Was the downgrade a rejection of ObamaCare?

posted at 10:30 am on August 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

“So make no mistake: Health care reform is entitlement reform.” — Barack Obama, April 14, 2009

“Health care reform is entitlement reform.” — Peter Orszag, OMB Director, February 23, 2009

Whenever Republicans insisted on debating entitlement reform and the looming unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Medicaid, which by some calculations amount to more than $100 trillion over the next few decades, President Obama had one handy answer: we’ve already accomplished it.  ObamaCare, he and his administration insisted, was the entitlement reform that we needed to address the crises in Medicare and Medicaid.  Obama claimed that going into the months-long battle that eventually produced the PPACA, commonly known as ObamaCare even when first introduced shortly after his remarks.  The quote above comes from an April 2009 speech, and the larger context of the quote shows that Obama sold his plan as a complete solution:

Along with defense and interest on the national debt, the biggest cost drivers in our budget are entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, all of which get more and more expensive every year.  So if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline — and I do — then we’re going to not only have to trim waste out of our discretionary budget — which we’ve already begun — we will also have to get serious about entitlement reform. Now, nothing will be more important to this goal then passing health care reform that brings down costs across the system, including in Medicare and Medicaid.

So make no mistake: Health care reform is entitlement reform.  That’s not just my opinion. That was the conclusion of a wide range of participants at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit that we held at the White House in February. And that’s one of the reasons why I firmly believe we need to get health care reform done this year.  Now, once we tackle rising health care costs, we must also work to put Social Security on firmer footing. It’s time for both parties to come together and find a way to keep the promise of a sound retirement for future generations.

The same is true for Orszag’s remarks two months earlier, in which we get the familiar refrain of “bending the cost curve downward” as a prelude to ObamaCare:

So, to my fellow budget hawks in this room and in the rest of the country, let me be very clear. Health care reform is entitlement reform. The path to fiscal responsibility must run directly through health care.

We also must recognize that reforms to Medicare and Medicaid will only succeed in the context of slowing the overall growth rate of health care costs.

Improving the efficiency of the health system so that we get better results for less money is therefore not just or even primarily a budget issue. It would also provide direct help to struggling families, since health care costs are reducing worker’s take-home pay to a degree that is both underappreciated and unnecessarily large.

And for many states, health care is increasingly crowding out other priorities like higher education, which, in turn, is leading to higher tuition and painful cutbacks at state universities.

All of this is why the president had said, time and again, that he is committed to reforming the health system this year. And with his leadership and the hard work of everyone in this room, we can reform health care, start to bend the curve on long-term costs, and get our economy back on a path of long-term fiscal sustainability.

Had ObamaCare done what the President and his former OMB Director claimed, then why would S&P downgrade the US over its debt and future liabilities?  Perhaps because, as Philip Klein writes at the Washington Examiner, investors weren’t impressed by supposed entitlement reform that consists of adding to those liabilities:

Defenders of Obama will attempt to pin the blame on his predecessor, President Bush, and on intransigent Tea Party radicals in the current Congress. But that would leave out the part in between. For his first two years in office, Obama’s party controlled both chambers of Congress – for part of that period, he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. During that time period, he and his fellow Democrats could have passed his supposedly ideal, long-term, deficit-reduction package — one that represented a “balanced approach” between spending cuts and tax increases. It also could have delayed the deficit reduction for several years, so it wouldn’t have affected the current weak economy or the “investments” he considers crucial. Forget about actually accomplishing serious deficit reduction — he didn’t even attempt it.

When Obama came into office, he argued that we needed deficit spending to boost the economy, so he passed a $800 billion stimulus package. Then, in one of his first supposed pivots to the deficit, he convened a ‘fiscal responsibility summit’ in February 2009. But that actually turned out to be part of a different pivot altogether. It was during that summit that then White House Budget Director Peter Orszag declared, “health care reform is entitlement reform.”

And so, for the next 13 months, Obama spent all of his energies trying to get health care legislation across the finish line. The end product was a plan that, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, did not bend the health care cost curve down.  Let’s even set aside the argument over the accounting gimmicks that were employed to obtain a CBO score that showed modest deficit reduction. The reality is this: the law used money raised through tax hikes and Medicare cuts that otherwise would have been available for deficit reduction, to instead expand Medicaid by 18 million beneficiaries and create a massive new health care entitlement.

There are clearly other problems to which S&P reacted; Klein mentions the fact that Obama didn’t bother to present the plans of his own deficit commission, for one, or offer any specific plan even after it became clear this year that accelerated deficit spending would not pass Congress.  But it’s an inescapable conclusion that S&P doesn’t consider ObamaCare an effective reform of the largest of the entitlement crises we face.  They have been looking for the US to reform its debt structure — and after ObamaCare, they’re still looking.

