No standards, and poor reasoning, in U.S. downgrade
I can’t remember the last time something as telegraphed beforehand as the Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the federal government’s credit rating was discussed as if it were so shocking to so many people. S&P said a couple of weeks ago that it wanted to see a package of $4 trillion in deficit reductions to go along with the debt deal, or else a downgrade was coming.
Ratings agencies don’t get to set budget policy in this country, and Congress decided to do something else. Congress doesn’t get to set credit ratings in this country, and S&P decided to make good on its threat. The company really wouldn’t have had a shred of its credibility — you might say the very last shred of its credibility — left if it hadn’t done so. In the end, I think that’s what this move was really about: The company unwisely placed a stake in the ground of the debt-ceiling talks, and then had no choice but to do what it had threatened to do.
Why do I think that’s what it was about? Because it certainly wasn’t about the nation’s creditworthiness. The holes in S&P’s logic for choosing this particular time to issue a downgrade tell us as much.
Democracies are messy, and at their messiest when passions run high and opinions are divided. Despite S&P’s tsk-tsking after the fact, there was zero chance Congress was going to let the Aug. 2 deadline come and go without some kind of a deal. Zero. No leader of either party in either chamber of Congress, nor the president, ever voiced a willingness to do so. They framed the debate in terms of what would come along with the inevitable raising of the debt ceiling. Although there were some individual members who voiced a willingness to risk it, the margins of the votes in both the House and the Senate were so large as to demonstrate that these voices, while loud, were far from influential enough to carry the day. Markets were already pricing in the risk of a default before the deal was struck, and you may have noticed that the really big losses didn’t come until afterward (when there just happened to be a lot of other unpleasantness going on elsewhere in the world).
And regardless of whether you agree with my assessment of the chances that Congress would fail to reach a deal, the fact is that a deal was reached. Debts are being serviced just as they were before. S&P is essentially trying to predict the ending of the next debate, which will take place in an entirely different context (i.e., not up against a deadline for raising the debt ceiling).
So we’re back to the size of the reductions. And there are three important points to note here.
- I can neither recall nor locate any statement from S&P when President Obama initially asked for a “clean” increase in the debt ceiling that indicated such a move would have led to a downgrade — even though such a move would have been far worse, given S&P’s rationale now, than what we got in the end.
- The entire history of the U.S. debt ceiling before last week went like this: President asks for increase, Congress grants increase, with no strings attached. I know this, because Democrats pointed it out ad nauseum during the debate as a reason why there should be a clean increase (that is, when they weren’t trying to claim the high ground with Obama’s never-specified plan for $4 trillion in cuts). So, for there to have been any cuts at all attached to the ceiling increase was a historic moment for changing the direction of the nation’s fiscal policy for the better. And how does S&P react? By saying it should have been an even more historic moment.
- In the end Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, did agree — again, by sizable margins — to almost $1 trillion in new spending caps and the broad outlines of a further $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in further reductions. The political process worked. It may have been messy, it may have been ugly, it may ultimately have satisfied no purists of any stripe. But it worked. The language S&P used in its press release would lead someone who’d gone to sleep July 28 and just awakened to believe no deal had been reached.
As for S&P’s hand-wringing that there won’t be a substantial policy consensus until after next year’s election: There’s an election next year? When did someone put that on the calendar?!?
It’s almost enough to make one wonder whether the folks at S&P had ever before watched any political process — or, indeed, even any contentious and high-stakes business negotiations — take place.
One final point about S&P’s statement itself. If you want to find a lie within it, look for the line about S&P’s having no opinion as to the balance between tax increases and spending cuts. Baloney. The only other way to understand the statement, aside from S&P having left itself no option but to make good on its threat, is to view it as a call for higher taxes. It’s the right of the folks at S&P to believe that’s what should happen, but the fact that taxes haven’t gone up yet has nothing to do with the actual creditworthiness today of the U.S. government.
