The transcript, from September 26, 1987:

….Ronald Reagan: Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veteran benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well earned reputation for reliability and credibility, two things that set us apart from much of the world….

Heh. It ain’t Ronnie’s republican party anymore. The really insane people are in control.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) weighed in on the republican debt hostage crisis in a press release:

Hartzler urges President Obama and Democrats to stop the scare tactics

Jul 15, 2011 Issues: Congressional Issues, Economy and Jobs, Spending Cuts and Debt, Tax Reform

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) is standing her ground in the fight against irresponsible borrowing and spending and is calling on President Obama and liberal Democrats in Washington to stop the scare tactics in discussions over the President’s request for an increase in the debt limit.

“President Obama is resorting to the liberal playbook with scare tactics regarding the debt limit,” said Hartzler. “He is threatening the denial of Social Security checks and payments to veterans if no debt limit deal is reached before August 2nd. This is irresponsible!”

“Even the Washington Post Editorial Board can see through this game that is being played,” continued Hartzler. “In its May 8thedition, the newspaper concludes,’Democrats have effectively scared seniors as a political tactic for many years.’ Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity, writing an opinion piece for Fox News, states, ‘To people who rely on Social Security to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, that’s an awfully reckless thing for a President to say. It’s also false, because Obama can guarantee Social Security checks go out. In fact, it is entirely in his hands.'”

“If President Obama and his fellow liberals insist on action that harms the most vulnerable among us it will be their decision and their decision, alone,” added Hartzler. “It is time for the scare-mongering to end and for President Obama to step up and get serious about dealing with our out-of-control spending that is harming our nation. Any deal must include permanent, structural spending reforms that will put us on a path to a balanced budget, real cuts – not just promises of future cuts, and no job-killing new taxes!”

Vicky Hartzler was elected to Congress on November 2, 2010. She serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committee.

Americans for Prosperity?:

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a group fronting special interests started by oil billionaire David Koch and Richard Fink (a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries). AFP has been accused of funding astroturf operations but also has been fueling the “Tea Party” efforts…

Astroturf?:

Astroturfing – A professional political campaign disguised as a ‘grassroots’ uprising (astroturf is artificial grass)…

Where was Vicky Hartzler when dubya was racking up debt and deficits from January 2001 to January 2009? Contributing to it? Just asking.

And then, if Representative Hartzler (r) criticizes President Obama for “threatening denial” of Social Security checks if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling doesn’t she need to do the same for House Speaker John Boehner (r)? Via Think Progress:

[….]

[@ 0:31] Greta Van Susteren: The, uh, uh, Congresswoman Bachmann [r] talked to me last night about Social Security because that was one of the things the President said, said something about come August second, you know, maybe the checks won’t go out. Does the money from the Social Security come from a different account, essentially, so that even if we do hit the debt ceiling and there is some government shutdown those checks still go out because they are, uh, the revenue from them is from people working?  

Speaker John Boehner (r): Oh, I don’t, I don’t believe so. Uh, at the end of the day it all, it all comes out of the general fund. And, uh, the general fund is expected to be out of cash, uh, come August third or August fourth. Uh, and then the Treasury Secretary would have to make decisions about what to pay and what not to pay…

“…”He is threatening the denial of Social Security checks and payments to veterans if no debt limit deal is reached before August 2nd. This is irresponsible!…”

We’ll await Representative Hartzler’s press release calling the Speaker on his use of liberal scare tactics.

We won’t hold our breath.  

From the inimitable Digby:

So you’ve probably heard that Eric Cantor came running out of the White House debt meeting today screaming “the bad man tried to touch me!”….

From Blue Girl via Twitter:

@BGinKC Blue Girl

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if at tomorrow’s #debtceiling talks, @EricCantor’s chair had a booster seat & a Tonka truck on the table? 8 hours ago

The governator had it right in a previous life:

Kindergarten Cop (1990)

Detective John Kimble: They’re horrible. They’re like little terrorists.