In other words, health care reform wasn’t entitlement reform — it was entitlement growth at the precise time we needed entitlement shrinkage.  We need to jettison this new entitlement structure and work on reforming the rest of it in order to eliminate that $100 trillion locomotive bearing down on the US economy, and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

Update: The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though.  Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

We need to jettison this new entitlement structure and work on reforming the rest of it in order to eliminate that $100 trillion locomotive bearing down on the US economy, and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

No no no.

We need to wait until we control the Presidency, the House and 60 seats in the Senate. Then we have to wait and win 2 or 3 election cycles while keeping those positions just to make sure we really have a mandate. Then we need to make sure some Democrats are on board as well, to give bipartisan cover.

Then we can nibble around the edges…

/Boner et. al.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM

yeah, buts it a host of things.

rob verdi on August 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Rachel Maddow on MTP, first sentence out of her mouth: “Boooooshhhh!!!!”

Marcus on August 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Obmacare has been the silent shadow following those many GOP candidates. How many have dared to use dumping it as their signature agenda? None! The GOP is as complicit as the left in this “control all things” game.

Don L on August 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM

While I appreciate the grown-up thinking that went into this sober and apt analysis, I have to say it’s much easier to blame it on those redneck racist Tea baggers.

John the Libertarian on August 7, 2011 at 10:36 AM

I suspect S&P would have downgraded the economy when OsamaObamaScare passed through Congress if that had been a prime contributing factor.

Most likely it was the “it’s the best we can do” mess that has given the Traitor-in-Chief another $2.4 trillion in his stash and cuts nothing from a monstrously inflated government.

But hey, all the “pundits” said this was not the hill to die on. It’s only the hill for the United States to die on.

MrScribbler on August 7, 2011 at 10:36 AM

You can call me a cynic. I believe that Obama and his friends have manufactured the S&P downgrade. Why do I believe this?

1. Obama, the Dems, and the media have been trying to demonize the Tea Party since 2009.
2. Obama, the Dems, and the media have been calling for “shared sacrifice”.
3. Obama, the Dems, and the media keep using “millionaires, billionaires, and corporate airplanes”.
4. Obama, the Dems, and the media keep using “a balanced approach” to reduce debt.
5. Obama, the Dems, and the media keep talking about “increased revenues”.
6. Obama, the Dems, and the media are calling the TP members terrorists.
7. Obama, the Dems, and the media are calling the TP members “hostage takers”.
8. Obama, the Dems, and the media are saying the S&P statement calls for “increased revenues”.

I think there are two purposes for the downgrade. One is to drive a nail into the coffin of these terrible TPers who are trying to take down the smartest, best looking, most articulate President ever, while destroying the economy by not giving in to people who are smarter, and the other is to get support for taxing all the rich people who are trying to starve all the old people and innocent babies.

NoNails on August 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

While I appreciate the grown-up thinking that went into this sober and apt analysis, I have to say it’s much easier to blame it on those redneck racist Tea baggers.

John the Libertarian on August 7, 2011 at 10:36 AM

LOL!

Ed Morrissey on August 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Look at the fleas jumping out of that doctor’s pony tail.

petefrt on August 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

So if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline — and I do

Says the guy who has run up more debt faster than any human being in all of history. Ever.

trubble on August 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

In other words, health care reform wasn’t entitlement reform — it was entitlement growth at the precise time we needed entitlement shrinkage.

Also, the “health care reform” imposed higher costs to business, which has led to stagnation in job growth.

ObaMao refused to allow O-care, high-speed rail, or “green-technologies” expansion be part of the debt-ceiling negotiations. His blind ideology and stubbornness created much of the anticipated debt in the debt-ceiling “crisis.”

onlineanalyst on August 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM

It’s a rejection of America’s direction due to all the current economic policies.

TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2011 at 10:45 AM

In other words, health care reform wasn’t entitlement reform — it was entitlement growth…

Vintage Øbama: Say one thing, do the opposite.

petefrt on August 7, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Was the downgrade a rejection of ObamaCare?

Does a bear…. never mind.

katy the mean old lady on August 7, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Fat chance Obama, and his commie comrades will take a second look at Obutthead care. They consider this their greatest piece of legislation, and will never admit f’ing it up, f’ing up their country, and putting the screws to the American people, while they continue to enjoy primo health care.

capejasmine on August 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Why in the world would a credit rating agency downgrade anyone who opened a new charge card with a high limit to pay the minimum on their other credit cards and continue their spending spree? I just don’t get it.

TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Commerce Clause?

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2011 at 10:50 AM

I never could understand how anyone could argue with a straight face that nationalized healthcare was going to save money.

Blake on August 7, 2011 at 10:51 AM

They consider this their greatest piece of legislation, and will never admit f’ing it up, f’ing up their country, and putting the screws to the American people, while they continue to enjoy primo health care.

capejasmine on August 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Since there first act was to exempt themselves from obammycare, why don’t people find that, oh, I dunno, suspicious???

