Back in 2010, Ohio Rep. John Boehner defied recent history and basic math when he comically denied that the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 played any role in producing federal budget deficits ever since. Now in his refusal to countenance any new tax revenue to avoid the job-killing sequester, Speaker Boehner is peddling a new deception. Pretending to ignore inflation, population growth and the expansion of the American economy, Boehner is now claiming federal tax revenue is at a record high.

Speaking to Scott Pelley of CBS News earlier this week, Boehner said no tax increases could be part of any bipartisan plan to avoid the first $85 billion in cuts to discretionary spending beginning March 1. Why?

"The president got his tax hikes in January. The federal government will have more revenue this year than any year in our history. It's time to tackle spending. Period."

As he declared further talks on Thursday, Boehner once again declared, "The revenue issue is now closed." He added:

"How much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government?"

Now, the $2.7 trillion in fiscal year 2013 revenue recently forecast by the Congressional Budget Office is, by a small margin, Uncle Sam's largest haul when measured in current dollars. But as a percentage of the total American economy (see chart above), federal tax revenues remain well below historical averages.

The handy CBO chart paints a pretty clear picture of Boehner's whitewashing. At less than 17 percent of U.S. GDP, federal revenue for FY 2013 is near historically lows. But that is an improvement over 2010, when the disastrous recession combined with the continuing drain from the Bush tax cuts slashed federal receipts to the 15 percent level not seen since the early 1950's. Meanwhile, the costs of two wars, emergency recovery measures including TARP and the stimulus, and counter-cyclical demand for food stamps, unemployment benefits and health care pushed Washington's spending to levels not seen since Ronald Reagan's first term. (It's worth noting that federal spending is almost flat since Barack Obama first took the oath of office, while the annual deficit has declined.) Contrary to Republican mythology that "tax cuts pay for themselves," it took five years for the Treasury to recover from the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

That last point is made clearer when taking inflation into account.

Continue reading »

While most eyes were trained on the State of the Union address (or a burning cabin in California), PBS last Tuesday aired a documentary on the ongoing fiscal deadlock in Washington titled, "Cliffhanger." In it, the House Speaker John Boehner is portrayed as hopelessly trapped between an equivocating and untrustworthy President Obama who "poisoned the well" and an immovable Tea Party caucus manipulated by the hyper-ambitious Eric Cantor. But the usually excellent Frontline series didn't merely get lost in the weeds of DC politics. When it comes to the unprecedented Republican debt ceiling hostage-taking that precipitated Washington's "cliffhanger," PBS missed the forest for the trees altogether.

What is the Fiscal Cliff? One of the most striking omissions from a film titled "Cliffhanger" is any definition of the so-called "fiscal cliff." That triple witching hour on January 1, 2013 when the Bush tax cuts and the two-year payroll tax reduction set to expire just as the $1.2 trillion, ten-year sequester was to begin is never fully explained. (The sequester drop-dead date was shifted to March 1.) And the risk in that manufactured crisis was not that the United States would suddenly increase its national debt, but instead reduce too quickly and thus trigger a steep (and unnecessary) recession.

Glossing Over the Original Sin. In "Cliffhanger", Frontline's sins are myriad. But none is more crucial than skirting past the original sin itself. That is, the Republican threat beginning in 2011 to trigger a default on the full faith and credit of the United States isn't just without parallel in modern American history. It is the GOP's extortion over the debt ceiling (which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called "a hostage that's worth ransoming" and a "new template") which is responsible for the sequester and "fiscal cliff" showdowns which followed.

Continue reading »

Now you see it---now you don't. Poof! I didn't know Republicans have been studying the art of magic and illusion.

Steve Benen:

Last week, House Republicans caved on the debt-ceiling fight, at least in the short term, announcing they would approve a "three-month temporary debt-limit increase." Over the holiday weekend, the GOP plan apparently got a little touch-up.

