress: Utah’s junior senator dabbles in extortion. In an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball last evening, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) admitted that he is using the threat of a catastrophic default to try and force the Senate into rewriting the Constitution in favor of a permanent era of conservative governance.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: How many days do you think we have, on the outside, to get this debt ceiling through before we have a problem? How many days?
LEE: I don’t know, maybe ten days.
MATTHEWS: Okay, in ten days you want to change the United States Constitution by two-thirds vote in both houses? That’s what you’re demanding.
LEE: Yes. If possible we can’t change the Constitution just in Congress but we can submit it to the states. Let the states fight it out.MATTHEWS: And you think you’re being reasonable by saying you want a two-thirds vote in the House, which is Republican, and in the Senate which is Democrat. You want the Democratic Senate, by a two-thirds vote, to pass a constitutional amendment or you want the house to come down?
LEE: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying and I’ve been saying this for six months.
Senator Lee’s proposed amendment makes it functionally impossible to raise taxes by imposing a two-thirds supermajority requirement. It would also require America to return to 1966 spending levels — spending cuts that are so steep they would have made every single one of Ronald Reagan’s budgets unconstitutional. Because Lee wants to write these draconian cuts into the Constitution, We the People would lose our power to overrule these cuts by electing different leaders.
Extortion is too kind a word to describe Lee’s threat. And why is it that people who are pleased to describe themselves as “conservatives” always want to radically change our Constitution?
UPDATE: The fun is just beginning. Hoyer: After Default Crisis, Look Forward To Another Government Shutdown Fight. A TPM commenter says:
It’s important to remember what these “crises” really are… the only “crisis” is that there are Republicans in Congress. We are not having a problem funding our government. We are not having a problem paying our bills. We are having a problem because Republicans are erecting barriers to us doing these things.
UPDATE: The Debt Ceiling Debacle
“It is clear we must enter an era of austerity; to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice,” reads the statement issued by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as she endorsed Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid’s plan to cut $2.7 trillion in spending over 10 years with no call for the wealthy to pay anything in taxes.
It has come to this. The proud liberal leader of House Democrats, excluded from many of the debt ceiling negotiations because she insisted on defending Social Security and Medicare, has now capitulated to the austerity caucus. And the Republicans still refuse to take yes for an answer.
#1 by Karmen on July 26, 2011 - 5:07 pm
This man is trying, and admitting to the fact, to bring the country down. This is the same country, the same constitution that he says is divinely inspired. If so, why is there such a desperate need to change it? God help us one and all.
#2 by Jen on July 26, 2011 - 8:26 pm
Apparently Mr. Lee likes the effects of conservative rule: runaway spending, a growing gap between rich and poor, tax cuts for the rich that never trickle down or create jobs, less environmental regs, less food safety, less spent on education, endless wars, feeding people fear, etc.
#3 by brewski on July 26, 2011 - 9:44 pm
Where are you getting this 1966 spending level stuff from?
#4 by Donna Crane on July 26, 2011 - 11:58 pm
I call it extortion and treason. He wants to extort the United States with his way or the no way and to hell with the American people and the Constitution. He wants to hold a loaded gun to our collective heads and blow us up… if that’s not extortion and treason. I’m absolutely not surprised, he’s is after all a Republican/TPer.
#5 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2011 - 9:07 am
brewski–
The Tea-GOP wants a constitutional amendment that caps government spending at 18 percent of GDP, a level not seen since 1966. For comparison, each of President Ronald Reagan’s budgets in the 1980s proposed spending above 21 percent of GDP.
#6 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2011 - 11:05 am
UPDATE: FLASHBACK: Republicans Never Voted On A Balanced Budget Amendment When They Controlled Congress Under Bush
#7 by brewski on July 27, 2011 - 11:12 am
Wrong,
2000 = 17.98%
So if Bill Clinton can do it then Obama can do it.
I crosschecked with the number as published on Whitehouse.gov and they say 18.2%. So I tracked down the difference. The White House uses as its denominator a different GDP number, so I checked with the Bureau of Economic Analysis at bea.gov and according to them the Whitehouse.gov GDP number is wrong. So the 17.98% is correct.