Blake on August 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM

there = their

Blake on August 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM

I finished eating my peas…now what?

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Obama Care is entitlement growth.
Obama Care is not entitlement reform, it was designed to reform American in Obama’s Marxist image.

When Social Security was introduced the average life span was 64.5 years and the SS retirement age was 65. You got to retire, on average, six months after you were dead.

We need to increase the retirement age by six months each year until the SS retirement age is 3 years less than the average life span and adjust the SS retirement age each year to maintain that relationship. Same for Medicare.

By phasing it in nobody gets hurt and everyone has time to adjust.

I would actually favor increasing the SS Retirement age and Medicare age by 3 month each year until we reach a SS retirement age of 140 years, then use all the funds for Social Security and Medicare to pay off the debt.

The Rock on August 7, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I have never believed that Obamacare would be repealed. Entitlements just don’t get repealed, they only grow and crowd out all other issues at election time. That’s why the dems were only too happy to pass this deeply unpopular legislation along party lines. But times are different, and I am beginning to believe that it might be repealed, or at least that its most onerous sections might be. For that, I guess, I have to be thankful for Obama’s incompetence.

Rational Thought on August 7, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Thanks for this piece. This episode was one of the great intellectual swindles in history — selling an expansion of federal health entitlements as fiscal consolidation. It’s appalling that so many who knew better were willingly complicit in it, and pathetic that the press bought it.

Really frustrating is, plenty of people called folks out on this at the time, but the press blew them off (see a Concord Coalition piece a few years ago entitled, “Honey, I Shrunk the Demographics!” — correctly called the Bait & Switch that was occurring.)

Chuckles3 on August 7, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I finished eating my peas…now what?

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Take two aspirin and go to bed. Everything will be fine in the morning./

derft on August 7, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Update: The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

For all of those harping on Boehner and company for passing the bill that they did, this is a good heads up.

You can’t take the hill all at once. Moving up the hill, one step at a time, is still moving up the hill. Passing the bill and putting it in the lap of the Senate and the President was the right thing to do.

Now, let’s see Boehner ratchet it up from here – and let’s push him to do so.

beatcanvas on August 7, 2011 at 10:57 AM

I finished eating my peas…now what?

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Don’t fart?

OldEnglish on August 7, 2011 at 11:00 AM

The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

Oh, yeah, because a 44% immediate cut in government spending is exactly what debt ridden nations should avoid.

lulz

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 7, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Take two aspirin and go to bed. Everything will be fine in the morning./

derft on August 7, 2011 at 10:56 AM

I can’t take the chance on popping pills.
I am currently shopping for individual Health Insurance since my recent layoff and these companies now ask you for everything you have taken for the last 10 years and why.
Thanks President Obama…you have given me a migraine and now I have to report it.

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Did you finish your broccoli yet?

chemman on August 7, 2011 at 11:05 AM

You can call me a cynic. I believe that Obama and his friends have manufactured the S&P downgrade. Why do I believe this?
NoNails on August 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

I’m right at your side Nails.

darwin-t on August 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Update: The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

Ah yes, but let’s replace your passive sentence, “the blame would have fallen …” with an active sentence. Who would have blamed the tea party?

“… and then the MSM would have blamed the Tea Party.”
“… and then the President would have blamed the Tea Party.”
“… and then the Democrats would have blamed the Tea Party.”
etc.

I hate to tell you this, but, you know, those guys are blaming the Tea Party anyway.

PackerBronco on August 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Obamacare was never about healthcare, it was just a vehicle to enlarge the government by trying to trick some people that they were getting free stuff.

If the current EPA attack on the power industry doesn’t work fast enough for the Progressives expect that industry to be taken over next.

batterup on August 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Did you finish your broccoli yet?

chemman on August 7, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Nope. Just following the advise below.

Don’t fart?

OldEnglish on August 7, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Take two the whole bottle of aspirin and go to bed. Everything will be fine in the morning./

derft on August 7, 2011 at 10:56 AM

FIFY

PackerBronco on August 7, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 11:07 AM

That’s good advice you wouldn’t want the EPA to fine you for not properly regulating your greenhouse gas production.

chemman on August 7, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Obmacare has been the silent shadow following those many GOP candidates. How many have dared to use dumping it as their signature agenda? None! The GOP is as complicit as the left in this “control all things” game.

Don L on August 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Not so…. Bachmann did.

tinkerthinker on August 7, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Wow, watching some young Democrat on Fox in full anti-Tea Party mode. This is going to be fun.

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM

The downgrade was the fault of the Tea Party and is now called the Tea Party downgrade.

John Kerry just told me so on the boob tube.

Knucklehead on August 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM

“We find it curious that all of your plans to save money actually cost more money”

“Do we look like Mrs. Obama?”