Forget about raising the federal debt limit. House Republicans are proposing to ignore it altogether -- at least until May 18.The House plans to vote Wednesday on a measure that would leave the $16.4 trillion debt limit intact but suspend it from the time the bill passes until mid-May. The declaration that the debt ceiling "shall not apply" means that the government could continue borrowing to cover its obligations to creditors until May 18.This approach -- novel in modern times -- would let Republicans avoid a potentially disastrous fight over the debt limit without actually voting to let the Treasury borrow more money.

This is rather unexpected. Just a few days ago, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) announced plans for a three-month increase. Now, it's four months, and it's a suspension, not an increase.

What does that mean, exactly? Lawmakers are effectively declaring, "The debt ceiling won't exist until mid-May." In other words, Congress authorizes federal spending and the administration acts accordingly, but instead of needing congressional approval to borrow the difference, the White House will be able to just borrow as necessary -- without authorization -- for nearly four months without regard for legal limits.

Right-wing lawmakers will probably balk -- they weren't going to endorse the original plan, either -- but the Club for Growth said Tuesday that it will not oppose the temporary suspension of the borrowing limit. After all, Republicans aren't technically raising the debt ceiling; they're just suspending it. Of course, this raises a related question: can't Congress just make this permanent? Shouldn't lawmakers do exactly that?

Yes they should, and please, let's drop the idea that Republicans care about the deficit. They are using the debt ceiling to push an agenda which could backfire on the country and severely f*&k us all. If they can suspend it or make it disappear any time they want, then what is this whole circle jerk about in the first place? I'd much prefer to watch Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh in Houdini than this freak show.

UPDATE: Debt Ceiling fantasy passed

The House just passed the GOP’s plan for a temporary debt limit extension, 285-144. The threat of default has been averted — in exchange for no concessions whatsoever by Dems. This confirms what some of us knew from the start: Republicans were never — ever — going to allow default. Those who played along with the fantasy that the threat of default gave Republicans leverage got snookered. They got taken.

Today’s vote, in effect, removes the threat of default from the conversation permanently, which is good news for the country. There is very little chance that the coming battle won’t be resolved before the next debt limit deadline of May 18th. In any case, if Republicans try to tie any more conditions to the next debt limit hike, Dems will simply laugh in their faces, since they confirmed today that they are not willing to allow default, no matter what. So now the GOP will try to use the expiring sequester and the threat of a government shutdown to extract the spending cuts it says it wants.

According to The Hill, House Republicans are going to propose a three-month raise to the debt ceiling with some contingencies attached:

House Republican leaders on Friday announced a plan to condition a three-month increase in the debt limit on the Senate committing to pass a budget by the April 15 statutory deadline.

“Before there is any long-term debt limit increase, a budget should be passed that cuts spending,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told the Republican conference in remarks to close the party’s three-day retreat in Williamsburg. “The Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget for four years. That is a shameful run that needs to end, this year.”

The House will also seek to prevent members of Congress from being paid if the two chambers do not pass a budget resolution.“We are going to pursue strategies that will obligate the Senate to finally join the House in confronting the government’s spending problem,” Boehner said. “The principle is simple: no budget, no pay.”

The "no budget, no pay" piece of their proposal appears to be unconstitutional, according to ThinkProgress, but that's a small thing compared to the fact that it looks as though they're prepared to release the hostage, and once they do that, there's no turning back.

Continue reading »

Coburn: Debt Ceiling Breach Is 'a Wonderful Experiment' to Shut Down 'Stupid Things'

Economists like Nobel prize-winner Paul Krugman have warned that Republicans could "blow up the world economy" if they refuse to raise the nation's debt ceiling but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) disagrees, saying that it could actually be a "wonderful experiment." During a Tuesday interview with conservative talk show host Sandy Rios, Coburn insisted that only "stupid things" would be shut down if the the debt ceiling was not raised.

We've written and read many posts about the End Timers --those Christians who see the great Armageddon coming very soon and are making their plans for a new millennium. So far, the end of the world as we know it didn't come to pass, as the latest timetable (brought to you by the Mayans) proved wrong. However, we do have a new breed of Conservative Republican end timers who are itching to blow up the entire world's economy, just to see what would actually happen -- via their refusal to raise the debt ceiling.

