So I'm trying something new with this blog. Instead of my single weekly entry, I'm going to try to put up a few shorter entries throughout the week. The catalyst for this format change is S's annoyance with me for spending too much time on Saturday afternoon on my computer. But it's not a strictly a move of appeasement; S has a point: the weekend days are the only chance we really have for extended family time, so using them to blog and do crossword puzzles -- things I could do at night when I'm by myself -- is an inefficient allocation of resources. It's a point I cannot refute.
So, now I'll be blogging at night, but this presents some problems, because I never have long stretches of time at night and I get tired. My solution: shorter and more frequent entries. Well, that's the plan anyway. We'll see how it goes. This new format could last as long as my ill-fated idea to end each entry with five jokes (I stand by it though, my rape joke is money). Anyway, just a heads up to you, one of my five beloved readers, if you were wondering why I'm putting up a post midweek.
Now, I'd like to move on to my topic: the trillion dollar coin and the petty snit between perhaps the unlikeliest duo of snitters, Paul Krugman and Jon Stewart.
If you're not familiar with the trillion dollar coin, I found this great new site called wikipedia. Basically it's a legal loophole that would allow the president to avoid defaulting on government debt without congressional approval to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans are indicating they won't vote to raise the debt ceiling without major spending concessions, thus possibly necessitating the need for such a bypass.
Everything about the trillion dollar coin is farcical -- the law allowing it was enacted with commemorative coins in mind, it must be made of platinum, the guy who first suggested it is a blog commenter named "beowulf", and it's (almost) literally something straight out of The Simpsons -- but there is actually a very strong argument that it's something the president should consider; the main reason being, the debt ceiling itself is something of a farce.
As I understand it, congress first determines our spending obligations through legislature, but then it separately has to give the president the power to actually pay for these obligations by raising the debt ceiling. Therein lies the absurdity, why does a vote have to take place to actually allocate funds to pay for things you've already agreed to pay for? An apt analogy (I think) is if you had a company credit card, and the company's management board voted to buy a bunch of things, and then had to hold another vote to determine whether or not they should actually make their payments. It doesn't make much sense.
But the typical Republican crazies are seizing on this to try to pass spending cuts that they don't have support to pass under normal circumstances, as apparently defaulting would be really, really bad for our economy, thus giving them some perceived leverage. Basically, the Rep nutjobs are saying, "Give us what we want or the whole economy is going down." The trillion dollar coin would be a way to bypass this extortion.*
Enter Paul Krugman who advocated for the coin as an option the president should consider and Jon Stewart who mocked the idea. Krugman then called out Stewart as being "lazy" because Stewart clearly didn't know what he was talking about with respect to the coin. Stewart then made fun of Krugman, because he's a comedian and that's just what he does. You can watch the clip here. (I can't find an embed-able version.)
I see Krugman's point -- Jon Stewart is a smart guy and the premise of his jokes are usually based in fact (that's why they're funny), so it's pretty lame to do such an uninformed bit -- but I don't think you should ever really call out a comedian for not being serious or professional enough, not being serious and being unprofessional is the whole point of being a comedian. Plus, it makes you look like the world's biggest fuddy-duddy, and it strikes me as a waste of time and energy. That's my take on it anyway.
And with that, I'm out. Hmm, this ended up being longer than I thought. Oh well. Until next time....
*By the way, the White House has said that he won't resort to gimmicks to raise the debt ceiling, but he's also said he won't negotiate on it. It's an interesting game theory move by the president. He wants to put the weight of the economy's failure if we do indeed default on the shoulders of the Republicans (where it should be). I don't dislike this move, but with midterm elections still nearly two years away, I'm not sure about the timing. If I were him I'd be saying the same thing, but then I'd have an alternative plan in mind to avoid default if it came down to it. And maybe he does. We don't know. Hopefully we never will.
So, now I'll be blogging at night, but this presents some problems, because I never have long stretches of time at night and I get tired. My solution: shorter and more frequent entries. Well, that's the plan anyway. We'll see how it goes. This new format could last as long as my ill-fated idea to end each entry with five jokes (I stand by it though, my rape joke is money). Anyway, just a heads up to you, one of my five beloved readers, if you were wondering why I'm putting up a post midweek.
Now, I'd like to move on to my topic: the trillion dollar coin and the petty snit between perhaps the unlikeliest duo of snitters, Paul Krugman and Jon Stewart.
If you're not familiar with the trillion dollar coin, I found this great new site called wikipedia. Basically it's a legal loophole that would allow the president to avoid defaulting on government debt without congressional approval to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans are indicating they won't vote to raise the debt ceiling without major spending concessions, thus possibly necessitating the need for such a bypass.
Everything about the trillion dollar coin is farcical -- the law allowing it was enacted with commemorative coins in mind, it must be made of platinum, the guy who first suggested it is a blog commenter named "beowulf", and it's (almost) literally something straight out of The Simpsons -- but there is actually a very strong argument that it's something the president should consider; the main reason being, the debt ceiling itself is something of a farce.
As I understand it, congress first determines our spending obligations through legislature, but then it separately has to give the president the power to actually pay for these obligations by raising the debt ceiling. Therein lies the absurdity, why does a vote have to take place to actually allocate funds to pay for things you've already agreed to pay for? An apt analogy (I think) is if you had a company credit card, and the company's management board voted to buy a bunch of things, and then had to hold another vote to determine whether or not they should actually make their payments. It doesn't make much sense.
But the typical Republican crazies are seizing on this to try to pass spending cuts that they don't have support to pass under normal circumstances, as apparently defaulting would be really, really bad for our economy, thus giving them some perceived leverage. Basically, the Rep nutjobs are saying, "Give us what we want or the whole economy is going down." The trillion dollar coin would be a way to bypass this extortion.*
Enter Paul Krugman who advocated for the coin as an option the president should consider and Jon Stewart who mocked the idea. Krugman then called out Stewart as being "lazy" because Stewart clearly didn't know what he was talking about with respect to the coin. Stewart then made fun of Krugman, because he's a comedian and that's just what he does. You can watch the clip here. (I can't find an embed-able version.)
And with that, I'm out. Hmm, this ended up being longer than I thought. Oh well. Until next time....
*By the way, the White House has said that he won't resort to gimmicks to raise the debt ceiling, but he's also said he won't negotiate on it. It's an interesting game theory move by the president. He wants to put the weight of the economy's failure if we do indeed default on the shoulders of the Republicans (where it should be). I don't dislike this move, but with midterm elections still nearly two years away, I'm not sure about the timing. If I were him I'd be saying the same thing, but then I'd have an alternative plan in mind to avoid default if it came down to it. And maybe he does. We don't know. Hopefully we never will.
No comments:
Post a Comment