If we deserve a downgrade, we deserved it a long time ago.
***
Now, all that said, is there any merit to the idea that the United States is a riskier investment today than it was as of Friday afternoon — or even as a result of the tense debt-ceiling negotiations? Should everyone be spooked by U.S. political wrangling?
The markets certainly didn’t think so last week; investors drove down the yields on U.S. Treasurys that they viewed as safe havens. We’ll see what happens today. But Moody’s and Fitch still have Uncle Sam rated AAA, and my understanding is that, from a technical standpoint, that should mean little or no fallout from S&P’s downgrade (i.e., banks aren’t going to have to sell off a bunch of Treasurys just because S&P has them at AA+ now).
From a psychological standpoint, things may be different. But I doubt that anyone saw S&P’s downgrade and realized for the first time that the U.S. government has racked up an alarming amount of debt and has yet to implement no plans to begin reining in said debt. Again, this is not news. The tea party sounded this alarm bell almost two and a half years before S&P got to ringing (and, irony of ironies, is now getting the blame for the downgrade in many quarters).
If there is some good to come out of S&P’s move, it will have to be a sharpening of focus and attention in Washington to make tough choices sooner than later. There may be greater public pressure on members of Congress to do something bold in the way of reforming the tax code and entitlements.
If would be for the good if they were so prodded. But again, prodding politicians isn’t a ratings agency’s job.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
168 comments Add your comment
PS
August 8th, 2011
10:45 am
Bottom line is that this problem has been 30+ years in the making. Anyone who thinks the debt/deficit issue just started in 2008 is utterly delusional. As a Dem, I will favor broad cuts in entitlements, and other domestic spending if we can also get revenue. Heck, lock in the spending cuts first if need be, then figure out how to broaden the tax base, fix loopholes that may not be necessary anymore.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
10:49 am
Still waiting for someone to explain how taking resources away from the private economy helps the private economy.
Didn’t think so.
Tea Party Hobbit
August 8th, 2011
10:56 am
Are you kidding, Barry? The lefties can barely wrap their brains around the idea of a private economy to begin with. How, living in this country, I don’t know – maybe make it simpler. Does it make sense to have government run other industries too? How would the government do at running the restaurant business? No more McDonalds, BK, KFC – instead all restaurants would be run by the Federal Eatery Commission. All food would be required to be exactly the same, and in the end would wind up tasting like the stuff you get at DC museums. I love the museums, but their food sucks! And costs twice as much as the burger chains on top of that! Overreaching government does not work on any level, in any industry.
Linda
August 8th, 2011
10:56 am
Rob Woodall@9:15, Maybe it was the Obama adm. threatening to “default.”
Nice try. You cited the number of “jobs lost.” Maybe you are unaware that the Bureau of Labor Statistics also takes into consideration the number of “jobs created” to determine the unemployment rate.
The highest annual unemployment rate under Bush was 5.99% before the last Bush tax cuts were passed, almost half of the highest monthly unemployment rate under Obama in Oct., 2009.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
11:03 am
Tea Party Hobbit: Are you kidding, Barry? The lefties can barely wrap their brains around the idea of a private economy to begin with.
——–
Yeah, it IS sort of a trick question, isn’t it?
Rob Woodall Has Always Gotten His Healthcare for Free but Paid By You, He wants your grandparents to forgo food to pay out from their fixed income
August 8th, 2011
11:15 am
Linda –
The highest unemployment rate under Bush was January of 2008 when he left office: 7.8%.
It grew to 10.1% by October during Obama’s first year in office and it was trending upward significantly during Bush’s last year and Obama’s first year. Just like the captain on the Titanic, Obama couldn’t immediately stop the trend of the economy he was handed by Bush.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
The annual unemployment rate is a useless statistic, unless you are trying to cook the books to make Bush look good and Obama look bad.