PackerBronco on August 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Ed Morrissey on August 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

It just seems to me that while S&P was careful to lay blame on both lack of revenue and entitlement spending, raising taxes can’t possibly touch our rate of liabilities and is just another instance of kicking the can down the road.

John the Libertarian on August 7, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Wow, watching some young Democrat on Fox in full anti-Tea Party mode. This is going to be fun.

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I didn’t see the segment, but I don’t believe this liberal effort will work. The economic math is squarely on the side of the Tea Partiers.

BuckeyeSam on August 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Wow, watching some young Democrat on Fox in full anti-Tea Party mode. This is going to be fun.

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM

What these politians have failed to grasp is that the TP is just American citizens and the people who elect them. In other words their bosses. They are trying to convince us that we are too stupid to understand the complexity of budgeting in DC. But DC is no different than our own households. When we don’t have the money we can’t spend it. I am really interested in how this washes out.

darwin-t on August 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Update: The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

Everything is obviously true except the last part. Anyway, with lefties continually calling for a War on Terror against TP people, it’s hard to really appreciate how somehow the TP is off the hook.

MeatHeadinCA on August 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM

BuckeyeSam on August 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM

I hate to be a skeptic, it’s not my nature, but logic, math and D.C. don’t mesh.

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM

The downgrade was the fault of the Tea Party and is now called the Tea Party downgrade.

John Kerry just told me so on the boob tube.

Knucklehead on August 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Yep, and Ed bought right into it.

MeatHeadinCA on August 7, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Update: The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

I’m afraid it already has fallen on the TP and of course the Republicans…

sandee on August 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Obmacare has been the silent shadow following those many GOP candidates. How many have dared to use dumping it as their signature agenda? None! The GOP is as complicit as the left in this “control all things” game.

Don L on August 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Not so…. Bachmann did.

tinkerthinker on August 7, 2011 at 11:10 AM

True. Michele Bachmann is coming out of this whole crap sandwich smelling pretty good.

MeatHeadinCA on August 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM

darwin-t on August 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM

If these people spent a tenth of the time working on real problems as they do vilifying ideological opposition we might actually make some headway. I have zero confidence in that happening.

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM

I like this from the headlines and hope it is true.

2008: Words win.

2012: Math wins.

beatcanvas on August 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I’d like a tshirt.

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM

I hate to tell you this, but, you know, those guys are blaming the Tea Party anyway.

PackerBronco on August 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Yup and if right-leaning pundits don’t wake up and realize this is the game (esp. coming into the next election) then maybe they should look for new jobs.

MeatHeadinCA on August 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM

it’s hard to really appreciate how somehow the TP is off the hook.

MeatHeadinCA on August 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Okay, then. Let’s raise taxes. It may kill the economy, it may not. But it’s a drop in the bucket compared to entitlement spending. Or what did Robin Williams say talking about cocaine addiction? Throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon.

John the Libertarian on August 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM

politions are just like politicians only shorter and they can’t spell

darwin-t on August 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM

We need to wait until we control the Presidency, the House and 60 seats in the Senate. Then we have to wait and win 2 or 3 election cycles while keeping those positions just to make sure we really have a mandate. Then we need to make sure some Democrats are on board as well, to give bipartisan cover.

Then we can nibble around the edges…

/Boner et. al.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Sigh!

Update: The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM

John the Libertarian on August 7, 2011 at 11:17 AM

I actually think it’s less kicking the can and more scoring a political point with their base. Tax increases do so little toward repairing the fiscal crisis that it would be more politically expedient to not keep referring to a large source of their campaign money as evil.

Instead, they’re willing to do that in order to try and energize a base that stills sees two wars in progress with a third just begun, GITMO still open, unions falling harder and farther than during the Bush years, no cap-n-trade, no card check, a (in their view) watered-down health care law, and an economy that doesn’t discriminate between republican and democrat unemployed.

Raising taxes on the “rich” seems to be the only thing they have left up their sleeve and they couldn’t even pull that off.

Pure politics from a new kind of president.

BKeyser on August 7, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Yep, and Ed bought right into it.

MeatHeadinCA on August 7, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Yep and unfortunately everyone else has fallen for it. When I told my Libtard neighbor about the market crash on Thursday, the first words out of his mouth was “Those G-D Tea Baggers, they caused this”.

Knucklehead on August 7, 2011 at 11:32 AM

The DOTUS has been working for 2 1/2 years on industry after industry….

……and now he’s working on our credit rating!!

Barack Hussein Obama…..Destroyer of the United States (intentional or by accident, it doesn’t matter).

The results are the same.

PappyD61 on August 7, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Was the downgrade a rejection of ObamaCare?

There fixed the headline for you. It’s a rejection of everything Obama. The man and his plan is a total failure. Oh wait there is no plan.

meci on August 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Was the downgrade a rejection of ObamaCare?

