“Without a debt ceiling, what’s the discipline of Congress not to just continue to spend?”
In response to a relatively tame question about the federal debt ceiling, Emanuel Cleaver answered with a response so completely out of left field that it defies even the strangest expectations.
I’m not sure that there is a discipline. In 1917 it was a good idea to say that we’re not going to allow the nation’s debt to get beyond this point. But, in the contemporary world, particularly in the United States, where we have elections, I think a dictatorship would be pretty good. But when we have elections it’s not good because people wanna try to impress the voters, and they will hurt the nation to impress the voters.
(The exchange in question begins at the 14:49 mark.)
After 2010 it’s not surprising that Democrats wouldn’t be a big fan of elections, but to actually include the line “I think a dictatorship would be pretty good” borders on the ridiculous.
For one, it’s ignorant of history – if you’re looking for responsible government or sound fiscal policy, you don’t go to dictatorships.
Second, it’s a surprising condemnation of Cleaver’s poor record on fiscal issues. He’s never made an honest attempt to take on the national debt, whether or not he had a real election challenge in any given year. No matter how you cut it, he runs afoul of his own criticism.
Third, if Cleaver has so little faith in representational government – what is he still doing in elected office? If he thinks that his participation in the government is bad for this country’s fiscal responsibility (which it arguably is), why not just step down? He clearly doesn’t believe in what he’s doing anymore.
Sometimes the stuff Cleaver says really makes us wonder.
Cleaver has ALWAYS been a moron. That will never change. He rivals Sharpton for demagoging. And, oh yeah, he's a liar in the Blago class. Wonder if his financial expertise is up there with his buddy Charlie Rangel?
Posted by: Mike | June 05, 2011 at 02:49 PM