Phoebe O’Hara: Tell me about it.

They sat Eric Cantor at the wrong table.

Previously: Eh, what a maroon… (July 11, 2011)

 

…what an ignoranomus:

GOP leaders say they’ve sacrificed enough already on debt negotiations

Amid ongoing negotiations with President Obama over raising the debt ceiling, House Republican leaders responded to Obama’s call Monday for compromise by saying that their openness to raising the debt ceiling at all is sacrifice enough.

“A vote to increase the debt limit in this country is an existential question for a fiscal conservative,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday. “These votes aren’t easy. …What I don’t think that the White House understands is how difficult it is for fiscal conservatives to say they’re going to vote for a debt ceiling increase….”

[emphasis added]

Cue the violins.

In 2003:

H.J.RES.51

Latest Title: Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

Sponsor: No Sponsor (introduced 4/11/2003)      Cosponsors (None)

Related Bills: H.CON.RES.95, S.2986

Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 108-24 [GPO: Text, PDF]

Note: On 4/11/2003, pursuant to Rule XXVII, H.J.Res. 51 was deemed to have passed the House as a result of the adoption by the House and Senate of the H.Con.Res. 95 conference report….

[emphasis added]

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 141

     H CON RES 95      YEA-AND-NAY      11-Apr-2003      2:39 AM

     QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Conference Report

     BILL TITLE: Congressional Budget for FY 2004

—- YEAS    216 —

Cantor

[emphasis added]

That’s one difficult yes vote. And who was President and had just exploded the budget surplus with a windfall tax break for the top two percent? Oh, yeah….

In 2005:

H.J.RES.47

Latest Title: Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

Sponsor: No Sponsor (introduced 5/2/2005)      Cosponsors (None)

Related Bills: H.CON.RES.95

Latest Major Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No: 109-182.

4/28/2005 11:59pm:

   Passed House pursuant to rule XXVII and H. Con. Res. 95….

[emphasis added]

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 149

     H CON RES 95      YEA-AND-NAY      28-Apr-2005      8:35 PM

     QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Conference Report

     BILL TITLE: Congressional Budget for FY 2006

—- YEAS    214 —

Cantor

[emphasis added]

That’s a second difficult yes vote. The existential angst must have really started to build at that point. You know, over six years ago.

The republicans in the House must think everyone else is stoopid.

I’ve commented several times on Roy Blunt’s tendency to play fast and loose with the truth (see, for instance here, here and here). And It seems that his new job as a senator hasn’t changed this particular proclivity. In short, as ThinkProgress notes, Old Roy’s at it again.

Seems like Blunt has been sent out to provide cover for congressional Republicans who are, wittingly or otherwise, out to scuttle the recovery (and Obama’s re-election hopes?) by refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless they get a whole host of ideologically driven spending cuts – cuts they’ll never get if Democrats have what it takes up to stand up to this type of economic terrorism. Roy has been making the rounds of the talk shows claiming that the rating agencies are threatening to cut the U.S. credit rating because of the deficit (here’s the audio of Roy going at it during an interview on KTRS in St. Louis). Of course, this assertion is blatantly false since the agencies involved have been explicit that they are considering this move solely because of the possibility that Republican intransigence will lead to the first ever U.S. credit default.

You can’t default on your debts without consequences and neither can the U.S. government. The debt ceiling pertains to already obligated funds – not new spending, something we would expect Blunt to know. We would also expect that someone who is at least nominally qualified to serve as a U.S. senator would know what the ratings agencies have been very publicly saying. The obvious conclusion is that Roy knows he’s wrong on a number of fronts, knows that the truth is easily available, but has such minimal expectations in regard to the capacity of Americans to distinguish their front side from their back side that he thinks they’ll gladly take anything he says at face value.

