Perhaps I shouldn't wade into political waters, but the state of the economy affects real estate and especially commercial real estate. Accordingly, these issues are very important for my profession.
Listening to the coverage of the US Debt Ceiling Debate, it seems to me that the media coverage as well as the President of the US want to assign the blame for the impasse at the feet of the Republicans for not caving to the President's demands. The President has repeatedly stated how desperately important it is to raise this Debt Ceiling and indicated that it is irresponsible not to do so. He even threatened not to pay Social Security and our troops if the Debt Ceiling is not raised and then tried to assign the blame for this on the Republicans.
Media coverage aside, logic tells me that if there is no agreement, it must also mean that the President has also not been willing to agree to the terms of the opposing side. We are told that the issues at hand are the level of the Debt Ceiling, the reduction of spending, and tax increases. The President tells us that he thinks raising the Debt Ceiling is imperative, so they are in agreement there. The President also tells us that he believes that getting spending under control is imperative, so they seem to be in agreement there. The one remaining issue then is tax increases.
Taking this all together, it sounds to me like the President is saying that he is willing to let the US government default and allow social security recipients and soldiers to not be paid in order to demand tax increases. If that is the case, I feel like I must be missing something. The President indicated that the consequences were so dire that it would be completely irresponsible not to simply agree to something to allow the Debt Ceiling to be raised and yet he is not agreeing.
The President seems to be saying that the state of the budget is so bad that only the tax increases will allow it to be under control. And yet, all of the information available indicates that the increases desired cannot possibly balance the budget.
I cannot claim to know the President's mind and perhaps he is getting different information from the rest of us, but given that the tax increase is the issue preventing a deal and given that the tax increases could not begin to balance the budget, the President's motives for this demand become suspect. This leads me to wonder if the President is holding the country hostage to try to make political gains at the opposing party's expense. Hopefully, I am wrong, but in my humble opinion, the promotion of class conflict to attain political advantage is not a courageous or helpful policy.
(stepping off my soap box)
Have a great day!
David
David W. McCoy
Associate Broker
Commonwealth Commercial Real Estate
10444 Bluegrass Pkwy
Louisville, KY 40299
PS - I am sure that my principal broker would appreciate me noting that these are my opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this firm or its other agents and employees.
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your point of view. I recognize that it's all a matter of perspective but I don't think history is on your side. The action being so hotly contested has been routine for the last century, and it is the Republicans who declared that they would now refuse to do it unless their demands were met. Let me share a section from today's Michael Medved column in The Daily Beast. Keep in mind, Medved is a FAR right radio host. He's arguing that Republicans should take the deal that is now being offered instead of holding out and purposefully causing default.
"There's another idiotic assumption that motivates those sincere but deluded patriots who mourn the catastrophic breakdown that might have been: They argue that President Obama would be blamed for the disaster and Republicans—particularly stalwart Tea Party Republicans—would escape unscathed and avoid all responsibility.
This assumes that the public has paid no attention to the basic structure of the dispute: Obama wanted the debt-ceiling extension, and visibly pleaded for it and bargained for it. Republicans refused to give it to him because the president stubbornly (his advocates say courageously) refused to give in to their demands. But in a highly visible standoff, it was the president who wanted business as usual—raising the debt ceiling and getting on with the nation's other agenda—while Republicans refused to grant an authorization that is normally routine.
In other words, Obama wanted to pay the bills, and the GOP would only pay the bills if the president made concessions."