Why the S&P Downgraded Us - From the Horse's Mouth

Because I have liberal friends who are blaming this downgrade on the Tea Party (to quote: "S & P Downgrades US status from AAA to AA+. THANKS TEA PARTY.") -these quotes from the S&P statement. To be fair, I acknowledge that S&P also considers increasing revenue as a possible positive. But the overwhelming theme is CUT. SPENDING. NOW.

“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.”

“We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.”

“We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related  fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.”

“We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.”

“Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures.”

“In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”

“We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future.”

“Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow.”

“Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term  rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur.”

Today's Reading of the Constitution

As I watched the reading of our governing document on the tiny C-SPAN window on my computer alongside the rapidly scrolling columns of Tweetdeck, I had the sense that we were, collectively, part of something historic. My heart pounded as we neared my favorite sections of this beloved document. I waited with anticipation to find out who would have the honor of reading those passages. It was as if we were reopening, after a long absence, the wisdom of ages long past.

(I know that's a little overly dramatic, but I watched Prince Caspian last night, and I still had the soundtrack playing in my head... And you know powerful music makes anything more gripping.)

But as we together listened to and commented on the reading of the Constitution, I was struck by the parallel to the story of young king Josiah in the book of Second Kings. Josiah was only eight years old when he ascended the throne. He was from a line of generations upon generations of evil kings, and yet, the Bible says, "he walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left." In the eighteenth year of his reign, which puts him at the age of twenty-six, one of his scribes accidentally happens upon the Book of the Law in the Temple. The scribe read the book before the king.

Can you envision that moment? This nation, this people, had been in open disobedience and defiance of their governing document, the Book of the Law for so many years that it had actually been lost. The words of the Law had become foreign to the very government it was intended to direct.

When he heard the reading of the Book, King Josiah tore his clothes, a sign of sorrow for his nation. Then, he gathered "all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the Lord."

I felt this today as our elected representatives read the words of our governing document in the presence of all the people, both small and great. Granted the analogy is limited, given that the Constitution was written by fallible human beings, and the Book was written by the infallible hand of God. But I felt it just the same.

But here's the most important part of the story. And may we follow with similar actions.


"Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statues, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant." (emphasis mine)

I'll end the story there. Because I prefer it to be a happily-ever-after story... You can read on to see the choices the Israelites make after that momentous day. I'm going to pray that we don't make the same mistakes after this day.

What I Like About Twitter

Wow - I'm on a roll. This makes THREE blog posts today! One might say I'm making up for lack of quality with quantity, but only if one wasn't very nice... Apparently, I can go weeks without anything whatsoever to say, and then be hit with a flurry of thoughts that I just have to write down.

Earlier today I tweeted: "#thingsiloveabouttwitter: By the time my FB friends realize there's an issue, my argumts are alrdy tight from debating on Twitter weeks ago."

That statement does contain a bit of hyperbole. I do have informed friends on Facebook. Also, the statement applies not only to Facebook, but to my larger social sphere. But the concept is true.

On Twitter, we're hashing things out in real time. We debate, argue, sometimes scream and get red in the face. No matter the outcome, we generally leave the argument with a concise statement of our respective opinions ready to be delivered in as diplomatic a manner as possible when the larger world gets in on the discussion. We've already heard the counter arguments, debunked the fallacies, and recognized the valid ones by adjusting our positions as needed.

I didn't have this before Twitter. I had a few political friends, but they fell into two very distinct camps: Those who agreed with me to the closest degree possible, and those who disagreed with me to the furthest degree possible. Discussions with those two groups rarely helped me mold a concise and diplomatic statement. With my like-minded friends, we discussed from the perspective of similar world views and with shared vocabulary. With my nemesises (nemesi? I have got to look that up...), I was in no way concerned about diplomacy. Discrediting my opponent was the main objective. Twitter gave me a group of people with whom I shared basic values, but with whom I didn't necessarily share opinions on the means to our objectives. This group of people has been invaluable. So I guess I should add "#thingsiloveabouttwitter: All those folks who will engage with me on the issues and not unfollow me when we scream and get red in the face at each other." But I guess that's more than 140 characters, isn't it?