Aren’t you glad I fact check your numbers for you?
#8 by brewski on July 27, 2011 - 11:33 am
Here is Exhibit A of what is wrong with our government. The good people at the GAO did the hard work of how to reduce costs, enhance revenue and streamline services. They did the analysis and made the recommendations.
They are:
81 areas for consideration drawn from GAO’s prior and ongoing work.
34 areas where agencies, offices, or initiatives have similar or overlapping objectives or provide similar services to the same populations; or where government missions are fragmented across multiple agencies or programs.
47 additional areas—beyond those directly related to duplication, overlap, or fragmentation—describing other opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury.
They report that these operational improvements could yield tens of billions in annual savings.
So, why didn’t Congress pass an act, THE NEXT DAY implementing these improvements? None of these recommendations had to do with ending wasteful programs and subsidies such as ethanol bullshit and oil drilling credits. This is just organizational and operational improvements. Sp what’s the delay? Do it now.
But they don’t. Congress doesn’t know how to save money. It isn’t in their DNA. They are all lawyers who have never run a lemonade stand nevermind know anything about how to run a business. So things like efficiency and service are foreign concepts to them. That is why people are frustrated and why the Tea Party exists.
http://www.gao.gov/ereport/GAO-11-318SP/home
#9 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2011 - 12:18 pm
brewski–
Thanks for the fact check, even though it was not my number– I gave the source.
If Bill Clinton got federal expenditures under 18 percent of GDP during a time of prosperity, good for him. Right now, with the economy in the toilet, it’s an incredibly bad idea. The Tea-GOP is proposing a death spiral where lower GDP triggers federal budget cuts — which in turn depress GDP further. That’s insane.
Robert Reich:
#10 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2011 - 1:15 pm
Pelosi caves.
It has come to this. The proud liberal leader of House Democrats, excluded from many of the debt ceiling negotiations because she insisted on defending Social Security and Medicare, has now capitulated to the austerity caucus. And the Republicans still refuse to take yes for an answer.
#11 by brewski on July 27, 2011 - 1:31 pm
Richard,
I agree with you. A fixed ratio is a bad idea. I’m against it. Also, I appreciate where you got your number from so I’m not blaming you, and I’m not even blaming them since it is on the whitehouse.gov official site. But the point is the same if it is 17.98% or 18.2%.
#12 by brewski on July 27, 2011 - 2:23 pm
From a purely tactical point of view, this whole thing is Pelosi’s and the Dem’s fault. They railroaded a very bad health care bill through that didn’t even address numerous gigantic issues such as cost in a corrupt process that offended everyone. They didn’t pass a 2010 budget. Pelosi essentially told the voters to fuck themselves before the 2010 midterm elections and they handed her the largest defeat in 70 years. The Dems ignored the Simpson-Bowles recommendation and took no action or debate on it. Obama’s budget was defeated 0-97. So now they find themselves weak and painted into a corner by an angry mom and they are surprised?
#13 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2011 - 2:31 pm
brewski–
I agree the Dems are their own worst enemies, although the Tea-GOP comes a close second. It would have been so easy to avoid losing the 2010 election, all they had to do was toss a few bones to the starving and abused (but loyal and hopeful) puppy dog known as the progressive movement! But no, they gave the dog some more painful kicks, and the dog didn’t go to the polls.
I would say ignoring the Catfood Commission was a good thing, especially since that misbegotten commission deadlocked and never issued a report (why do the media never say that, instead of pretending “Bowles-Simpson” is a consensus?). But the damage was done anyway, now we know that President Obama is looking for a way to cut Social Security and Medicare. When he loses the 2012 election, are his advisers going to say they never saw it coming?
Maybe they ought to look at this poll:
When Obama For America called me a couple of weeks ago, I politely asked if they knew any Democrats who will be running for President in 2012.
#14 by brewski on July 27, 2011 - 2:59 pm
My beef with Obama recently has turned more to the observation that he isn’t very competent, nevermind the policy stuff.
There was no health care bill offered by the White House.
There is no current budget plan offered by the White House.
The White House budget was rejected 0-97.
