The opening segment of last night’s The Rachel Maddow Show was over sixteen minutes long. It was one of those rare moments in cable television in which a lot was said that needed to be said and it was said by two very smart liberal commentators, St. Rachel and Chris Hayes, Washington editor of The Nation magazine.
The segment chronicled only some of the outrageous Republican hypocrisy evident since the Age of Obama. We’re talking about policies that Republicans supported until they discovered that President Obama supported them too, including:
Pay-Go legislation, the bi-partisan deficit commission, cap and trade, the individual mandate for health insurance, trying terrorists in federal courts, raising the debt ceiling (done seven times under Bush with substantial Republican votes), a payroll tax holiday for businesses and workers, and the DREAM Act.
Toward the end of the segment, St. Rachel offered two competing explanations for such blatant and shameful duplicity:
The nice interpretation of Republican hypocrisy: Republicans are merely opposing things they use to support because President Obama supports them too.
The less nice interpretation of Republican hypocrisy: Republicans are opposing things they use to support because they believe those things will actually work and will improve the economy and thus improve Obama’s chances of reelection. Therefore, they are sabotaging the economic recovery.
Chris Hayes pointed out that Republicans have,
starved the beast…they have cut taxes; now they’ve got everybody in the deficit-debt panic, and now the welfare state is in their sights…and they understand they’re gonna get one shot at it, and they also understand the only way to kill it is to get a Democratic president to do it.
Bush could not gut Social Security, couldn’t privatize Social Security…Barack Obama can. The only way to go after the big game they are hunting—which is Medicaid and Medicare—that’s the fundamental part of social insurance—is to get a Democrat to do it.
Hayes also offered “an even more cynical interpretation” than Maddow’s suggestion that Republicans want to “take money out of the economy” at a time when the economy needs it:
HAYES: The one thing that refutes the deficit hysteria—which so benefits the Republicans in their mission to go after Medicare and Medicaid—is the fact that interest rates are at historic lows. So, you can say, “Oh, no one’s gonna lend us money,” and look out there and everyone’s lending us money at historically low rates.
What is the one thing that could screw that up?
MADDOW: Debt ceiling.
HAYES: Exactly. A partial default, a delay in payments…all of a sudden if you had that you could point and say, “Look, the markets are panicked, the interest rates are up; we really have a debt and deficit problem.” The most cynical, the absolute most cynical interpretation of this is that they want some sort of crisis because that produces in the markets exactly the uncertainty they’ve been claiming was already there but has not manifested until now.
There you have it. A perfectly rational explanation of Republican behavior, particularly regarding the debate over the debt ceiling.
And the one thing that Republicans can do to prove wrong Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow—and top Democrats in the U.S. Senate, who have essentially suggested the same thing—is stop protecting the oil companies and the wealthiest Americans and agree to raise the debt ceiling before all economic hell breaks loose, if the Obama administration is forced to default on our debt payments.*
Here is the complete opening segment from last night’s show:
Vodpod videos no longer available._____________________
*There is another possible out, a brief explanation of which can be found here and elsewhere. It involves invoking Section 4 of the 14th Amendment and it would be a very gutsy move by President Obama. In part it reads:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.
It’s just possible that Obama can ignore the fact that Congress refuses to authorize an increase in the debt ceiling and continue to pay the nation’s bills and its other obligations under the authority of this provision. Let the fun begin!
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
ansonburlingame
/ June 28, 2011Duane,
Democrats keep coming up with the “default on debt payments” issue. Baloney, in my view.
As recently and publicly pointed out by the Tea Party Senator from Kentucky, the federal government brings in around $200 Billion per month and must pay out about $20 Billion per month to service the debt, NOW, today.
Now why exactly would we have to default on debt servicing with such income I wonder. Seems to me a simple matter of priorities. Which is more important, paying the “mortgage” or……? Sure would be comfortable for me if my mortgage (or rent) payments were only 10% of my monthly income, how about you?