There were many of them who wanted the American auto industry to collapse, (as well as numerous related businesses) with no regard for the millions of Americans who'd lose their jobs. They have been proven wrong over and over again, but their cult-like ideology is all that matters to them. It appears they've been emboldened since Bush crashed the world economy in 2008, but the cons were rewarded with winning back the House in 2010 by a FOX News-created tea party revolt. That comeback sent a triumphant wave of uber-right wing/black helicopter extremism washing over the ranks of the GOP, ridding them of any last vestige of normalcy. After a bruising two-year war against government spending with President Obama and the recent defeat of the 2012 election, they are ready to cross the line and usher in this catastrophic plan:

House Republicans are seriously entertaining dramatic steps, including default or shutting down the government, to force President Barack Obama to finally cut spending by the end of March.

The idea of allowing the country to default by refusing to increase the debt limit is getting more widespread and serious traction among House Republicans than people realize, though GOP leaders think shutting down the government is the much more likely outcome of the spending fights this winter.

“I think it is possible that we would shut down the government to make sure President Obama understands that we’re serious,” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state told us. “We always talk about whether or not we’re going to kick the can down the road. I think the mood is that we’ve come to the end of the road.”

These fiscal end timers know that with the deficit hysteria of the Beltway media being so pervasive, even if all hell breaks loose, they won't be blamed as much as they should since they'll have their media surrogates blaming Obama for any repercussions. And of course all these tea partiers and their media instigators realize that they and their families have not as much to fear from a destroyed economy. Certainly not like the millions of working class Americans who already have had to deal with the ripple effect and high unemployment of the worldwide mortgage scandal.

Here's something else these knuckle-dragging savages haven't thought about. There are close to 100 million payments made each month from the government for all types of responsibilities and there's no way the Republicans would be able to safely transition into not paying at least 40% of our bills. No one even knows how to calibrate the government computers to do that.

It's literally insane to believe that if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, it's no big deal. No matter how crackpots like Marsha Blackburn frame their lunatic arguments, they cannot contain the damage they'll cause, or control what bills get paid and when.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on Monday said that she would be willing force a 'thoughtful' shutdown of parts of the United States government if President Barack Obama did not agree to deep spending cuts.

Heck, their plan reminds me of Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocols, based around a nuclear terrorist who wants to wipe out humanity via a nuclear Armageddon just so it will come back stronger than ever. These extreme conservatives believe America will be stronger if they drastically cut and gut the federal government while turning over the care of the state to the free markets. Sure, there are a few corporate R's like Murkowski who are starting to speak out against messing with the debt ceiling including the Koch Bros, but will it be enough to defuse the end timers' ticking time bomb?

I know you've probably already read about the president's press conference, because my friends John Amato and Susie Madrak have already written about it. If you haven't read theirs, you should, and you should also read Mike Lux' analysis of the issues surrounding the deficit.

These are people I deeply respect, but I confess that I simply did not hear the same messages in the press conference that they did. In fact, I heard something completely different.

On the Grand Bargain

What I heard was that the president was done with efforts to find a Grand Bargain. He expressed his concerns about the deficit, yes. But he also left the negotiating table. Here's the key moment, in the Q & A session with Major Garrett asking the question:

MAJOR GARRETT: Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, sir, finding votes for the debt ceiling can sometimes be complicated.

You, yourself, as a member of the Senate, voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history — President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997 — all signed deficit reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You, yourself, four times have done that. Three times, those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers.

What Chuck and I and I think many people are curious about is this new, adamant desire on your part not to negotiate, when that seems to conflict with the entire history in the modern era of American Presidents and the debt ceiling, and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn’t that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, Major, I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult, and budgets in this town are always difficult. I went through this just last year. But what’s different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of defaulting. And the fact of the matter is, is that we have never seen the debt ceiling used in this fashion, where the notion was, you know what, we might default unless we get 100 percent of what we want. That hasn’t happened.

Now, as I indicated before, I’m happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way. Although one thing I want to point out is that the American people are also concerned about how we grow our economy, how we put people back to work, how we make sure that we finance our workers getting properly trained and our schools are giving our kids the education we deserve. There’s a whole growth agenda which will reduce our deficits that’s important as well.