His style seems to be to give sanctimonious speeches and then walk out of the room and say “you guys figure it out”.
That isn’t leadership. It isn’t management. It isn’t effective. It isn’t smart. It’s just annoying.
But we shouldn’t be surprised. The NY Times nailed it in 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=1
#15 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2011 - 3:22 pm
A skilled prize fighter, who has been hired to throw a match, seems incompetent. Looks like we have another President who’s an agent of the corporatists, only this one wanted us to think he’s something else. We know the truth now.
Too bad. He coulda had class. He coulda been a contender. He coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what he is, let’s face it.
#16 by brewski on July 27, 2011 - 3:49 pm
Wow, I couldn’t agree more. Now all we need to do is decide who’s going to tell Cliff that we’re not all racists.
#17 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2011 - 4:42 pm
What do you think of my Marlon Brando impression?
#18 by brewski on July 27, 2011 - 5:08 pm
Very apropos.
#19 by Donna Crane on July 27, 2011 - 5:17 pm
Only semi-agree with you, but I loved your Brando
#20 by Larry Bergan on July 28, 2011 - 5:38 pm
For years the nation had to suffer through a Utah senator’s campaign to come up with a flag-burning amendment and NOW we want a nation-burning amendment.
This is going in the wrong direction, folks!
#21 by cav on July 28, 2011 - 9:08 pm
Getting a taste of the republican approach to job creation:
FAA lays off 70,000 construction workers because of partial shutdown due to Congress not approving current funding.
A modern life of leisure for 70,000 lucky duckies.
#22 by Richard Warnick on July 29, 2011 - 8:54 am
I hope the people who voted for “jobs-jobs-jobs” last November are ashamed of themselves now. The Republicans have not put forward one bill to create jobs, but they are causing layoffs by the hundreds of thousands. Some entire federal agencies have announced hiring freezes because of budget cuts.
Bottom line: the Tea-GOP is convinced that out-of-work people will vote against their own interests. I can’t say that they are wrong to believe this, it worked last time!
#23 by Martel on July 29, 2011 - 9:13 am
Ashamed…?that and a dollar might get you a cup of coffee, appealing to American’s sense of shame has ever been the road to perdition in politics. More likely to get you thrown under the bus politically.
It is not in anyone’s interest to continue to borrow to sustain jobs that cost more than they will ever make. You would be better off, but not too much better off, to just throw the money on the sidewalks and have people scrabble for it. Or give it away in transfer payments and let people make their own jobs.
#24 by brewski on August 1, 2011 - 8:34 pm
95 House Democrats vote to “Bring the House Down”
#25 by Richard Warnick on August 1, 2011 - 8:57 pm
The Dems did a lot of damage, but not as much as Senator Lee wants to do. Watch him vote against this tomorrow. But you have a point, there ought to have been no Dem votes. Only 174 Republicans voted for the deal.
#26 by brewski on August 2, 2011 - 12:39 pm
Sanders votes to “Bring the House Down”
#27 by Richard Warnick on August 2, 2011 - 1:03 pm
No, he cast a symbolic vote against a done deal, the epic cave by Obama and the Dems that Senator Sanders had nothing to do with.
#28 by brewski on August 2, 2011 - 2:16 pm
Ah, so he symbolically voted to Bring the House Down.
#29 by Larry Bergan on August 2, 2011 - 2:35 pm
Paul Krugman would have voted no also and, as usual, his reasoning is perfect.
#30 by Richard Warnick on August 2, 2011 - 2:54 pm
brewski–
You might ask, what happened to Senator Lee’s filibuster threat? He could have at least delayed today’s vote, but he stood aside.
#31 by Larry Bergan on August 2, 2011 - 3:30 pm
With all the feelings of kumbya in the senate when it became apparent the Republicans weren’t going to throw a temper tantrum and the Democrats realized they could breath a sigh of relief, Senator Lee realized it would be a bad idea to filibuster.
My opinion.