Now, WHY are Republicans objecting to programs that involve more spending (or less revenue) than before. Simple to me. Republicans see the almost $5 Trillion in increased debt over 3 very long years as the cause, primarily.
Now where is a Democratic program that calls for just “stopping that crazy spending”? Nowhere on any horizon that I see. And even Republicans ONLY want to reduce such spending by $1 Trillion every ten years which in no way fixes or comes close to fixing our real problem which is $1.5 Trillion PER YEAR!!!
And as I pointed out before, exactly where would that $1.5 Trillion a year figure GO if you and yours had your druthers? More, more, more, higher, higher, higher is all that I read on these pages.
Oh, but I forgot, my views are not popular on these pages so majority wins, right. Now go watch the next election results at least “around here”.
And if “around here” is not fixable for liberals then go explain why Fox ratings simply BURY MSNBC, nationally.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ June 28, 2011Anson,
Oh, I get your argument now. Obama should pay the creditors first and then decide what he’s not going to spend money on after that. Maybe he’ll decide to stop paying for TRICARE or for military pensions, diverting the money instead to debt payments.
Duane
LikeLike
sekanblogger
/ June 28, 2011I love TRMS. I wish I got to see it.
Here’s the problem, Dish Network’s cheaper package doesn’t include MSNBC. EVEN WORSE…we do get Faux Newz.
It otta be illegal!
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ June 28, 2011Holy Toledo!!!
I know I’ve read the amendments before, but my eyes glaze over legalese – that’s my only excuse for not noticing this before. Apparently I’m not alone.
When I went to the Wikipedia page for the 14th Amendment, I found this:
Then, when I went to the Bruce Bartlett page I found this:
Is Bartlett a turncoat or just someone who keeps trying to reason his way out of an impossible tangle?
I can see both sides of this thing. Like Rom Emmanuel, I think a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and I mean that in this sense: entitlement reform is crucial and it can never come about without a crisis. On the other hand, if the 14th Amendment is used to nullify the debt ceiling, the way is clear for Greek-style collapse of the financial system.
As an aside, Bartlett’s assessment of Bush II’s economic policies and his failure to address Medicare reform resonate with my own opinions. Remarkable.
Thanks, E.C. for bringing this to our attention. Fun indeed. Holy Toledo.
LikeLike
Jim Hight
/ June 28, 2011As I see Republicans in the House and Senate opposing things they once supported, and the open hostility to new taxes to revive the economy, the validity of the views of Maddow and Hays is unquestionable. I believe that the Republicans are sabotaging the economy in the hopes of winning the presidency and large majorities in both houses of Congress. I don’t think the American public will be fooled by these acts of deception, though, since they saw through Ryan’s budget. We Democrats can only hope that our leaders in Congress, and the President, will continue to bring attention to these disgraceful actions by Boehner, crybaby Cantor, the evil Mitch McConnell, and others. Of course, the conservative, corporate-led media will not give them the attention that they give the conservative hypocrisy.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ June 28, 2011To all,
Getting out my handy dandy Constitution, complete and unabridged and about 58 pages long (imagine trying to write one of that length today!!) I reread the 14th amendment.
I assume to reference is to the first sentence in Section 4 of that Amendment saying, “The public debt…… shall not be questioned.”
I don’t hear anyone saying the debt should be questioned or should not be paid in full. But I do hear a lot suggesting to run it on up to higher and higher numbers with no real end in sight. And I also hear a lot asking how in the world we will ever be able to repay our debt in the future. But NOT pay it, no I don’t hear that, directly or even by inuendo.
Now please using any penumbra you like show me where the 14Th amendment or any other part of the Constitution says we cannot LIMIT the debt. After all, I do believe that document says only Congress can authorize spending but does not say how much it can or must authorize. It also authorizes Congress to incurr debt but again not how much or how little. Seems like Congress has all the constitutional options it needs to do the next right thing, which we can argue about until the cows come home.