YES!!!

Even if the government enslaves all the doctors, there is not enough money in the world to fund this disastrous attack on the best healthcare system in the world. And Obamacare guarantees that the healthcare outcomes will be seriously degraded because of the death panels, attacks on health device developers and manufacturers, attacks on medicine providers and manufacturers, etc., etc. provided in this totally misguided piece of legislative excrement!!!

landlines on August 7, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Please check out Legal Insurrection’s #BeforeBlackPresidents tweet game and play along, if you are so inclined. In a nutshell, the elite media types created this hashtag to promote their vile meme that tea party peeps were racist for blaming the President for the financial crisis we are in. I don’t think it went quite as they envisioned. Check out the entries for the hashtag now. Click here for an entry I liked.

Mutnodjmet on August 7, 2011 at 11:38 AM

I hate to tell you this, but, you know, those guys are blaming the Tea Party anyway.

PackerBronco on August 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Yeah but more and more people do not believe them. They saw who was putting plans forward and who wasn’t. They realize that it takes two to compromise.

Did you watch Fox news Sunday? The S&P guy said it was because of entitlements when he asked if the dowgrade came because of failure to compromise with tax increases and spending cuts. The outlook is negative, he said , because of entitlement spending.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Was the downgrade a rejection of ObamaCare?

There fixed the headline for you. It’s a rejection of everything Obama. The man and his plan is a total failure. Oh wait there is no plan.

meci on August 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Oh, I disagree. His plan is working as planned, if not a bit slower than he wants.

SouthernGent on August 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

Ed: I completely disagree with this!!!

1. Since the Tea Party represents the true majority, I see no evidence that they would have shouldered any more of the blame than the MSM tried to pawn off on it anyway.

2. Since the Tea Party is NOT a political entity concerned with “putting America first”, IT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BLAME!!! The cowardly political parties, which are focused on “winning elections first” and fund raising are the ones which can be herded from cliff to cliff like Lemmings every time someone shouts “CRISIS” or “BLAME”!!!

landlines on August 7, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I’m seeing anecdotal evidence against the liberals.

I am working part-time in retail and come in contact with hundreds of people a week. I live in Carnahan’s district which is very union and includes part of St Louis.

Overwhelmingly people are pissed off at Obama and the democrats. Even the people with food stamp cards and on the WIC program are complaining that they won’t do better as long as Obama’s in office.

I have asked some about McCaskill and most say, “who?” so they aren’t the most politically focused people.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 11:48 AM

The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

(corrected version)

Ed: I completely disagree with this!!!

1. Since the Tea Party represents the true majority, I see no evidence that they would have shouldered any more of the blame than the MSM tried to pawn off on it anyway.

2. Since the Tea Party is NOT a political entity, but rather an ad hoc group concerned only with “putting America first”, IT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BLAME!!! The cowardly political parties, which are focused on “winning elections first” and fund raising are the ones which can be herded from cliff to cliff like Lemmings every time someone shouts “CRISIS” or “BLAME”!!!

landlines on August 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Come on. ObamaCare was signed on March 23, 2010. The 2011 budget, which contained no major deviations from previous budgets, was enacted on April 15, 2011. The debt ceiling was raised on August 2. The downgrade came on August 5. Is there really a serious argument that ObamaCare is a major factor here?

As Allah said in a post earlier, is there any chance that S&P would have downgraded had the debt ceiling been raised without incident in December (or any time before these past couple weeks)? Yes, clearly entitlements is one of the big factors, and ObamaCare may add to that problem, despite what its proponents say. But this was obviously a direct response to the debt ceiling negotiations, and what S&P perceived as the possibility of it not being raised.

Now, I think S&P’s decision was silly for this reason. Their recent track record isn’t great, and downgrading in response to the debt ceiling debate completely misses the point. But I don’t see how you can argue that the downgrade wasn’t almost entirely due to the debt ceiling debate.

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM

1. Since the Tea Party represents the true majority,
landlines on August 7, 2011 at 11:47 AM

How do you mean?

The TEA Party represents an idea that the majority of people are starting to grasp. If that’s what you mean, I agree. However, the majority of people are still trying to decide what this all means and you have to show that this movement is important. That the idea of limited government is good for everyone.

The way to do that is incrementally and by that I mean by the 2012 election. Some think next week is too long to wait.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I assert that the LEGACY MEDIA BEARS MUCH OF THE BLAME FOR THE DOWNGRADE!

They were the ones focused on Palin’s Alaskan emails and Weiner’s wiener at a time were the public needed real information about the debt, deficit, true meaning of the debt ceiling raise — and the fact we would NOT default if the supposed deadline had passed. They ginned up the atmosphere of chaos to which S&P responded.

Mutnodjmet on August 7, 2011 at 12:01 PM

But I don’t see how you can argue that the downgrade wasn’t almost entirely due to the debt ceiling debate.