#32 by Martel on August 2, 2011 - 3:43 pm
Richard, is your plan then to continue spending to revive a dead economy? We just have done this to the tune of trillions to no effect, so now comes the other option. This is what is coming, for if we continue to create money, we will destroy the world economy. This issue transcends simple American politics. As it stands Putin really isn’t off base saying that the U.S. is a “parasite” on the global economy. A parasite with teeth screwing around militarily in every country it hopes it can steal from to secure corporate interests.
The selfish attitude professed by those who would continue to pauperize future generations is gladly coming to and end. This nightmare for many Americans and the rest of the world at least has some light at the end of the debt tunnel.
#33 by brewski on August 2, 2011 - 4:02 pm
I am not a fan of Lee.
#34 by Richard Warnick on August 2, 2011 - 4:07 pm
“We just have done this to the tune of trillions to no effect…”
Wrong. The ARRA was $787 billion, and more than $300 billion of that was in tax cuts, not spending.
Despite the inadequate size of the stimulus, you can’t say there was no effect. It delayed the massive layoffs of state and local employees, for example.
There is nothing wrong with borrowing money — at historically low interest rates — to invest in infrastructure projects (the ARRA didn’t do enough of that). Look at the buildings, roads, dams etc. built during the Great Depression that have paid for themselves many times over. The faster the economy recovers, the less of a deficit problem the federal government is going to have going forward.
#35 by brewski on August 2, 2011 - 5:30 pm
ARRA had no tax cuts. Those were one time rebates.
John B Taylor
Professor of Economics at Stanford University
So it was not the size that sucked. It was the design. One time payments and cash to shore up state balance sheets do not a stimulus make.
#36 by Martel on August 2, 2011 - 5:31 pm
Richard, the deficits of the last 3 years are greater than 3 trillion dollars. This is what I refer to when I state that there is an unreality among some in this country, usually those who have benefited from the Federal dole for jobs, transfer payments, corporate welfare, or something or another.
Many people who see what they get for the debt they are collateral for would welcome the mass canning of all manner of government workers. No problem there.
There is something wrong with borrowing money, Rich, it is called never paying it back, or simply paying away a people’s substance in the form of compound interest, a sin by any measure, and as stupid as a plan gets. When bankers like it, you can be sure it is a bad deal.
The scope of our debt load makes any “low interest” irrelevant, if you can hardly pay the interest pray tell with what are you going to pay off the principle?
What was built during the depression never did bring America out of depression, and for what was built there has been return. Nothing I am seeing coming out of this fiasco has even a hint of those kinds of public works projects, the money rather disappearing as waste, or god knows where…as there is no one responsible and no one to account for where the money went.
It is going to end now, for there is no continuing it and surviving. I would advise you to if you do live like our Federal government, to put some money up for a rainy day, because the pain has only just begun.
…”just another hit” and I’ll be ok, “just one more time” and I’ll quit…this is the attitude you seemingly bring to the debt table Richard. It is the attitude of a junkie, the only way to keep living is get another fiks.
You teach your kids this method of getting by?
#37 by Richard Warnick on August 2, 2011 - 6:41 pm
What counts is the cost of servicing the debt relative to GDP. Look it up. Or better yet, take a course in Economics.
Tea Party kitchen-table budgeting is not the right way to go. We’re headed for another Republican Recession, or that’s what the stock market seems to think. And guess what, another recession will make many more years of federal deficits inevitable!
#38 by Donna Crane on August 2, 2011 - 7:31 pm
I am sick and heartbroken. The kum bye yah of the Obama election turned into bend over and let the Republican Tea Party stick it to you. They have taken our homes and jobs and destroyed our children’s education and locked millions up in for-profit prisons while disenfranchising everyone not vetted to be likely to vote their way. Obama and the Democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and the American people will be homeless and starve for their failure to fight for us.
#39 by Martel on August 3, 2011 - 7:34 am
Better reserve a spot at the homeless shelter Donna.
Why blame the Tea Party? Democrats only had control of all branches of our representative government and sank their own ship in the faith they invested in the clown. Might be something to blame those directly responsible, the democrat leadership.
As for our kids they test in 30th place in international competency testing and that is your fault, and the fault of bi-partisan culture of teaching nothing worth spit in American schools. Though you really cannot hope kids will be good students when their parents are so dumb that they put their faith in an unknown like Obama, and a hapless democrat party.