Another Vet
August 8th, 2011
11:18 am
Lil BB
The Bush tax cuts gave wealthy Americans the chance to borrow $2 trillion from the Chinese over 10 years. The Bush stock market crash lost $8-9 trillion for American investors. Don’t even think about the losses in the residential market.
If maintaining those tax cuts is the best republican idea, we need to keep hitting ourselves in the head with bricks, as the first ones didn’t do the job.
Jefferson
August 8th, 2011
11:20 am
The house of reps caused this problem.
Monquasia
August 8th, 2011
11:28 am
“…prodding politicians isn’t a ratings agency’s job.”
Not sure I agree with that Kyle. Would you expect S&P to keep looking the other way while the fools in D.C. run the government into the ground?
If you’re upset about one rating agency downgrade, just wait till the other two follow suit. When that happens the fecal material will REALLY hit the fan.
Rob Woodall Has Always Gotten His Healthcare for Free but Paid By You, He wants your grandparents to forgo food to pay out from their fixed income
August 8th, 2011
11:46 am
Linda? Bueller? Anyone?
A voice of reason
August 8th, 2011
11:47 am
Let’s continue the out of control borrowing and spending. Eventually, we will find out who was right and who was wrong. If we face no consequences, I will personally find every Democrat and admit that I was wrong and tell them I’m sorry.
jconservative
August 8th, 2011
11:54 am
Nice shot at the messenger. But I am not sure you hit him much less killed him.
The question on the table should be why is there a Debt Ceiling in the first place? What purpose does it serve?
Why have a debt ceiling on Congress when Congress can raise the debt ceiling any time they want?
And they have raised it 70+ times. So lets just get rid of the Debt Ceiling legislation.
Spending is up, revenue is down, and the national Debt is growing larger and larger.
If we just cut spending, we will never balance the budget and pay off the debt.
If we just raise revenue, we will never balance the budget and pay off the debt.
And since Congress has taken one half of all the possible solutions off the table, increased revenue, we are left with never ever being able to balance the budget and pay off the debt.
The best estimate is that debt will continue to rise and interest payments on the debt will continue to rise.
That is where we are today.
Oh, and there is a presidential election in a few months.
Linda
August 8th, 2011
12:00 pm
Rob@11:15, When the economic stimulus bill was being negotiated in 1/09, the unemployment rate was 7.6%. The final unemployment rate of 1/09 was higher. The American people were told by economists in the Obama adm. that the rate would not exceed 8% if it passed but would exceed 10% if it was not passed. It passed & climbed to 10.1%. Look at it today.
Your 1st cite was disingenuous. Your 2nd cite corresponds with mine.
I don’t have to cook the books to make Obama look bad. If the election was today, he would loose his shirt.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
12:05 pm
Another Vet: The Bush tax cuts gave wealthy Americans the chance to borrow $2 trillion from the Chinese over 10 years.
——-
The vast majority of the tax cuts went to the middle class. You knew that, right?
Linda
August 8th, 2011
12:06 pm
The White House is being scolded by all our debtors. China, Russia, Japan, India, etc., as well as S&P & Moody’s have all joined the Tea Party.
They are all saying what the Tea Party has been saying for over 2 years.
Linda
August 8th, 2011
12:12 pm
I would be willing to do away with the debt ceiling in exchange for a balanced budget amendment. Without the latter, the former is crucial.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
12:16 pm
Linda, that would be a reasonable compromise!
Rob Woodall Has Always Gotten His Healthcare for Free but Paid By You, He wants your grandparents to forgo food to pay out from their fixed income
August 8th, 2011
12:21 pm
Linda – Obama and his minions were wrong in their estimation of how bad of an economy they were handed by GWB. What we saw was that in spite of the fact that Obama’s policies were able to significantly slow job losses (my first citation), they were not able to reverse the unemployment trend that was occurring (my second citation).
