You know, the debt ceiling is really simple to raise. You just hold a vote on raising the debt ceiling. Just ask Speaker Boehner. He voted to raise the debt ceiling five times during the Bush administration, upping it from $6 trillion in June 2002 to eventually $9.815 trillion in 2007. Majority leader Eric Cantor also voted for each of those increases, and so did Senator McConnell in the other chamber. No poison pills, no big drama, no convoluted web of issues sucked into the discussion. Do we raise the debt limit or not? It’s not complicated.

Well, it’s not complicated unless the President’s name is Obama instead of Bush. Or unless the House has been returned to a GOP majority thanks to a bunch of candidates lifted to elected office on the twin tides of “death panel” lies and xenophobia. And if you have BOTH a President Obama and a group of cocky ideologues whose idea of making government work is getting exactly what they want or shutting the government down, well, then you might have a problem.

To be more specific, Speaker Boehner has a problem. He is sufficiently in touch with reality to see why the first-ever default on U.S. credit would be bad for the country. Senator McConnell does, too, along with the President. That’s the point where our system’s dynamic forces compromise — nobody gets everything what they want, but we don’t break the country.

The catch is, these aren’t negotiations between Democrats and Republicans. These talks require the assent of Democrats, Republicans, and true-believing gypsies in the Congressional palace who deliver unrelenting obstinance over gravely important issues and proudly call it patriotism. It’s that last bunch that’s the problem, because while Boehner is ostensibly their leader, he can’t seem to deliver their votes.

Here’s the ironic thing about the Tea Party congressmen. The Wall Street bailout following the mortgage debacle primed the pump for their movement’s righteous indignation and rise to power. But these same people are now writing the script for a governmental version of the mortgage crisis — a significant and entirely needless self-inflicted economic wound, born of willful tunnel vision and a previously unimaginable level of professional dereliction.

So you have that crowd’s obvious disregard for the nation’s welfare dovetailing with a trademark Republican negotiating ploy of recent years — go grab something unrelated to the issue at hand and hold it hostage to get what you want. The beauty of that strategy is as long as you can count on the other side to behave rationally for the greater good, you can bully them into giving you the politically favorable end of the deal.

And in President Obama, they know they have a rational person. He angered a lot of his own base in getting health care reform passed, giving up several important elements including universal coverage. But he surrendered those because he chronically keeps his eye on the big picture, and he believes it is better to get something done than nothing.

In the health care battle, Republicans saw Obama and the Democrats give a ridiculous amount ground for a party who held the White House and majorities in both houses, and they knew they could work it again here. That’s usually where the GOP leaders put the gun to the kitten’s head, the Democrats blink, and the Republicans walk out with another victory for rich folks. Except the Tea Partiers have blown it for Boehner. They, like Boehner, are programmed to resist so strongly that they don’t know how to recognize and grab a great deal while they can.

And let’s be clear: the deficit reduction package Obama offered would’ve been welcomed from a Republican president and heralded as a big step transcending party politics. And hey, want to cut the spending now and deal with any tax reform or increases down the road instead? No problem! But it was still a deal — reflecting not unilateral conservative fantasy but, you know, reality as we know it — Democrats are crappy negotiators, but they’re still an actual party with a little leverage. And when the holdouts said they’d think about it if the President agreed to nix the individual mandate from health care reform … well, you can decide if Obama was dealing with people acting in good faith on behalf of the American people.

The American people … remember them? That’s ultimately where this is going to come back to bite Boehner, Cantor, and the kennel of snarling mutts in their backyard. We’re talking about the party that likes to preach loudly and often about “personal accountability,” about the Founding Fathers, about fiscal responsibility and Constitutional fidelity.

The theatrics and stubbornness of Cantor’s crowd will play well to the base, but it’s the independents who make the difference in Presidential elections years. And independents will know which party engineered the first credit default in U.S. history despite all the flag-waving and symbolic gestures. They’ll see through the spin to recognize what would be an unprecedented feat of fundamental fiscal irresponsibility by elected officials (which is really saying something).

After all, it wasn’t Democrats who engineered the Newt-era shutdown. Or the recent state shutdown in Minnesota. Or who are ignoring real repercussions for real Americans (not to mention the pretty explicit instructions of the 14th amendment) in this crisis. It’s one thing to argue for smaller government; it’s another to kneecap it and tell those affected to eat cake.