But what you’ve never seen is the notion that has been presented, so far at least, by the Republicans that deficit reduction — we’ll only count spending cuts; that we will raise the deficit — or the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. There are a whole set of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy.

And so what we’re not going to do is put ourselves in a position where in order to pay for spending that we’ve already incurred, that our two options are we’re either going to profoundly hurt the economy and hurt middle-class families and hurt seniors and hurt kids who are trying to go to college, or, alternatively, we’re going to blow up the economy. We’re not going to do that.

That was a clear signal to me that the president is done trying to mash up budget resolutions, tax reform and the debt ceiling. It sounds to me like he was saying plain and flatly that nothing other than a clean, reasonable increase on the debt ceiling will be acceptable. Further, he acknowledged the progressive argument advanced in John Amato's post that the real solution to the deficit is economic growth. In other words, he acknowledged that the deficit issue is a Republican flog, and Americans have something else on their minds.

He reinforced that later in the Q&A session when he said this, which I found to be the strongest gesture that he expected these things to be dealt with in an orderly fashion, beginning with a clean debt ceiling vote, in response to Julianna Goldman's question:

Continue reading »

I said a few weeks ago that if President Obama refused to use the platinum coin or the 14th Amendment to stop the debt ceilling fight, it's because he wants his Grand Bargain deal with the Republicans, and having a showdown is the best way to make it happen. I saw nothing during today's press conference to change my opinion that the president is determined to make the Republicans sit down and cut a deal that includes cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Read the transcript here:

President Barack Obama ratcheted up pressure on congressional Republicans to authorize an increase in the nation’s debt limit, warning of potentially catastrophic results for many Americans and the overall economy if the U.S. were to default on its obligations.

“The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills,” Obama said at a press conference on Monday, the last of his first term in office. “We are not a deadbeat nation.”

Anticipating a politically bruising fight this spring with the GOP – members of which in Congress have increasingly and openly discussed the prospect of refusing to raise the debt ceiling or allowing a government shutdown – Obama urged lawmakers to avoid using the vote over the debt limit as a point of leverage.

And the president sought to frame the risks of default in stark terms. He warned markets would go “haywire” if Congress would not act; Obama said that interest rates would rise, and checks to Social Security beneficiaries and military veterans would cease.

But as some Democrats urge the administration to consider options to sidestep Congress and assert the authority to unilaterally authorize more borrowing, Obama all but ruled out these sorts of “Plan B” options.

Take, for example, the debt ceiling fight unfolding right now. In the world according to Luntz, the debt ceiling battle has been lost already by Republicans because they keep referring to it as a hostage (they don't). Luntz writes:

But they need a new language to communicate their ideas effectively; it starts with abandoning ugly phrases such as “a hostage you might take a chance at shooting” to describe budget negotiations. And Republicans need to stop expressing a willingness to shut down the government if they don’t get their way on the debt ceiling. Americans don’t want a government shutdown — for any reason.

What language does he suggest? When it comes to the debt ceiling, he doesn't suggest anything, which suggests he may be telling Republicans to quit playing that tired game and just pass the clean increase just as previous Congresses have done since there was a debt ceiling to raise.

On other issues, here are his suggestions.

• Instead of smaller government, they should talk about more efficient and effective government. The former is ideological language of the 1980s; the latter is practical language of today.
• Instead of tax reform, talk about making the IRS code simpler, flatter and fairer. Speak to what people really hate about the code: its complexity.
• In addition to cutting spending, they must talk about controlling — not capping — it. What angers Americans more than how much politicians spend today is how much more they know Washington will waste tomorrow. A “cap” can be lifted, but “controls” are constant.
• Instead of entitlement reform or controlling the growth of Medicare and Social Security, talk about how to save and strengthen these programs so they are there when voters need them. After all, they paid for them.
• Better than discussing economic opportunity and growth, Republicans should talk about creating a healthier and more secure economy. Everyone benefits when economic health is restored. And while economic opportunity would be nice, security is a necessity.