I am pretty sure that the morons that created the fantasy subject of economics can come up with any method of justifying a 14.3 trillion dollars debt that we are now going to increase.
Suffice it to say we have tried to spend our way out of recession, and it has NEVER worked. So the other option is to cut government spending and force it to balance its budget, like any other entity, business or family.
You are living in economic theory Richard. What is coming to us now is a simple accounting, and that rules over any theory. No matter your platitudes about GDP, debt is debt, and if you are not paying it off, and increasing the principle everyday, you are going to wind up bankrupt.
Nobody wants to be in debt, for at any time if your economics change, your prospects go with that change.
Address the fact that US borrowing is parasitical on the global economy, and at risk of destroying it. Address the fact that in foreign countries the irresponsible borrowing of the US and the effects it has on them is a primary source of hatred of this country and its government. People, including we the people, are sick of it, and no matter the pretended mechanics of debt, the practice of how the government creates money in the form of debt is fundamentally unethical and immoral.
All other considerations at this late date are secondary.
#40 by Richard Warnick on August 3, 2011 - 8:51 am
Glenn–
We spent our way out of the Great Depression, and every recession since — until this one. Now all of a sudden it’s the Age of Austerity (except for the Pentagon budget, which has doubled since the 9/11 attacks). The ARRA was too small and too short-lived to spark a recovery.
By the end of November, the unaccountable SuperCongress will produce a plan to cut Social Security and Medicare. Unemployment insurance cuts off at the end of the year. Tax increases on the middle class starting in January, but rich people and corporations keep their taxes at a 50-year low.
#41 by brewski on August 3, 2011 - 10:15 am
Richard,
Your posts are getting more birther by the moment.
#42 by brewski on August 3, 2011 - 11:24 am
Henry Morgenthau Jr. 1939
#43 by Richard Warnick on August 3, 2011 - 11:30 am
You missed the quote right after that one:
It’s true. Inadequate government spending in a down economy won’t be enough, and deficit hysteria often leads politicians to make the mistake of cutting back before the recovery is fully underway, as happened in the 1930s. But there is no question that federal government expenditures brought America back from the Great Depression. It took World War II to overcome the deficit hysteria of people like Morgenthau.
#44 by cav on August 3, 2011 - 12:18 pm
Infrastructural upgrades as seen by the two parties:
Democrats…High speed rail, solartopia, jobs for everyone, evening out the wealth divide.
Republicans…return to feudalism, shred the landscape in search of more gas, oil, and uranium; more roads, bigger cars.
#45 by Larry Bergan on August 3, 2011 - 2:13 pm
cav continues to placate us – I guess.
#46 by cav on August 3, 2011 - 2:19 pm
It’s absurd isn’t it?
#47 by Donna Crane on August 3, 2011 - 2:26 pm
I will not be in a homeless shelter, Martel, as I own my home outright. Which should tell you that I have been around long enough to have seen a few things and learned a few things. I learned from my Depression era/WWII era father that WPA saved his family farm in Oregon, that VA home loans and VA education spending by the Federal Govt, post WWII got him started moving into the middle class. Jobs are created by people who have money to buy things, which creates jobs with salaries, which creates more jobs. All the “so called” entitlement programs and welfare programs and food stamps and unemployment pay put $1.60+ back into the economy for each dollar given. Taking these things away is just a guarantee that more people will slide further down the economic ladder into poverty. It’s unacceptable to me. I won’t starve or be homeless but I care that others are starving and homeless. From my father: “when you crawl out of the hole, reach back and pull others up with you”.
#48 by Larry Bergan on August 3, 2011 - 4:35 pm
I love what’s happening on this blog!
An honest conversation can never be condemned!
#49 by cav on August 3, 2011 - 4:39 pm
President Obama nominated a very odd candidate to be the next U.S. Attorney in Utah, the chief legal advisor to the Senate’s most radical tenther, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT):
President Barack Obama tapped Sen. Mike Lee’s legal counsel to be the next U.S. attorney for Utah, a move that infuriated Democrats from the state and ended a lengthy political drama over who would claim the high-profile position.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/03/286554/wtf-obama-lee/
#50 by cav on August 3, 2011 - 5:01 pm
“He’s brings a knife, you bring a butter knife.”