What we should have learned is that Obama should have listened to the Keynesians and pushed harder for a larger stimulus. Krugman was warning him all the way back in January ‘09.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1312820442-jqSmW6JZ8LdanoIPWJq7sA
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
12:26 pm
Our President Bush passed TARP, financial disaster was averted, and the recovery began in June 2009.
How did Obozo screw it up?
No artificial flavors
August 8th, 2011
12:31 pm
I was suprised that the initial statement from S&P did not include any actual economic basis such as the full faith and credit backing of the US taxpayers in their ability to eventually pay back the debt. We are still the most dynamic economy in the world and given the right policies we still have the abilty to rectify the problems with our current tax base coupled with better tax policy.
LJ
August 8th, 2011
12:34 pm
The reason for the downgrade is not a secret- the S&P called us on our BS “cuts” in spending(excuse me, reductions in future spending increases…) and also called out Washington for not having the balls to get their fiscal house in order and anger some constituents. In their own words, $4 Trillion was a good “down payment.”
In other news we officially hit 1/1 Debt/GDP ratio… Who would have thought that borrowing 50 cents of every dollar we spend(and also having the intent to INCREASE our future borrowing..) would result in a credit downgrade?
Linda
August 8th, 2011
12:38 pm
Rob@12:21, Keynesian economics did not work under FDR, in Japan for 20 yrs. & it hasn’t worked under Obama. Obama needs to understand that the only way to get out of his hole (& ours) is to swap his shovel for a pair of scissors. Maybe there will be a Democrat someday somehow who stumbles upon the fact that there is NO money.
He was wrong about the stimulus, unemployment, Cash for Clunkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, the housing problem & just about everything else he poured money at. The economy is as natural as a river. His meddling has only dammed it up & muddied its waters.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
12:39 pm
That’s too much common sense for one post, LJ.
Skip
August 8th, 2011
12:41 pm
“U.S. announces 100 million in aid to Somalia” The debt crisis must be over right? We can’t be borrowing just to give it away.
Jefferson
August 8th, 2011
12:53 pm
See what you get with a weak Speaker of the House…more interest to pay. Why can’t they bring something to the table that will work? They have to be begged to pass anything, the president should not have to do everything.
MarkV
August 8th, 2011
1:20 pm
Skip @12:41 pm: “U.S. announces 100 million in aid to Somalia” The debt crisis must be over right? We can’t be borrowing just to give it away.
Kyle recently called 25 billion “not even a rounding error in the GDP.” 100 million to help starving people is not even a rounding error of the rounding error.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
1:21 pm
Jefferson, you might want to find put how much our interest payments increased as a result of spending increases while Peloso was speaker. Oopsies!
Kyle Wingfield
August 8th, 2011
1:22 pm
I’ve been out of pocket this morning and am just getting caught up…
JF @ 7:20: I did read the release, several times, and it doesn’t say that S&P wouldn’t have downgraded us for a clean debt-ceiling increase. You can read that in between the lines, but I think that only reinforces my point. If a $2 trillion increase in borrowing authority with no spending cuts would have been fine, why was a $2 trillion increase in borrowing authority with some spending cuts suddenly a problem? Because members of Congress bickered before settling on a plan? Spare me. S&P’s own logic doesn’t add up.
And I want to amplify a point I made only in passing in the OP. I do think a case can be made that the U.S. government’s long-term finances are not worthy of a AAA rating. But that case has been apparent for some time now. The idea that it was only last week that our debt became unsustainable, or that there were striking differences of opinion among politicians about how to right the ship, is preposterous.
I think it’s quite possible to believe simultaneously these three things: that we have too much debt and are not doing enough to resolve it; that the debt-ceiling deal moves us in a better position but is insufficient; and that S&P’s rationale for the downgrade is ridiculous.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
1:54 pm
If you’re, uh, mentally challenged enough to vote for Obozo, you’re not likely able to think three things at once.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
2:08 pm
Market dropping more after Obozo statement.
