I wasn't thrilled with the performance of House Republicans in the debt ceiling negotiations. Their position seemed to be, "All cuts, no revenues, or we default."
It's one thing to set that as your starting point and move off of it to get an agreement. It's another thing to say, "That's not a negotiating tactic. Do it our way, or we default. Seriously."
I'm just glad President Obama didn't say, "Okay, then I guess we default."
Even so, in the wake of the agreement I've begun to rethink my position. This is not a result of the House GOP having succeeded; I don't think the ends justify the means in this case. Instead, I'm responding to the left's descriptions of the cuts as "brutal," "drastic," "draconian," and so on.
Keep in mind, we're talking about cutting less than 5% of the federal budget over 10 years. This is barely the beginning of the beginning in terms of what will be required if we are ever to achieve actual budgetary balance.
If the Democrats' view is that a 5% cut is "brutal," etc., then I wouldn't expect them to go along willingly with the much bigger cuts that need to happen in future years. And if that's the case, then it's likely that extremism, terrorism, hostage-taking, a game of chicken--whatever you want to call it--will be required to put our books in order.
Comments