We’ve had several fights about spending cuts, and while progressives feel we should prioritize the stability of the economy over the deficit, reasonable minds can disagree. And while much of the argument is being rehashed with regards to the debt ceiling, again you could understand conservatives fighting for spending cuts. It is bad policy, and seriously misguided, but you can kind of see where they are coming from.
But this morsel from Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) is really something that nobody with an elementary understanding of economics, something that a member of Congress should posses, should ever even consider saying:
Nunes says the debt cap must be raised at some point but not necessarily before the point of default.
“By defaulting on the debt, in the short and long term, it could benefit us to go through a period of crisis that forces politicians to make decisions” on major policies that affect the budget, he told POLITICO. (Wonk Room)
Either Nunes is posturing based on his base’s obsession with ruining the economy, or he really is this stupid. No, it would not benefit us to create a recession that would be as bad, if not worse than the one that began with the housing crash.
If you thought that one was bad, imagine the scenario when there is no government to stop the backslide and the entire financial system creeps towards the abyss. The dollar would be virtually worthless and we would have to essentially give up the majority of our military. I don’t think Nunes understands where our spending really goes. If the military that he wants to lavish money upon does not get a big portion of the cuts, then there are no substantive cuts.
For his sake and ours, I hope this is just outlandish posturing meant to get attention. If not, well, redistricting is coming up, and perhaps somebody who doesn’t want an economic depression can take his job.
I fear Nunes may be that stupid. But, as Senator Hruska said about Nixon nominee Harrold Carswell, “There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they?”
But I’m not even sure what argument he’s trying to make here. He seems to be saying that, in order for us to know that a crisis = bad, we have to be actively in one. And I’m guessing that no crisis would ever be so bad that it forced Devin Nunes to vote for a major policy that, you know, raised more money.
“it could benefit us to go through a period of crisis that forces politicians to make decisions”
This is an extension of what Grover Norquist said on Lawrence Donnell’s show a few weeks back. He was nearly giddy as he explained that he and his pledges were not just against all tax cuts, but rather they were against all revenue increases of any kind, even ones made from savings, because such revenue would simply be spent on more government! (WTF ever that means…) Then he proclaimed an almost religious like belief in the notion that decreasing revenue would lead inevitably to new solutions; that only by NOT having revenue would politicians ever make the hard choice that are so clearly (?) needed. He was completely uninterested in what government spends it’s money on – he cared not one whit what would be cut, but he knew with certainty that decreased revue would lead to to a better world … one with less “government.” It was a very strange interview.