I’m also willing to take odds that Blunt knows that his little story about the relationship between the deficit and U.S. credit ratings is not only dishonest in its own right, but gets its punch from another politically motivated fabrication to the effect that the deficit is an immediate problem. Consider, for instance, this graph, prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (via Paul Krugman’s NYT Blog):

The blue line above is the interest rate on 10 year bonds. Note that it is going down; interest rates are decreasing.  As Steve Benen notes:

… .I realize the phrase “interest rate on 10-year bonds” probably isn’t one of those phrases that gets bandied about around American dinner tables, but the more serious a problem the deficit becomes, the higher that blue line would appear.

And therein lies the point: the blue keeps going down. Indeed, it hasn’t been this low in many decades. If the deficit were a drag on the economy, and the United States were facing some sort of debt crisis, that blue line would be through the roof. But that’s not even close to what’s happening.

Remember the movie Pulp Fiction – which popularized the idea of the crimeworld “cleaner,” an individual who, for a price, removes all evidence of a crime? Make you think of a particular junior senator from Missouri perhaps?  

From a comment at Gawker, via John Cole at Balloon Juice:

David Brooks Boldly Acknowledges That His Political Party Is Insane

…So really, it’s a double hostage situation. The Democrats are offering the world to the GOP to keep them from blowing it all up, but the GOP can’t take the deal because if they do, the Tea Party will go fucking nuts and everyone that votes for it will face a primary challenge….

From the White House:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                          July 5, 2011

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON THE STATUS OF EFFORTS TO FIND A BALANCED APPROACH

TO DEFICIT REDUCTION

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

4:49 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  All right.  Hello, everybody.  I just wanted to give you an update on the deficit negotiations that we’ve been having for the last several weeks, and I want to wish, again, everybody a Happy Fourth of July.

Over the July Fourth weekend, my team and I had a series of discussions with congressional leaders in both parties.  We’ve made progress, and I believe that greater progress is within sight, but I don’t want to fool anybody — we still have to work through some real differences.

Now, I’ve heard reports that there may be some in Congress who want to do just enough to make sure that America avoids defaulting on our debt in the short term, but then wants to kick the can down the road when it comes to solving the larger problem of our deficit.  I don’t share that view.  I don’t think the American people sent us here to avoid tough problems.  That’s, in fact, what drives them nuts about Washington, when both parties simply take the path of least resistance.  And I don’t want to do that here.

I believe that right now we’ve got a unique opportunity to do something big — to tackle our deficit in  a way that forces our government to live within its means, that puts our economy on a stronger footing for the future, and still allows us to invest in that future.

Most of us already agree that to truly solve our deficit problem, we need to find trillions in savings over the next decade, and significantly more in the decades that follow.  That’s what the bipartisan fiscal commission said, that’s the amount that I put forward in the framework I announced a few months ago, and that’s around the same amount that Republicans have put forward in their own plans.  And that’s the kind of substantial progress that we should be aiming for here.

To get there, I believe we need a balanced approach.  We need to take on spending in domestic programs, in defense programs, in entitlement programs, and we need to take on spending in the tax code — spending on certain tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest of Americans.  This will require both parties to get out of our comfort zones, and both parties to agree on real compromise.

I’m ready to do that.  I believe there are enough people in each party that are willing to do that.  What I know is that we need to come together over the next two weeks to reach a deal that reduces the deficit and upholds the full faith and credit of the United States government and the credit of the American people.

That’s why, even as we continue discussions today and tomorrow, I’ve asked leaders of both parties and both houses of Congress to come here to the White House on Thursday so we can build on the work that’s already been done and drive towards a final agreement.  It’s my hope that everybody is going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door, and that we’re going to do what’s best for our economy and do what’s best for our people.

And I want to emphasize — I said this at my press conference — this should not come down to the last second.  I think it’s important for us to show the American people and their leaders that we can find common ground and solve our problems in a responsible way.  We know that it’s going to require tough decisions.  I think it’s better for us to take those tough decisions sooner rather than later.

That’s what the American people expect of us.  That’s what a healthy economy is going to require.  That’s the kind of progress that I expect to make.  So I promise I will keep you guys updated as time goes on.  All right?