One party offers to cut a ton of domestic spending and make some painful sacrifices to reduce the deficit and ensure we avoid breaking through what is probably a unconstitutional debt ceiling for at least a couple of years. Another party just says no and waits to see what happens to the country after they pull the pin. That’s a foolproof way to make Democratic flaws a lot more livable.

Steering us on a totally avoidable course into deep and uncharted waters, could Cantor and his Tea Partiers do anything more to help the Obama ‘12 team? Right now, my biggest fear is that they’ll find a way.

Ron Schiller, formerly of NPR and now formerly of the job he hadn’t even started yet at the Aspen Institute.

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, perhaps finally no-srsly for-reals presidential candidate.

Charlie Sheen, recently fired star actor, descendant of Adonis.

One of these three men has maintained a sufficient relationship with reality to understand that his conduct has made him not nearly as employable at his preferred level as he would like. Hats off to you, Mr. Schiller.

The other two are smart guys, but at least we can understand one’s obliviousness since he’s a clearly deluded egomaniac, evidenced by recent statements and of course a long-term pattern of unseemly behavior toward women in his life.

So what’s your excuse, Charlie?

The new GOP majority in the House is eyeing a number of budget cuts, including the total elimination of support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The news brought to mind the first time I ever heard of the CPB.

That led me, of course, to Mr. Rogers. Ironically, the CPB hosts footage from 1969, when the GOP was trying to cut the CPB funds in half and the besweatered (and comparatively quite young) friend of children anywhere spoke up for CPB’s mission and its viewers. (Watch the video here. The whole thing is about six minutes.)

Listen to Senator Pastore during Mr. Rogers’ testimony, and a few differences between 1969 and today become clear:

- Back then, the GOP goal was to halve. Now, the goal is to eliminate.

- Today, this kind of public flexibility would get Sen. Pastore primaried.

- Mr. Rogers was a freakin’ genius. It’s like Gandhi standing against the British.

Speaking of flexibility, listen to the passage Rogers quotes to wrap up. Then consider our previous President’s “He tried to kill my Daddy!”-based Iraq policy, the orchestrated outrage of the disrupted health care town halls around the country, and the Tea Party’s vibe in general.

Between its “Second Amendment remedies” temperment and the Bachmann/Limbaugh Overdrive that stokes its followers, what you’re looking at is a movement built on tantrum. Of course the captains of that ship don’t relate to instilling this kind of self-control and reflection in our children.

I concede that a lot of decent federal line-items would have to take hits to make serious budget progress. But I also suggest that an attitude that is all Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris and no Gandhi or Mr. Rogers has led to quite a bit of this deficit in the last ten years. We hear a lot of deficit griping about what kind of future we’re leaving our children, but let’s not be too hasty in cutting off investment in the kind of children we’re sending to the future.

My fellow Americans,

Good evening. We have been in discussions with our Republican colleagues in Congress, pursuing a deal regarding the Bush tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and other stimulus measures to help our economy.

There will be no deal, and I wanted to take a few minutes tonight to explain why. Last week, Democrats offered legislation that would permanently give EVERY taxpayer the same tax cut on their first $250,000 of income that they have received the past several years. This measure passed the House. However, Republicans in the Senate filibustered to prevent it from receiving a vote.

That was disappointing. In a climate where we must balance boosting the short-term economy with starting to tackle the deficit, this was an expensive but worthwhile measure that would’ve helped every taxpayer in every bracket survive difficult times and invest in our future. However, Republican leadership rejected these across-the-board tax cuts because it did not give the the wealthiest 2% of Americans yet more tax breaks on income above $250,000.

My GOP colleagues defend this position by claiming it helps generate jobs. I believe that continuing or creating new tax cuts and incentives for small businesses would do a significantly better job of this than a tax break for less than a million private citizens, only a small fraction of whom are in a position to do any hiring whatsoever. The Republicans were not interested in this alternative.

Furthermore, Republicans have chosen to hold an extension of unemployment benefits hostage over this issue. These unemployment insurance payments should not be a bargaining chip. Indeed, no Congress in over 40 years has let these expire when the unemployment rate was over 7.2%.