Hmmm?
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ June 28, 2011Anson,
I don’t have time to explain it in full, but Congress has already spent or authorized the money to be spent in past legislation and the only question is whether those debts are “valid” and therefore have to be paid. You see, the legislature has spent the money, loaned the money, and now the government—the executive department being in charge of dispersing payments—must pay the interest on the money.
What you allude to is in the future, future obligations. That’s a completely different matter.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ June 29, 2011Ah, so now we are arguing about a “different” debt, the debt owed to American citizens as a result of previously passed laws. OK
To quote scripture, “what the Lord giveth, the lord can take away”. I assume that is verbatim but will defer to more learned Biblical scholars if it is not.
Congress can rescind previous laws anytime it so chooses. Whether it should or not is not a constitutional issue. For example Congress could legally pass a law doing away with all sorts of things, like my military retirement, SS, Medicare, etc.
So that returns us to political arguments not legal constitutional arguments. Any disagreement on that point.
I would also add that the ubiquitous 14th Amendment has fouled up many things in our society, or at least the way it has been interpreted. I know some conservatives that simply call of it’s repeal, entirely. I don’t go that far but a literal interpretation would be sort of nice, to me.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ June 29, 2011Congress cannot pass a law repudiating the national debt and that’s the point. It would have no constitutional force, since it is patently unconstitutional and the President would not have to follow it. At least that’s the way I see it.
And as for your conservative friends and the Constitution, they sure are anxious to do away with a lot of stuff in a document they claim to revere.
Duane
LikeLike
Randy
/ July 1, 2011Duane, are you serious? “republicans used to be fore these things” as if Republicans are one person. First off, everyone of those things SOME Republicans have supported at one time or another, but most have not. Before, or now. Why would you spread this blatantly and purposely mis-leading analysis? Come on Duane, don’t be part of the problem dude, be part of the solution. This is just sick distortion. Be real.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ July 1, 2011Randy,
In most, or all, of the cases cited, if the individual Republicans, who had previously been for the things that Obama later embraced, had actually stayed true to their original support, those things would have got through the Congress.
The deficit commission, which in its original form would have been binding, Obama reluctantly supported, but when he did those Republicans who had previously supported it vanished from the scene. If you don’t think that is hypocrisy, and if you don’t think that is significant, then I don’t know what you are smoking, “dude.”
Finally, here is the Republican record on debt ceiling votes, which, you will notice, is not one or two Republicans, except when Obama was President:
Duane
LikeLike
Randy
/ July 5, 2011I just realized I was not being notified of responses.. maybe I can find them all… anyway, Duane, you are saying that these guys stopped supporting the raising of the limit simply because Obama is president? It has nothing to do with the widely acknowledged financial crisis (unsustainable deficits) and colossally huge debt we have incurred in the past two years? Come on Duane, give me a break. They supported in the past, but it has gone to far. Kinda like when I let my wife run up the credit card – at some point I tell her STOP! THAT ENOUGH! NO MORE! And it has nothing to do with who the President is.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ July 5, 2011Randy,
I am saying that “It has nothing to do with the widely acknowledged financial crisis (unsustainable deficits) and colossally huge debt we have incurred in the past two years.” Most of that debt was inherited from the previous administration and I don’t remember Republicans having tea parties and threatening to blow up the economy over the issue, do you?
And even if you tell your wife to “STOP!” charging stuff on the credit card, I assume you still pay the bill for what she has already run up. That’s what the debt ceiling is, Randy. Raising it guarantees that we will pay the bills we have already run up—most of it through Republican governance.
I’m glad you put it the way you did, because I think most people fundamentally misunderstand that the debate over the debt ceiling is not a debate over future spending (Republicans have tried to make it such) but a debate over whether we have an obligation to pay for things we have already promised to pay for.
It’s that simple.
Duane
LikeLike