I’ve been reading with interest the back and forth letters between Jerry Haslip and Van Keele. Mr. Keele and I have some differing views, but on this one Van nails it, while Jerry’s passionate arguments fall flat.
Jerry’s initial letter urged Republicans to “…stand steadfastly against any debt ceiling increase without very significant spending cuts, period.” So without huge cuts, Jerry would want an unprecedented US default on paying our bills, leading to immediate cuts to numerous government programs and to current Medicare, VA, and Social Security beneficiaries. Van correctly pointed this out in his counterpoint letter.
In fact we’re obligated to raise the debt limit to pay our bills on spending that Congress (not the President) has already authorized. One effect of defaulting is breaking our promise to current beneficiaries who, for example, expect that monthly Social Security check.
Jerry was upset with Van’s letter and wrote a stinging rebuttal saying, “Nowhere in my letter did I specify that current obligations should be eliminated.” Yet this is the result if Congress heeded Jerry’s advice (they did not.).
Incredibly, Jerry goes on to contradict himself and prove Van’s point, saying “…don’t spend money you don’t have or can’t afford.” This may sound reasonable on the surface, but since America has a debt (has since 1832), Jerry clearly wants to stop all spending now, making it impossible to uphold “current obligations” to Medicare/SS/VA recipients.
So what does Jerry want? Pay our bills and uphold current obligations, or stop all spending?
Jerry clearly despises government spending that increases our debt. And he seems principled. So I’m sure he’s “walking the walk” by rejecting any and all “government welfare” like SS and Medicare. Right?
As for “Economics 101,” I’d give Van a “B+.” For Jerry, let’s just say there’s study hall in his future.