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Well, the guy from S&P said it wasn’t because of the debt ceiling debate. He said it was because the debt ceiling debate did not show that there would be improvements in the massive amount of debt the US carries and specifically singled out entitlements.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 12:02 PM

But this was obviously a direct response to the debt ceiling negotiations, and what S&P perceived as the possibility of it not being raised.

The rating was lowered after the debt ceiling was raised.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Update: The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

So….. S&P and Moody’s would downgrade us if we balance our budget? That doesn’t make sense to me.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM

2008: Words win.

2012: Math wins.

beatcanvas on August 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Yep. In 2012, reality (and the candidate dealing with it) will replace the “hope” and “dreams” guy.

AZCoyote on August 7, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Yes, it’s a hell of a mess…

But, I thought the downgrade was inevitable. IMO, there was NO WAY to get the $4T cuts that the bond rating agencies wanted to see with Reid and Obama having 2 of the 3 votes. Similarly, I didn’t want Obama/Reid priorizing what bills got paid should no debt ceiling increase get passed…

Meanwhile, the whole dialogue and issue for 2012 has been framed. S&P’s downgrade is just the “external confirmation” of this country going in the wrong direction…

Bottom line is that the Hobbits were right, now where’s Frodo… who’s courageous enough, and experienced enough to lead this country out of this mess. To take the tough steps to:

1. Dramatically cut expenditures, eliminating whole departments as necessary
2. Dramatically revise and restructure entitlement spending
3. Raise revenues by (a) freeing the business sector from government opression so it can create jobs, (b) restructuring the tax codes to close loopholes and increase the number of ACTUAL taxpayers

It’s time to spread the pain (i.e. cost of government) around…

OnlyOrange on August 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM

If forcing the federal government to balance it’s budget and live within it’s means had resulted in a downgrade anyway, then we would know for a fact that the downgrade was purely a partisan political ploy rather than a sound economic decision.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM

2008: Words win.

2012: Math wins.

beatcanvas on August 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM
Yep. In 2012, reality (and the candidate dealing with it) will replace the “hope” and “dreams” guy.

AZCoyote on August 7, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Excellent! You could make a great campaign around this!

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM

If forcing the federal government to balance it’s budget and live within it’s means had resulted in a downgrade anyway, then we would know for a fact that the downgrade was purely a partisan political ploy rather than a sound economic decision.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM

OK! Explain it to me. The debt ceiling isn’t raised and we have to star paying bills with the money we have.

We’ll have to refinance and cut out a lot of programs and it’s going to take awhile to get this accomplished as well as cause a huge disruption in a lot of lives.

When the Nov. election gets here, whose voted into office and why?

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Paul Ryan’s comments on FNS this morning were excellent… He knows the way to go!

Khun Joe on August 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM

The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

They already are blaming the Tea Party. The only additional blaming would be by the RINO’s.

csdeven on August 7, 2011 at 12:22 PM

You know what??? STOP REFERRING TO SOCIAL SECURITY AS AN ENTITLEMENT!

We PAY for it, and have been and will be our entire adult lives.

You want to know what an entitlement ACTUALLY IS????

A person who works in a Job for 4 or 6 years, and has FULL BENEFITS for life.

THAT’S AN ENTITLEMENT!

KMC1 on August 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

OK! Explain it to me. The debt ceiling isn’t raised and we have to star paying bills with the money we have.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

No, you explain it to me. If the government had been forced to balance its budget, either immediately or over a few years, how could the tea party be blamed for a credit rating downgrade that wouldn’t have happened thanks to us? We would be getting the credit, not the blame.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

NoNails on August 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

I don’t think Obama manufactured this. Not intentionally at least. Ultimately, the rating and economic success/failure always falls on the President no matter how much the media will try to spin this. I do think that Obama was trying to skewer Republicans with the debt deal when he asked for more taxes and went on TV. He’s trying his best to blame Republicans, but lowering the rating is not something the President would want to do.

NOW!!! Having said that, it doesn’t mean his plan didn’t backfire on him. See, Obama is narcissistic, which means he’s also very high maintenance. He gets irritated if he doesn’t get praise. And he’ll destroy things and try to act like a victim to gain sympathy. So it very well could be that his high maintenance tendencies went too far and that this is a cry for help. He’s in over his head and high maintenance people simply cannot bring themselves to admit that THEY are the problem. Note how he blames everyone else. Typical high maintenance behavior.

I think this is a tipping point for Obama. He’s begun completely self destructing. Unfortunately, he’s bringing the rest of the country with him.

MrX on August 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Now, I think S&P’s decision was silly for this reason. Their recent track record isn’t great, and downgrading in response to the debt ceiling debate completely misses the point. But I don’t see how you can argue that the downgrade wasn’t almost entirely due to the debt ceiling debate.