Logical Dude
August 8th, 2011
2:12 pm
DJIA 11,005.04 -439.57 -3.84%
NASDAQ 2,407.87 -124.54 -4.92%
S&P 500 1,140.53 -58.85 -4.91%
(and this is at 2 PM)
Kyle says:
“We’ll see what happens today. But Moody’s and Fitch still have Uncle Sam rated AAA, and my understanding is that, from a technical standpoint, that should mean little or no fallout from S&P’s downgrade ”
Kyle, do you still believe that, or will you change your next article to say “i was wrong”?
Linda
August 8th, 2011
2:18 pm
Skip@12:41, People are actually starving in Somalia. My question is: why are we borrowing $718,000 from China to send back to China to pay for them to study methane in their coal mines, while we are being forced to close our own coal mines?
The Democrat House passed Cap & Trade, but the Senate did not. Obama said NO PROBLEM. I don’t need legislation for regulation. His EPA is not only regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the US but all over the world. They have sent millions overseas to places such as:
$700 K to Thailand to recover methane from pig farms,
$7.6 M to Russia,
almost $200 K to Ethiopia to replace their open fires with GE ranges
$170 K to Poland for liquefied gas extraction
$15 K to Indonesia for Breathe Easy, Jakarta campaign
$1.2 M to the UN
$150 K to Interpol to fight fraud in swapping carbon back & forth
We are blessed that even Democratic senators know a hoax when they see one &/or know that Cap & Trade will wipe us out.
http://clevelandteapartypatriots.blogspot.com/2011/07/epa-funding-global-warming-programs-in.html
UGA 1999
August 8th, 2011
2:22 pm
Obama: US will always be a AAA-rated country despite what rating agencies say
THIS GUY CANNOT BE THIS OUT OF TOUCH CAN HE????? WHAT A JOKE!
Kyle Wingfield
August 8th, 2011
2:33 pm
Logical @ 2:12: I think the better question is whether you’re going to acknowledge that the line you lifted was made in reference to the bond markets.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
2:45 pm
Nothing but more of the same today from Barack Blame-Game Hussein.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 8th, 2011
2:46 pm
Not exactly confidence-inspiring.
Finn McCool
August 8th, 2011
3:10 pm
Like paul krugman said, who gives a rats arse what S&P thinks after they lost all credibility during the past 5 years. We should completely ignore them.
UGA 1999
August 8th, 2011
3:11 pm
Finn…..it seems Obama alreday is….
How is it that Keynesian economics did work under FDR?
August 8th, 2011
3:13 pm
Linda,
Just because you proclaim something to be true that doesn’t make it so. Keynesian economic principles were an unqualified success in helping America pull out of the great depression.
“By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. Unemployment remained high, but it was considerably lower than the 25% rate seen in 1933. In June 1937, some of Roosevelt’s advisors urged spending cuts to balance the budget. WPA rolls were drastically cut and PWA projects were slowed to a standstill. The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 per cent and production of durable goods fell even faster.
Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors, hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers’ expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938
Logical Dude
August 8th, 2011
3:22 pm
Kyle:
“Logical @ 2:12: I think the better question is whether you’re going to acknowledge that the line you lifted was made in reference to the bond markets.”
I’ll admit to it if you admit that the general gist of your column is “so we got downgraded, not big deal, it’s a political move”.
Kyle Wingfield
August 8th, 2011
3:30 pm
No, Logical, I’d say the general gist of the column is that, while there’s plenty wrong with the nation’s finances, the particular reasons S&P gave for choosing now as the time to downgrade are well off the mark.
Linda
August 8th, 2011
4:02 pm
How@3:13, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before & it does not work…I say after eight years of this Administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”
These are words by Henry Morgenthau, Jr., close friend, lunch companion, loyal Secretary of the Treasury & key architect of FDR’s New Deal on 5-9-39 to the House Ways & Means Committee.
