A so-called ObamaDem-dubbed “tea party downgrade” would have occurred before, not after, the debt ceiling was raised.
Standard & Poors cites “weakened effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy-making and political institutions” as reason for historic downgrade of America’s credit rating.
The credit downgrade did not occur when tea partier Republican congressmen made known their preference for not raising the debt ceiling. The downgrade did not occur when the House passed Cut, Cap and Balance and Boehner I.
The tea partiers favored $4T in spending cuts. S&P stated before the final compromise bill was signed by President Barack Obama, that a bill cutting at least $4T would prevent a downgrade. The bill signed by President Barack Obama didn’t come close to meeting tea partier and S&P demands.
No, the downgrade occurred after the passage of a bill opposed by many tea partiers.
So, are we to believe the description of the S&P downgrade by Obama adviser David Axelrod and Senator John Kerry as precipitated by tea partiers? Upon what basis? Was it the tea partiers that promised default on two different dates, months apart, during which time there was and would always have been more than six times the cash on hand in the U.S. Treasury needed to pay bondholders and thus prevent default?
Of course not.
S&P justified the downgrading of America’s rating from AAA to AA+, thusly:
“The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy-making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges.”
To believe “Tea Party Downgrade” talking points of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party, one would have to believe that Standard & Poors considers tea partier advocacy of S&P’s own $4T Rx as ineffective, unstable and unpredictable.
Isn’t it more likely that S&P and the markets considered Obama’s promise of default dates as evidence of his instability and unpredictability? Weren’t such reckless threats more akin to the acts of an estranged spouse acting out of spite than the responsible leader of a great nation?
Obviously, and we said so at the time of Obama’s threats:
President Obama’s default drop dead date pronouncements could precipitate a financial crisis that is unjustified based upon the actual funds available to pay interest on the debt.
We had thought that S&P’s action was wrong due to the now higher ratings of nations that depend upon our economy. We have reconsidered that assessment because the leaders of Germany and France haven’t made spiteful default threats.
Natural law still obtains and so the consequences of decades of accumulated debt were inevitable and would have taken years to correct even if ObamaDems had enacted policies conducive to recovery in their super-majority heydays of 2009-2010.
Instead they chose ObamaCare reform and government worker stimulation instead of policies designed to cultivate economic recovery.
The American president, unlike the leaders of Germany and France, seems determined to repeat many of the mistakes extended the only recession of the last 100 years that was longer than the current one that began in 2008.
But unlike FDR, he has no penchant for soothing fireside chats and had no alcohol prohibition amendment to repeal. Its just too bad we can’t fire him sooner than next Election Day.
Legal Editor – The Minority Report
Atlanta Law & Politics columnist for Examiner.com
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Hillbilly Politics, Unified Patriots, Political Daily and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.
You’re right, GC, it was Obama. (From the dispatches, Lady Penguin – Ed.)