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM

I bolded your standard DNC boilerplate Talking Point, because it’s one of the major DNC Memes since Friday. Funny how the Democrats never whined about S & P over the past 70 years, but now all of a sudden they’re evil? Brilliant Satire.

In their statement Friday, S & P did blame the debt ceiling debate. However, they never mentioned the Tea Party.

But they did give another reason for the downgrade-the late June release of economic statistics that had been “modified” by the O’Bama “Administration. According to S & P, this manipulation of statistics deliberately made the recession numbers better than they really were.

Can’t blame that on the Tea Party. Sorry.

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM

FloatingRock on August 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Gee. It would have been great if you would have answered my question.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Gee. It would have been great if you would have answered my question.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I’ll answer your question: the tea party will be voted into office in ’12 to save this country from the economic catastrophe that was caused by the Democrat and Republican Parties, both. If we had proven our resolve by forcing the government onto a path toward a balanced budget our victory still would not be any greater, because no matter what we’re going to win most of the election, because otherwise this country is screwed if we leave in in the hands of the RINO’s and Democrats that have caused so much harm.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

This is simple really…ObamaCare added to the problem because the savings promised were all propaganda and the costs warned of were real.

JIMV on August 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM

JIMV on August 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Just like the Boehner/Obama debt ceiling sham bill with the fake spending cuts in exchange for a real credit card.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Of course it is ObamaCare. At least that is what the Republicans should be saying. Whether it is or not, it certainly is symbolic of Obama’s failed economic agenda.

Every Republican and Tea Party representative needs to start with Obamacare and end with Obamacare. The American people will be with them.

huckleberryfriend on August 7, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I’ll answer your question: the tea party will be voted into office in ’12 to save this country from the economic catastrophe that was caused by the Democrat and Republican Parties, both. If we had proven our resolve by forcing the government onto a path toward a balanced budget our victory still would not be any greater, because no matter what we’re going to win most of the election, because otherwise this country is screwed if we leave in in the hands of the RINO’s and Democrats that have caused so much harm.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

I agree with you.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Update: The downgrade on Friday does settle one argument, though. Had Congress stalled and done nothing, S&P (and probably Moody’s) would have downgraded us at that point — and then the blame would have fallen on the Tea Party.

That is assuming that the analysis would be the same. Yet by stopping the spending we would get a downgrade, yes, but instead of a negative trend we might have gotten a neutral trend. The rationale is that a short-term fix of stopping excessive spending is in place the US would need to perform some major changes to its social spending, as well.

Doing nothing always leaves the abhorrent choice of spending MORE if that would be indicated: you can always spend MORE. By holding a line to spending up to income, the US would no longer be taking on more debt via deficit spending. That is a short-term fix, but a long-term one would still be needed. By getting that stop-gap in place the probability of having a negative trend would no longer be one that could be upheld – we recognize we HAVE a problem, know that we can get an immediate fix in NOW, and will deal with longer-term issues as they arise and the political winds change.

Give the analysts some credit for having an outlook which is not tied to static report type but takes a look at the range of factors both long and short term. An analysis like the one I’ve outlined would NOT be an indictment of the Tea Party but a stern and major warning that we are beginning to get a clue and need to do some real structural change to our government spending system.

And the Tea Party STILL got blame in this world, and its not sticking. It would STILL get blame in that scenario and it still wouldn’t stick because of the analysis. If you play that sort of ‘what if…?’ game, then think through all parts of it as the report is NOT static but determined by events, and a minor change in trendline outlook due to not spending more would be a high probability and they could let us know we were going to get a negative if we didn’t do something about our systemic cash outflow problems RSN but recognize the good faith effort NOW to deal with the immediate problem. They don’t live in a vacuum, the reports aren’t churned out by machine and what is done or not done will change outlook.

ajacksonian on August 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Well, the guy from S&P said it wasn’t because of the debt ceiling debate. He said it was because the debt ceiling debate did not show that there would be improvements in the massive amount of debt the US carries and specifically singled out entitlements.

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 12:02 PM

The statement from S&P did in fact say it was because of the debt ceiling debate:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

Note that I’m not blaming the Tea Party. In fact, I think the downgrade is wrong. But I do think it’s obvious that the debt ceiling debate is the primary cause of the downgrade; ObamaCare is responsible only in that it’s a part of entitlements, which are a proximate cause for the downgrade.

If this is purely about the budget, then why didn’t this downgrade happen in April, or March of 2010? Nothing happened in the past week or month except for the debt ceiling debate. If the debt ceiling had been raised without incident in December, do you really think S&P would have downgraded?