In essence, the Republicans were willing to do what every Congress for generations has done to help people actively looking for work avoid falling into financial ruin, but only if we borrowed billions of dollars to give further tax breaks to those among us who are fortunate to not have any trouble paying bills, buying food, and maintaining shelter for their families.

While it would have been easier to take this deal, it would have been wrong. Despite very public statements of concern by my friends in the other party, it would have added considerably to the long-term deficit. It also would’ve had less short-term impact than other measures. Which dollar is likely to get spent back into the economy most quickly and consistently — a dollar in the hands of an unemployed American trying to make ends meet while looking for a job, or a dollar that is part of a $25,000 tax break for a top-2% earner?

But more importantly, it would have set a precedent that nothing happens in this country until the most powerful get their cut first. I’m not saying that kind of thing doesn’t happen in life on a regular basis. But as your elected officials, we swore to serve each and every American. That’s a complicated task for a government, but the prospects for our success — and for our character as a nation — are dampened if we cannot target our valuable resources where they are most needed without first diverting some to where they are not.

So as it stands tonight, all of the Bush-era tax cuts will expire. As you may recall, they were passed explicitly as “emergency temporary” cuts back then, and their expiration is is good for deficit reduction, but it is tough news for working-class families. I have asked Senator Reid to stay in session to try again to pass the measure previously filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate to maintain these lower rates for everyone. I urge you all to contact your Senators to express your opinion on the matter.

Unemployment benefits have expired and will stay that way, for millions of citizens who have paid their unemployment insurance with every paycheck just like so many of us have, unless Congress swiftly passes an extension for me to sign. This should be a matter of decency and basic governmental procedure, not a chip for partisan posturing by either party. Again, I urge you to let your feelings known.

At this time in our history, it is more important than ever that we proceed with an eye toward weathering the storm together, not beating your neighbor to the lifeboat. A tax cut for everyone’s first $250,000 and standard unemployment payments to those looking for work represent fair and effective investments in our country’s future. The sooner we enact them, the better.

After some rejected-for-now talk of a possible party switch by West Virginia’s new Senator Manchin, I think Congress needs to take a page from the NCAA. You leave the party on which you ran and won election, you can’t cast a vote for a year.

A lot of constituents voted for you because you were a Whatever in both the primary and the general, and because they didn’t want to support the Other Party. Betray that tangible preference in what I’m sure is a need to defend the best interests of your state and not, say, crude political expediency, fine — but first your state loses your voice for 365 days.

Given the pathetic level of fear-based decisionmaking among some Democrats and the lagging GOP results in the midterm Senate races (thanks, Tea Party!), I wouldn’t be surprised to see some wooing by Sen. McConnell along these lines. There should be a cost for what amounts to pulling a bait and switch on your voters.

And unlike Tea Party signmakers or people composing Facebook quizzes, they write the letters in a sequence that create correctly spelled words. But seriously, I’ve been here two hours and already seen two post-defeat letters. Both authors make their intended audience quite clear with their titles.

Tim Wise writes An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum.

Meanwhile, Mark Morford at the San Francisco Gate pens a note that did echo my sentiments as I watched my district’s voter turnout barely reach 50%, a fact that was more than a little relevant to my district’s excellent Congressman biting the dust. Here is Morford’s Letter to a whiny young Democrat.

(For non-political letters, of course, you just can’t beat Letters Of Note.)

This morning, the “letter” I’d recommend to Dem leadership is “Democrats Outrun by a 2-Year GOP Comeback Plan” by New York Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny. It’s ironic that for a party that now suffers from the way “community organizer” is commonly considered a slur, I’m pretty sure party leadership has never, ever had this kind of organization.

It’s often been said that dealing with Democrats is like herding cats. And that does reflect the beautiful array of backgrounds and interests that contribute to the party’s nature and vitality. But if you’ve ever seen one feline change the balance of power with a well-placed swipe across the nose, just think what even a semi-trained herd of cats could accomplish.

Let’s see. The public who decried the Bush bailouts for Wall Street just handed the House to the party who fought tooth and nail for Wall Street against the Obama-led financial reform that made sure such bailouts would never happen again.

Or another way, the electorate who thinks Washington is broken by a lack of bipartisanship just gave more power to two chamber leaders who have said this is “not a time for compromise” and are setting all-time Senate records for filibusters, respectively.

