Take Decisive
Action on Debt Ceiling! Just Do it, Barack!
"With
the advent of the Tea Party in the House of Representatives, the Republicans
are taking the route of imposing a total blockade. Their goals are clearly
defined: Show strength and take Obama down. … Politically, President Obama
would be well-advised to put an end to this humiliating game and to present Congress
with a 'fait accompli.'"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Early Sunday evening, Reid confirmed that he had signed off on a debt ceiling deal. If his and the Republican caucus' approve, the crisis could be over by Monday afternoon.
Far from home, even the
usually proud secretary of state resorted to apologizing for situation in her
country: Before the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, Hillary Clinton
explained that partisan debate was a fact of political life in Washington. Sometimes
this debate was “messy,” but in the end democratic society would come to a
solution.
In the bitter debate on
raising the debt ceiling, this solution is slow in coming. Sooner or later the
ladies and gentlemen in Washington will probably be forced to adopt some kind
of compromise to keep their country from going to the dogs. But is it really a
solution?
Since the Congressional
elections last November, the U.S. hasn't been governed but managed. The country
continues to suffer from the after-effects of the recession, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and from mismanagement by the previous Bush government. And
now, on top of everything, the election campaign is beginning. With the advent of
the Tea Party in the House of Representatives, the Republicans are taking the
route of imposing a total blockade. Their goals are clearly defined: Show
strength and take Obama down.
Whether their political
demands for budget cuts, lower taxes, and less government are justified in this
case is a matter for discussion. But what’s really unbearable is how this
radical fringe group is making a fool of a properly elected president.
The embarrassing fuss that is
currently playing out in Washington is called “checks and balances” in the
United States. The idea behind it can be found in every democracy and is
basically valid: The head of government should not have the all-powerful
authority to do as he pleases.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
In fact, after a new
president or chancellor is elected, Americans and Germans alike tend to
strengthen the opposition in Congress or the Bundestag. The hope is that this
will create balance and stability - but if the two camps become radicalized,
there is risk of an impasse.
Part 2: Oskar LaFontaine did it in Germany
Oskar LaFontaine
demonstrated how it works when he virtually paralyzed the federal government of
Helmut Kohl with a total blockade of the Bundestag. In substance, LaFontaine’s
opposition may have been justified, but Kohl was the properly elected head of state.
Neither Germany nor the U.S. can afford to allow the government to be paralyzed
by the opposition.
In America, the Congressional
blockade is taking on absurd characteristics, with even many Republicans feeling
that playing with fire has gone decidedly too far. If it were up to John
Boehner, the Republican leader in Congress, the opposition would long since
have agreed to a compromise with Obama. The proposal presented by the “Gang of
Six,” three respected representatives from each party, would have been the
ideal basis for an agreement.
But the Tea Party doesn’t
want an agreement, and certainly not compromise. And Boehner lacks either the
courage or the power to finally ignore these contrarians in his ranks.
For the Tea Party, a national
bankruptcy of the United States - the global economic consequences of which
cannot yet be predicted - would be a political victory: The government 10,000 civil
servants and limit itself to the bare minimum. Wonderful! That’s exactly what
these radical populists have been demanding for years.
The Republican Party, deeply
divided since the Tea Party’s election success, is now caught in a dilemma. On
the one hand, it must address these internal power struggles in order to define
the party’s future direction. But at the same time, it must project an outward
impression of unity toward Obama. In the end, the fact that these
representatives were actually elected to serve the best interests of the
country has become a minor matter.
Part 3:Falling
back on a state of emergency
Politically, President Obama
would be well-advised to put an end to this humiliating game and to present Congress
with a “fait accompli.” He should long since have done - as advised by Bill
Clinton - what he feels is necessary, namely, raise the debt ceiling himself, circumventing
Congress and setting an example. He could invoke a provision in the Constitution
that grants the President such powers during an emergency.
[Editor's Note: The author refers to the 14th Amendment to
the Constitution which reads: "The validity of the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall
not be questioned."]
Whether it is legal to take such
action alone is questionable and would one day have to be decided in court. Now,
however, it would be a demonstration of strength from Obama: I won’t be made a
fool of and I won’t let my country go to the dogs! I’ve tried to get the job
done using an amicable approach, I’ve made compromises, and I’ve been patient. Enough
is enough!
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
With such a step, the president
would win a lot of sympathy among the population and in economic circles. Americans
like people who take action - and they’re more than fed up with the blockade in
Washington. Whether the reforms Obama wants to implement to restore the
country’s vigor are the right reforms is up for debate. One thing is certain: In
November 2008, Obama was elected to implement these reforms. Shouldn’t he at
least have a chance to do so?