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 1:37 PM

ObaMao refused to allow O-care, high-speed rail, or “green-technologies” expansion be part of the debt-ceiling negotiations. His blind ideology and stubbornness created much of the anticipated debt in the debt-ceiling “crisis.”

onlineanalyst on August 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM

It was pretty much inevitable that Obama and the Democrats would go whole hog with their progressive agenda. They’ve been sharply disappointed since Reagan was elected on their dreams to have nationalized health care and put the government at the center of their lives. When Clinton got elected, they got all excited at the prospect of getting all their dreams. That’s why Clinton ran as a centrist, fiscally responsible “New Democrat,” then as soon as he got elected, immediately tried to push through Hillarycare.

But Hillarycare died, and the reaction turned Congress over to the Republicans. The rest of the left’s progressive dreams were frustrated, and there they stayed throughout the Clinton administration. Why do you think they were so furious about Gore losing to Bush?

When Obama won, it was inevitable they would take the bit in their teeth, ignore the debt, and go all-out for Obamacare. It was also inevitable that they would lie about “entitlement reform” as a cloak to spending even more money we don’t have.

As the saying goes, “The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.” But the left figures we haven’t run out yet, ao all we need are to raise taxes.

Because the left was frustrated during all those years or Republican administrations, they spent all the money they could raise on the programs they could get through, without the dream of universal government health care.

It’s not just Obama. What we’re seeing is the radical Democrat agenda, and it won’t change as long as Democrats have effective control of major parts of the government. The left’s hard socialist dream demands that they spend more and more. If we run out of money, why, just raise taxes.

didymus on August 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

I bolded your standard DNC boilerplate Talking Point, because it’s one of the major DNC Memes since Friday. Funny how the Democrats never whined about S & P over the past 70 years, but now all of a sudden they’re evil? Brilliant Satire.

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM

I didn’t get this from DNC talking points, since I don’t read that kind of stuff. I got it from AllahPundit and Karl from the green room: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/05/report-u-s-bracing-for-possible-downgrade-from-sp/ (in the update).

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Ed,
One of your better posts (and that’s saying a lot). Cross posted to my site. http://derek-alexander.blogspot.com/2011/08/was-downgrad-rejection-of-obamacare.html
Gotta get the message out.

Caro1ina on August 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM

it’s hard to really appreciate how somehow the TP is off the hook.

MeatHeadinCA on August 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Okay, then. Let’s raise taxes. It may kill the economy, it may not. But it’s a drop in the bucket compared to entitlement spending. Or what did Robin Williams say talking about cocaine addiction? Throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon.

John the Libertarian on August 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Even the Democrats don’t really believe tax increases would really change the debt. They just want to destroy any good reason for people to vote against them by trying to make their opponents agree to tax increases. If the conservatives cave like Bush did in 1990, then people will decide there’s no point in voting for them. It’s “read my lips, no new taxes” all over again.

didymus on August 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Come on. ObamaCare was signed on March 23, 2010. The 2011 budget, which contained no major deviations from previous budgets, was enacted on April 15, 2011. The debt ceiling was raised on August 2. The downgrade came on August 5. Is there really a serious argument that ObamaCare is a major factor here?

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Obamacare is a major entitlement on top of a a major problem with entitlements. Is there really a serious argument that Obamacare is NOT a major factor here?

To rephrase, just how stupid do you think we are?

didymus on August 7, 2011 at 1:56 PM

If this is purely about the budget, then why didn’t this downgrade happen in April, or March of 2010? Nothing happened in the past week or month except for the debt ceiling debate. If the debt ceiling had been raised without incident in December, do you really think S&P would have downgraded?

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 1:37 PM

If you’re saying that the debate itself showed the S&P that neither party was serious, then I would agree with you. However, I am not getting your point. Of course it’s about the budget because the budget keeps adding to the debt.

As to why we weren’t downgraded earlier, I don’t know. Perhaps this was the last straw. It’s an accumulation of reasons as to why a ratings agency acts. They’re talking to people all of the time and perhaps they just got tired of unfullfilled promises.

I think they should have downgraded the US when Obamacare was rammed through. That would have been a statement!

Vince on August 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM

If the debt ceiling had been raised without incident in December, do you really think S&P would have downgraded?

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 1:37 PM

To answer that specific question, S&P didn’t downgrade at this pointbecause we made a debt ceiling deal, but because the deal didn’t fix the entitlements problem. Since the timing of the downgrade was due to the fact that the deal didn’t change anything, then it’s obvious that the situation before the deal is the actual cause of the downgrade.

didymus on August 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Obamacare, entitlement reform? Obamacare is the UK’s NHS writ American large.

Excuse me now, I have to go throw up.

RebeccaH on August 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Come on. ObamaCare was signed on March 23, 2010. The 2011 budget, which contained no major deviations from previous budgets, was enacted on April 15, 2011.

tneloms on August 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM

The 2011 budget?
Did congress pass a budget this year and I missed it?
How did they do that w/out the Senate Dems even proposing a budget?

PackerBronco on August 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2