The site below separates the myths from the facts.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/14/were-spending-more-than-ever-and-it-doesnt-work/
Progressives have changed the history books. Those of us who are older know that it was WWII that finally ended the Great Depression.
Progressives are teaching global warming, the theory of evolution, the history of unions, homosexuality, etc., & have ceased teaching civics, the Constitution & the Founding Fathers & have removed the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance & the right to pray. Our graduation rates, test scores nor our standing in the world have improved in any way since the natl. Dept. of Education started. A huge percentage of high school graduates cannot even qualify academically for our military. These are all reasons it should close. The progressives are dumbing down America.
You might locate some more reliable sources than Wikipedia.
Rafe Hollister
August 8th, 2011
4:03 pm
Point/Counterpoint
Let me educate you why moral middle class people vote Republican, against their self interest as you point out.
We were raised to love our country, our Constitution, our military, freedom, liberty, property rights, self reliance, Jesus Christ, and our firearms to name a few. Democrats are a threat to all of these, so to vote Democrat is to vote against what is good for the country, as we know it. Yes, often we are tempted to vote our pocket books, but then we realize what our grandmothers taught us, try to leave things better than you found them.
Rafe Hollister
August 8th, 2011
4:08 pm
Keynesian
When all this global economic meltdown started Obama told the heads of state that they should increase government spending to take up the gap in private sector spending. Obviously they all drank the Koolaid, but Angela Merkel. Merkel resisted saying Germany was going to reduce and economize. I believe Germany is bailing out the rest of Europe or trying to.
Marie
August 8th, 2011
4:14 pm
@Point/Counterpoint – I am not a wealthy American and yes I will probably never be one. But how about just voting Republican because you believe the INDIVIDUAL is entitled to his wealth and not the government. I could care less how much Jack or any other wealthy person has earned his/her money. As Jack stated he pays the taxes he is required to pay (unlike the tax cheat who serves as our Sec. of Treasury) and uses the tax code to his advantage to prevent from paying anymore. Well so do the poor and middle class. If you have a home mortgage you claim the interest deduction, give to charity you claim that too, got a kid you’re supporting a college you claim that, and health expenses and child care expenses and on and on. For some folks to act like only the rich try to avoid paying taxes is just breath taking. We all use the tax code to eliminate any further liability or attempt to get the fattest refund possible. But it’s amazing that we only want to beat up on the rich or ubber rich in this country mainly by those folks who are envious because they are not rich. As long as a person follows the law in obtaining their wealth, spending their wealth, and filing their taxes — it’s none of your business how much money they have. And it is immoral for the government to continue to demonize folks who have done nothing illegal in obtaining their wealth in order to pacify a bunch a haters.
Rafe Hollister
August 8th, 2011
4:20 pm
Marie
Well said!
mehlman rings twice
August 8th, 2011
4:22 pm
Let me see if I got this right:
Great Depression – no downgrade.
World World II – no downgrade.
Wage and price controls in the early 1970’s – no downgrade.
Great recession and historic high interest rates in the late 1970’s – no downgrade.
Market shrinks 33% in 1987 – no downgrade.
Savings and loan collapse – no downgrade.
Mortgage and investment banking collapse – no downgrade.
Administration and Congress are not playing nice with each other – downgrade necessary!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 8th, 2011
4:37 pm
This is what the libs have discovered after two and a half years, morons that they are-
Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted “present” (instead of “yea” or “nay”) 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues. . . .
No kidding?
Remember when we told y’all?
Linda
August 8th, 2011
4:41 pm
Marie@4:14, Your heart is in the right place.
Ayn Rant
August 8th, 2011
4:51 pm
What a lot of silly jackasses the Congressional Republicans are! The stock market losses from the phony “deficit reduction plan” they foisted on the nation would cover the next two years of federal deficit.
The stock markets around the world have seconded the S&P assessment of the US economy. The only hope now is that the American electorate will come to their senses and send the recalcitrant Republicans off to the wilderness until the economy can be fixed.