Um...About That Debt Ceiling Thing...

Isn't it interesting how liberals invariably change their tune to follow the politically convenient wind?  A brief demonstration...

One of the first major contentious issues of the new Congress (which was sworn in today...THANK GOD!) is that of the debt ceiling.  At the moment, the national debt is over $14 trillion, and an act of Congress is required to raise the debt ceiling again.  There is some rumbling about whether or not the new crop of fiscally conservative House members are going to cause a ruckus on this, and the answer to that question is likely to be an indicator of just how fiscally conservative they're going to be over the next two years.  Without getting into the merits of whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised, I just think it's interesting to note that many prominent Democrats are saying precisely the opposite thing now regarding this precise topic compared to just a few years ago.  Take Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for example:

Full transcript of Harry Reid in 2006:

If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it's fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That's what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they're right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.Democrats won't be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county. 

Hm.  Strange that he would be complaining about a national debt of $9 trillion in 2006 and suddenly be pushing hard to increase the national debt well beyond $14 trillion in 2011, don't you think?  Video here, if you're interested.

And how about our illustrious President?  Ahem:

From Sen. Obama's Floor Speech, March 20, 2006:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

At the time, Senator Obama was urging Congress not to tolerate an increase that would bring the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Under President Obama, the debt ceiling has been raised to $14.3 trillion. Even without counting most unfunded liabilities, the national debt is now calculated to be nearing $14.1 trillion. It increases about $4.22 billion per day (each citizen's share stands at roughly $45K). Thus, Democrats will soon demand that the debt ceiling be raised, lest the sky fall. When they do, they will be asking for a significant boost in a ceiling that is already 60 percent higher than the one Barack Obama said was "a sign of leadership failure" five years ago.

So what's the difference?  There are really only two that I can think of.  The first and most obvious is that the problem today is vastly worse than it was in 2006, but that really only serves to emphasize the second and more pertinent difference: which party holds control of Congress.

I would completely agree with Obama on the whole 'failure of leadership' thing, but I would apply the standard equally no matter what the year and no matter which political party is in the majority.  Debt is debt, and failure is failure, isn't it?  And yet, isn't it amazing just how...um...flexible these elected Democrats' ideals are once they're on the outside looking in?  Hypocrisy seems like too tame a word.