Awesome.

But if there’s a tin-foil lining to the dark cloud of fear that billowed up from our voting stations, it’s that while the net GOP numbers were decisive, most of the worst-case poster children got left behind. Paladino is back to someone’s scary neighbor. O’Donnell, probably begging Maher for airtime. Angle can guard the ammo at her local sporting goods store all day long now. Tancredo has no taxpayer salary to sponsor his rants. It could’ve been worse.

It will be interesting to watch all the Tea Party types who ran and won on spending cuts but wouldn’t name a single specific one — or those who could name way, way too many — try to get things passed in the big show.

Conversely, when it comes to politically expedient allies, the GOP has traded the Religious Right for the Tea Party. Which is a sibling in terms of fervor and with not a few Christianists in its ranks, I guess, but fueled less by heavenly aspirations and more by talk radio entertainers and chain e-mails of Obama as The Joker (or worse).

All in all, in terms of how the churchfolk loyally tithed their votes over the years despite getting precious little reward in the legislative agenda, the GOP may find that they miss the devil they knew.

In the meantime, where do I sign the “Run, Sarah, Run!” petition?

If you see the long-term problem with a philosophy that says “Economy going well? Cut taxes!” and “Economy going poorly? Cut taxes!” Vote Dem.

If you disagree that separation of Church and state is mainly associated with Hitler, Vote Dem.

If you don’t think you should have to subscribe to the fire department in the first place, Vote Dem.

If you think President Reagan’s budget director knows what he’s talking about, Vote Dem.

If you don’t like the idea of your Congressman spending weekends dressing up like a Nazi, Vote Dem.

If you don’t think the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell judge is as dangerous to America as Al-Qaeda, Vote Dem.

If you don’t think that our country would be better off eliminating federal student loans and Pell grants, Vote Dem.

If the fact you “haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet” doesn’t quite disprove evolution, Vote Dem.

If you don’t think it’s a good idea to totally eliminate the minimum wage, Vote Dem.

If you don’t think a guy pitching “post-apocalypse” food is the best guy to trust about the present, Vote Dem.    

Probably like yours, my local Republican candidate has promised to repeal health care reform. In plain terms both sides agree on, that means a vote for him is a vote to:

- Deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
- Deny coverage to adult Americans with pre-existing conditions.
- Refusing treatment because you reach your “lifetime limit” for treatment. (This, people, is your “death panel.”)
- Recission. That’s when they cancel your insurance because you become ill and then they went back to look for some error on your application as grounds to terminate your coverage after the fact.

Is that the America you want?

One more question about the Republican party and health care:

For a bunch of people who profess to want to fix our health care system and improve life for ordinary Americans, do you notice how over the past few decades, they only make health care proposals when Democrats get enough power to actually try to do something about the problem?

That’s when the Republicans throw something together. Otherwise, they do not care.

The record is clear — Republican leaders had years with enough political clout in Washington to try to enact their version of health care reform. They never even tried. Why? Because those bullet points were (and are) fine with them. The millions of people and families who suffer because of these standard insurance industry practices?

They do. not. care.

Before people start casting votes based on “Obamacare” and the “socialism” of a “national takeover” of health care, take a look at this handy chart from Kaiser Health News.

That’s a side-by-side comparison outlining the 2009 Senate bill, the 2009 Boehner alternative, and (this is the important part) the health care reform legislation put forth by the Republicans in 1993, sponsored by Senator Chafee.

(Here’s an interesting interview with former Senator Durenberger, Republican from Minnesota and a co-sponsor of that ‘93 bill, for which a more detailed summary can be read here.)

In particular, you’ll note the similarities between the Democrats’ plan and the ‘93 GOP plan. If you can find “socialism” in the spaces between the Dem bill and that Republican legislation, you’ve got better eyes than me.

You probably can’t, though, and that’s because the Dem and Chafee plans are generally good-faith efforts to significantly address one of our America’s biggest problems and improve our claim to being a moral nation, while Boehner is generally looking after insurance company interests and would just as soon not suggest anything to help.

If you have friends who might actually let facts and context get in the way of a good pissed-off protest vote, then please share this with them.

To our country’s detriment, the GOP ain’t what it used to be, what between the Boehner and the Tea.