Q    A couple of questions?

Q    Will you take any questions, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT:  I guarantee you, Jay is going to take a whole bunch of them.  (Laughter.)

                       END           4:54 P.M. EDT

[emphasis added]

“…I believe there are enough people in each party that are willing to do that…”

“…It’s my hope that everybody is going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door, and that we’re going to do what’s best for our economy and do what’s best for our people…”

Charlie Brown, meet Lucy and the football.

John Cole continues:

….And anyone who still calls themselves a Republican is just an asshole. Really, you’ve had ample time to figure out your party is run by maniacs. If you’re still sticking around because the “Democrats are worse” or you think the party can turn it around or because you fancy yourself a small “c” conservative or you are a glibertarian or because you hate taxes or you think Dennis Kucinich is weird (he is), you’re just an asshole. And incredibly stupid.

You can’t negotiate with maniacs. They don’t ever compromise. Do you understand that Claire? Just asking.

Claire McCaskill recently wrote a letter to state legislators who have been carping about the stimulus spending that has sustained our state budget. Taking them at their word, she asked them just what the impact would be if unspent portions of the funds were returned to the government, and whether or not these brave souls wish to forgo further stimulus funds, given their strong convictions.

With much spluttering and bombast, State Rep. Allen Icet (R-Wildwood), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, responded today, managing in the process to avoid answering any of the quite legitimate issues that McCaskill posed.  Instead, shaking a metaphorical finger at the errant Democrat, he claimed that he and his fellow anti-stimulus stalwarts could not possibly answer McCaskill’s questions until she and her Democratic cohorts in Washington had performed four magical tasks:

(1) balance the federal budget just as we do every single year in Missouri

Bear in mind that this demand comes from a member of the political party that voted against PAYGO in the U.S. Senate. Does Icet really not understand that if the federal budget were to be balanced right away, somebody would have to answer much harder questions than those that McCaskill put to the state’s budget vultures? Could it be that his brave demand is nothing more than bluster by which he hopes to divert attention from his inability to answer the hard questions without exposing the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of Republican rhetoric?  

(2) take cap-and-trade off the table

First, just what does abandoning cap-and-trade have to do with stimulus spending? Isn’t such a stipulation akin to a banker demanding that you stop watching police procedurals on TV before he will give you a loan?

Second, just who is this supposed to benefit – coal and energy industry campaign contributors perhaps? In a just world, before Icet could make such demands, he would have to be willing to honestly discuss the real issues involved in cap-and-trade in relation to Missouri’s future prosperity – and by discuss, I don’t mean regurgitate spurious claims and stale talking points.

(3) kill the current iteration of “reform” and instead allow the states wide room to experiment with free market approaches to health care

Like free market approaches aren’t what got us into the fix we’re in. Just think about that 30% Anthem Blue Cross premium increase in California – if Icet gets his way, we’ll be facing similar increases in Missouri soon enough. Then there’s the inconvenient fact that the health care reform bill under consideration in congress right now actually cuts the deficit over the next ten years. I guess reality doesn’t play well at Tea Parties.

(4) take a stand next time President Obama insists on raising the federal debt limit.

Shouldn’t Icet and his Republican buddies take the first step and help out by letting McCaskill know that they are willing to live without the funds that won’t be forthcoming if this should come to pass? And shouldn’t they have to insure that they and their high principles take full responsibility for the debacle that will result if federal funds aren’t forthcoming to bail out the state?

Does it strike you that these unrealistic demands are designed for one purpose only – to let state Republicans off the hook now that their bluff has been called? For once, McCaskill is on the side of the angels, and these clowns need to give her some real answers or shut up and stop acting like spoiled bullies. As she tweeted earlier today:

Going forward,if we pull back unspent stimulus $, how will the budget in #MO be balanced? Who will take the billion $ cut?Impt to be honest

Ah yes, honest … how novel.