In other words, Frank Luntz is instructing Republicans to start agreeing with President Obama, who has used every single one of these phrases in recent speeches. When you read that list, surely you heard the president's campaign speeches about protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, or making the tax code simpler and fairer?

Like Peggy Noonan, Luntz is telling Republicans to start acting like Democrats and deal with the very real issues at hand. Like Democrats. I'm not sure Republicans actually get that yet.

If I had a chance to speak to Frank Luntz face to face about this article, I'd tell him it's not merely language, and it's cynical to say it is. Pretty language has to be backed up with some solid policy ideas. Paul Ryan says he wants to strengthen Medicare all the time and preserve it for future generations. Then Paul Ryan puts forward his proposal, which kills Medicare and hands its future off to private insurers, which gives them far more power than they deserve to have while taking it away from the sick, disabled and elderly.

It isn't mere language that is a problem here. I can call that brown thing over there on the grass canine excrement but if anyone goes over and examines it, it's still dog sh*t and if you step in it and get it on your shoes your shoes will stink and no one will let you come inside before you take your shoes off and leave them far away from the back door. Luntz can call Paul Ryan's Medicare-killing proposal "strengthening Medicare", but it still carries the stench of a dog turd attached to his shoe.

When Luntz says Americans are angry about spending, he forgets what spending they're angry about. They're not angry about spending on Americans; they're angry about spending on bank bailouts and wars that no one wanted in the first place. They're not angry about spending on the elderly; they're angry about giving rich people such a huge and loophole-ridden tax code that they pay less than 15 percent while the rest of us pay whatever we owe, which on average is higher than their 14 percent.

If Republicans head out from their retreat with the intention of papering over what they do and have been doing with less incendiary language, they will still be the same monumental failures they've been for the last four years, because people are not that stupid. They know the smell of dog crap on someone's shoes when they smell it.

Nevertheless, there is one suggestion Luntz makes that Republicans should heed.

Beyond fiscal policy, Republicans need to revamp their messaging on other issues. For example, the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Conn., offered Republicans a chance to discuss public safety — a more personal issue than “crime” — on a human level. That hasn’t happened, but it still can. Most people agree that there is a middle ground between gun-control hard-liners, who see every crime as an excuse to enact new laws, and the National Rifle Association, which sees every crime as an excuse to sell more guns. The Second Amendment deserves defending, but do Republicans truly believe that anyone should be able to buy any gun, anywhere, at any time? If yes, they’re on the side of less than 10 percent of America. If not, they need to say so.

Yes, they need to say so and they need to put some action items behind that say-so. No more kowtowing to the lunatic fringe who thinks a war should break out over reasonable gun safety laws. It is high time for Republicans to stop allowing the blood of their fellow Americans to wash over them every time some nut with an assault weapon decides to make some kind of a statement and step up.

On that score, they should listen, and so should any Democrat who still thinks the NRA has any hold over them.

First, there's Jonathan Chait's analysis of the current stonewalling strategy; namely, not one penny more of revenue from anywhere no matter what, but plenty of cut, cut, cut. And absolutely no deal. Here's the paragraph that caught my eye, though:

So, step one: Block any compromise to reduce the deficit. Step two: Blame Obama for failing to reduce the deficit. I actually think this plan can work.

This may sound like a cynical strategy. And it is. But it’s not a purely cynical strategy. It reflects an important intellectual development on the right. Capretta is advocating not just the classic no-taxes-ever approach that has defined the party for years, but also its newer (or newly fervent) belief in privatizing health-care services.

Aha, and that follows what I'm seeing on a state level.

Rick Scott's little song and dance was the first salvo. Scott, as you'll recall, decided he would turn down the Medicaid expansion dollars from the federal government because he's crazy. But after hospitals lobbied him hard, he went to Kathleen Sibelius looking for a deal that went like this: Let me privatize all Medicaid services and I'll take your Medicaid dollars.

What a guy. And that leads me to this article in the New York Times on Wednesday, addressing the differences in care between for-profit providers and not-for-profit providers.