“He puts one of your in this hospital, you put one of his in your cabinet.”
That’s Obama’s “Chicago way”.
#51 by Larry Bergan on August 3, 2011 - 5:23 pm
Give hail to child labor!
#52 by brewski on August 3, 2011 - 6:56 pm
Yes there is. It didn’t work.
As for higher taxes, he said more taxes in the context that Federal revenue as a percent of GDP in 1939 was 7.7%. So higher than 7.7% is what he said. I doubt he would agree with higher than 24% as you suggest.
#53 by Richard Warnick on August 4, 2011 - 12:00 am
Bruce Bartlett: How Deficit Hawks Could Derail The Recovery
This is the problem. We have a very large jobs deficit. That must be remedied before doing anything about federal budget deficits, unless we want GDP to go negative again. Last quarter’s GDP growth was 1.3 percent. The debt deal that President Obama signed into law (all by himself, with nobody else attending the signing) is predicted to result in -1.5 percent, leaving us with -0.2 percent.
#54 by Martel on August 7, 2011 - 7:56 am
What recovery? The train is still lying in the ditch where it derailed in the first place.
#55 by Martel on August 7, 2011 - 8:03 am
Full employment? Where TF do there people get their ideas? Even at full employment Americans can’t pay their mortgage, buy gas, vehicles, food, and the all the rest of it that would indicate a return to healthy economy. The unreality of people making their economic suggestions is laughable.
Well, like I was always told back at the University, economics is not a “science”, and attracts those who couldn’t hack it in the hard sciences.
Spending yourself out of depression has always involved using other people’s money, and we were able to do that through coercion. No more do we have that power. The process is also an immoral and unethical one, forcing those who did not create the problem to pay for the mistakes of those who did. What you are seeing is fundamental shift in the ethics of economy, as you seem to be invested in the bailout style economy, of course all of what is happening and what is to come won’t make any sense.
Let me make as simple as one can for you.
You are cut off.
#56 by Martel on August 7, 2011 - 8:10 am
“All the “so called” entitlement programs and welfare programs and food stamps and unemployment pay put $1.60+ back into the economy for each dollar given”.
Donna, this is patently absurd, and an open lie. This money lies afoul in the form of debt for which we the people must pay the interest for which we get nothing, If such as you believe were true, we could spend our merry way into the future, but sadly what you claim cannot be true, because all that spending has left us 14.3 trillion dollars in the hole, and now another several trillion that will soon be spent up.
One thing about the hole, you can only climb out of it if there is something to go to, and have arms to haul anyone else out. We aren’t in a hole, were in an ocean basin…drowning.
#57 by Martel on August 7, 2011 - 8:35 am
What’s more to contemplate on a Sunday morning before church or bong hits..The sentiments of a Morganthou are as phony as it gets for one truly committed. There is absolutely nothing stopping a progressively minded rich person from donating to the government their riches to actually subsidize the philosophy they claim to believe in. Few if any ever do.
Why is that? In my mind it is because they won’t do it unless it is forced onto everyone in their class. These are not people of vision and leadership, no..they have no more faith in governance than anyone else does. In fact perhaps less as they mouth what they claim to believe while not implementing it in a rare display of total hypocrisy. Their public statements for political showmanship and nothing more.
More power to those who own their money and claim in honesty that it is theirs, and they need not give it to anyone. At least you can dislike them for their honesty.
As for Solartopia, the same would apply for anyone who believes in it. Save money, invest, have it at home. Don’t make your utopia someone else’s revenue drain. It is all there for you to do on your own, no one will stop you.
I suspect the minority you progressives now claim is now running the country are in power wholly because YOU are always waiting for someone else to do for you, what you will not do for yourself. So of course those with motivation and political ambition have cooned ya, minority or not, and now you’re up the tree waiting some more to be saved before the hunter shoots you.
The moral of the story for racoons, and people, it’s best to stay in your wild and make out on your own, than dabble in the garbage can (government) and live off the leavings of creatures you cannot rely on, and really are not your friends.