Earmarks

First off, let me pat myself on the back for TWO blog posts in one day! If you wonder why this is a big deal, take a second to go back and read I'm Not a Blogger, my very first political blog post.

Second, I do recognize that the earmark moratorium is old news. But I'm in a Facebook conversation with a fellow conservative about earmarks, and I'd like to put my thoughts on the issue in one place.

So - here's the argument given by many well-meaning conservatives on the issue of earmarks:

It's just a little bit of money, in comparison with the overall budget. And if Congress doesn't spend the money, the President gets to spend it. It's better to have the consensus of the legislative procedure spending the money than one person.

I'm going to assume that since the one typically using this argument calls him or herself a conservative, that they are in agreement that we should deal with Washington's spending problem. I know in the case of the discussion with my friend on Facebook, that is the case, since she said such. Here's the deal. If a candidate runs on the promise that they are going to DC to cut spending, then by gum, they should cut spending, as much as is in their individual and collective power!!!

Earmarks may be a small thing, in terms of percentage of the big budget picture, but they are the only funding decisions that can be made by a single legislator. Simply refuse the earmarks. It's the number one test of whether a legislator is serious about cutting funding. It may be a small part of the spending problem, but if a legislator won't step up to the plate in the one area over which he or she has ultimate control, how can we take them at their word to cut other, bigger spending?

Speaking of taking legislators at their word, this is JUST the opportunity liberals are looking for to cast conservatives as hypocrites. And they'd be right. A candidate who runs on a platform of fiscal responsibility and then requests earmarks should be run out of office at the first opportunity.

I know. I know... It's not the way things have been done historically in Washington. And I have given some old school legislators a pass on their past actions. But in the current political and economic climate, there simply is no excuse. So regarding those legislators from my state - Roger Wicker, one of the biggest earmarkers, is still okay in my book, because he "saw the light" and signed the pledge for the earmark moratorium. I'll hold him to that pledge. Thad Cochran, the KING of earmarkers, on the other hand, tenaciously clings to the old ways, refusing to let go of earmarks. Sorry, Thad, you have to go.

The long and the short of it is this: We have to get a handle on spending in Washington. Big things have to be cut. Little things have to be cut. Everything has to be cut! It's not going to be fun. Some of your pet projects are going to have to be cut. It's going to hurt. But it won't hurt as much as the impending economic collapse that irresponsible spending will bring. Just ask Greece. And Ireland. (And in a few months, Spain and Portugal).

Folks, Dave Ramsey is right. For families AND countries. You can't go very long spending more than you make. If you're in financial distress as a family, you have to sit down and see where you can cut. You can downsize your home (a big thing). You can sell the financed car (a medium sized thing). And you can stop going out to eat (a little thing). If you're going to survive the crisis, you may have to do all three. But the very least you can do is the little thing. We all know families who are in financial trouble, but who still frequent fancy restaurants and wear the latest clothing. Do you think they're serious about getting out of debt if they can't even tackle the little things? Take that to the national stage. Do you think our legislators are serious about getting us out of debt if they can't even tackle earmarks?

I don't.

January Is Here - And I'm Afraid

Okay, folks. January is here. We take the reins in the House and enough Senate seats to at least put a stop to the garbage that's been flowing out of Washington during the lame duck session. Sounds good, right?

I hope so.

And I'm afraid. I'm afraid that our newly elected conservatives won't follow through. I'm afraid they'll arrive in D.C. and be schooled in how Washington really works. I'm afraid they'll accept the assertion that they have to do things the way things have always been done to get anything done. I'm afraid that the universal rule that if you do the same things, you'll keep getting the same results will apply in its full force. I'm afraid that I'll become disillusioned with our governmental process (or at least the current perversion of our governmental process). I'm afraid that will force me to go third party next time around. I'm afraid that I'll turn into one of those cranky malcontents who believes it's finally time to take up arms against our own government. Or worse, I'm afraid I'll get so sick of all the mess that I'll join the ranks of those who have sworn off politics altogether. I am afraid that I'll actually enjoy my apathy.

So that's it folks. I'm afraid. The GOP holds my future in its hands. I'm waiting with bated breath.