Continue reading »

I'm a big fan of Felix Salmon, and I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too so when he says, 'If you believe that the country is best run by grown-ups, you can’t believe in #mintthecoin, because it simply isn’t a grown-up strategy,' He makes the case for me. You see, the country is not run by the grownups, but by a cruel conservative caucus of tea party nuts that care nothing about the people of the US, but will give everything to a Jack Abramoff ideology of governing.

Josh Barro and Atrios have been pushing the mint the coin idea hard and I have become a huge supporter.

This morning, Joe Weisenthal and I took our message in favor of minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin to "Bloomberg Surveillance," where we were met with the usual shock and horror from hosts Tom Keene and Sara Eisen. Platinum coin opponents are so distressed that one, Republican Representative Greg Walden, has said he will introduce legislation to ban the coin, citing my post from last week as a dangerous instigation.Walden, Keene and Eisen are all wrong. Here are my responses to the most common objections we are getting to the platinum coin proposal, in increasing order of persuasiveness:

1. "That's silly/zany/juvenile!" This is probably true, but it's not a dispositive objection. Republican intransigence over the debt ceiling is juvenile. There is no particular reason that the president should not use a juvenile strategy in response.The key question to ask about the platinum coin is not "is it juvenile?" but "will it work?" Minting the coin will allow the federal government to continue to meet its spending obligations despite hitting the debt ceiling. It will allow President Barack Obama to pressure Congress to repeal the debt ceiling. That -- not whether it seems silly -- is the important thing.

2. "Where will we get all the platinum?" I'm honestly surprised by this question, but I'm hearing it a lot, including from the Guardian's Heidi Moore and from Keene this morning.To be clear: We do not need a trillion dollars' worth of platinum to make the trillion-dollar coin -- less than an ounce will do. This is not a move to a "platinum standard," and it shouldn't even have any impact on the markets in platinum. There will be no need for dump trucks full of precious metal to head toward the mint.

3. "But that will be inflationary!" This is a more serious objection, and it gets at what the platinum coin strategy really is -- financing the federal government's operations by printing money instead of borrowing it. The trillion- dollar coin will never circulate, but it will be used to back cash payments coming from the Treasury that would have otherwise been financed by bond purchases.

Paul Krugman has been weighing in also and says if the freaks in Congress continue to hold the debt ceiling hostage then just mint the damn thing.

So minting the coin would be undignified, but so what? At the same time, it would be economically harmless — and would both avoid catastrophic economic developments and help head off government by blackmail. What we all hope, of course, is that the prospect of the coin or some equivalent strategy will simply take the debt ceiling off the table. But if not, mint the darn coin.

Ezra Klein has been doing some reporting on the coin also and debunks a childish attack on the platinum coin idea from the NRCC:

Funny, but quite wrong. The NRCC is suggesting that you need $1 trillion worth of platinum to mint a $1 trillion platinum coin. For some bullion coins, that may be true—the coin is worth the value of the underlying metal. But there’s a clear exception for U.S. platinum coins. Again, here’s Section (k) of 31 USC § 5112:

(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

That’s why the platinum coin option could technically work. The Secretary of Treasury can order up a small platinum coin and give it any value he wants. Say, $1 trillion. That coin would be deposited at the Federal Reserve. The Fed would credit the Treasury’s accounts with $1 trillion. Now the federal government would have enough money to pay its bills without having to worry about debt-ceiling restraints on borrowing. At least for a little bit.

Any idiot who takes a minute to think about seigniorage understands that you don't need an equal weight for value trade off when minting currency. And the former head of U.S. Mint agrees: The platinum coin option would work

*The media refuses to report any real facts about the tea party politicians and Conservatives so when they once tried to renege on the debt in 2011 which would have collapsed economies world wide, nothing much was made of it.

*When they refused to raise taxes on the wealthy even after the election, nothing much was made of it by the media and now they are once again trying to hold hostage the US government by kidnapping the debt ceiling.

*They've made a mockery out of the filibuster rules ever since Obama took office and the media said nothing.

* An insanely low number of judges have been appointed under Obama's White House because Republicans block the nominations.

With a record like this it's not hard to see why the platinum coin is a strategy worth considering and using if need be. That's why I'm behind it.