Connect with us

Published

on

As the clock ticks toward a possible default on the national debt, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (RCalif.) and top Democrats in Washingtonas well as media allies on both sidesare locked in a staring contest over who can take the matter less seriously.

The latest development in this slow-motion train wreck was a speech McCarthy delivered Monday from the New York Stock Exchange. “Debt limit negotiations are an opportunity to examine our nation’s finances,” he said, stressing that a bill to raise the nation’s debt limit would only get through the House if it was pared with spending cuts. The House will vote on such a bill within “the coming weeks,” McCarthy promised.

So far, so good. A debt default would be an economic catastrophe for the country and should be averted at all costsbut McCarthy is right that this is a good opportunity to examine America’s out-of-control borrowing habit. Raising the debt ceiling doesn’t authorize more borrowing. It merely gives the Treasury permission to borrow funds to pay for what Congress has previously agreed to spend. But it is the moment when past congressional budgeting decisions come home to roostthe equivalent of seeing your credit card statement after a blowout vacation that you couldn’t afford. You still have to pay the bills, but it should be a wake-up call.

But while McCarthy is saying some of the right things about this situation, he still doesn’t seem to have much of a plan for what to do. Monday’s speech was devoid of specifics beyond a promise to cut spending back to last year’s levelssomething he’s been proposing since January, just weeks after the passage of a year-end omnibus bill that hiked spending across the boardand some rather vague promises about tightening work requirements for welfare programs.

Notably absent from Monday’s speech was any promise about balancing the budget in 10 years, something that had been part of the House GOP’s earlier list of demands for the debt ceiling negotiations. AsReason has previously noted, it’s pretty much impossible to make the budget balance in a decade without making serious alternations to entitlement programs including Social Security and Medicare, and McCarthy has promised not to touch those as part of the debt ceiling package.

Importantly, it remains unclear whether even this narrower list of prospective ideas can pass the GOP-controlled House. Asked in an interview on CNBC just moments after his New York speech ended, McCarthy refused to give a straight answer about whether he had enough votes for this still-murky debt ceiling package.

As Democrats were quick to point out, McCarthy’s “plan” is little more than a series of starting points for negotiations. “What we got today was not a plan,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.) told NBC News after McCarthy’s speech. “It was a recycled pile of the same things he’s been saying for months.”

But, well, Democrats are just recycling the same things they’ve been saying for months too. The White House has been steadfast in refusing to negotiate with House Republicans until McCarthy presents a full-fledged budget proposal like the one President Joe Biden presented on March 9. “I don’t know what we’re negotiating if I don’t know what they want, what they’re going to do,” Biden reiterated to reporters over the weekend.

This is an unserious approach too. Both McCarthy and Biden (and everyone else involved) are well aware of why Democrats want to see a full Republican budget plan before they start negotiatingand it has very little to do with the debt ceiling. Instead, Democrats will pick apart the proposal to score political points by criticizing whatever spending cuts the House GOP outlines.

Indeed, Democrats and their allies are already eager to demagogue the bare bones of what McCarthy has outlined. Liberal Substacker Matt Yglesias says it is “irresponsible for Kevin McCarthy to run around threatening to blow up the global economy in order to snatch poor people’s health care away.” At Talking Points Memo,David Kurtz is already decrying the “draconian spending cuts” that McCarthy has proposed. That’s insane, because McCarthy’s so-called plan merely calls for rolling back federal spending to the level it was at in 2022a whole four months ago.

Here’s the really crazy thing: Even if Congress did somehow manage to hold the discretionary spending level next year, overall spending would still increase. That’s because the $1.7 trillion discretionary budget is only a fraction of federal spending. Other itemslike the so-called mandatory spending on entitlements like Social Security and Medicare as well as the rapidlyincreasinginterest costsconnected to the $31 trillion national debtwill continue to grow and drive federal deficits higher.

The crux of this problem is two-fold. First, Republicans have spent the better part of the past decade completely ignoring fiscal policywhile in many cases actively chasing out members who did care about this stuff. As a result, the GOP has very little institutional sense of what a solidly conservative federal budget would actually look like. Is there any spending plan that would get the support of all 222 Republican members right now? McCarthy doesn’t seem to know.

Second, Democrats have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to acknowledge that America has a serious borrowing problem, which must be the starting point for any negotiation about the debt ceiling regardless of what other policies may or may not end up being part of the final package. They don’t need to see a full budget proposal to acknowledge things like the Congressional Budget Office’s forecast that says the federal government is on track to spend $10.5 trillion on interest payments in the next decadeand more if interest rates remain higher than expected.

Why should Republicans put forth a budget plan when they know in advance that Democrats only want to use it to paint the GOP as a party of benefit-cutting skinflints? Why should Democrats negotiate in good faith when they know quite well that Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when a Dem is in the White House? Neither side has much to gain from doing what the other wants, so no one moves.

But the impasse created by years of poor, myopic decision making in Washington is pushing the federal government ever closer to a dangerous cliff. McCarthy and Biden need to get serious about this, and soon.

Continue Reading

Sports

If college football’s playoff system ain’t broke, why fix it?

Published

on

By

If college football's playoff system ain't broke, why fix it?

During college football’s Bowl Championship Series era, the sport’s opposition to an expanded, let alone expansive, playoff could be summarized in one colorful quote by then-Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee.

“They will wrench a playoff system out of my cold, dead hands,” Gee said in 2007.

We are happy to report that while college football does, indeed, have a playoff, Gee is still very much alive. The 81-year-old retired just this week after a second stint leading West Virginia University.

What is dead and buried, though, is college football’s staunch resistance to extending its postseason field. After decades of ignoring complaints and the promise of additional revenue to claim that just two teams was more than enough, plans to move from 12 participants to 16 were underway before last season’s inaugural 12-teamer even took place.

A once-static sport now moves at light speed, future implications be damned.

Fire. Ready. Aim.

So maybe the best bit of current news is that college football’s two ruling parties — the SEC and Big Ten — can’t agree on how the new 16-team field would be selected. It has led to a pause on playoff expansion.

Maybe, just maybe, it means no expansion will occur by 2026, as first planned, and college football can let the 12-team model cook a little to accurately assess what changes — if any — are even needed.

“We have a 12-team playoff, five conference champions,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said this week. “That could stay if we can’t agree.”

Good. After all, what’s the rush?

The 2025 season will play out with a 12-team format featuring automatic bids for five conference champions and seven at-large spots. Gone is last year’s clunky requirement that the top four seeds could go only to conference champs — elevating Boise State and Arizona State and unbalancing the field.

That alone was progress built on real-world experience. It should be instructive.

The SEC wants a 16-team model but with, as is currently the case, automatic bids going to the champions in the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and the best of the so-called Group of 6. The rest of the field would be at-large selections.

The Big Ten says it will not back such a proposal until the SEC agrees to play nine conference games (up from its current eight). Instead, it wants a 16-team system that gives four automatic bids apiece to the Big Ten and SEC, two each to the ACC and Big 12, one to the Group of 6 and then three at-large spots.

It’s been dubbed the “4-4-2-2-1-3” because college athletic leaders love ridiculous parlances almost as much as they love money.

While the ACC, Big 12 and others have offered opinions — mostly siding with the SEC — legislatively, the decision rests with the sport’s two big-dog conferences.

Right now, neither side is budging. A compromise might still be made, of course. The supposed deadline to set the 2026 system is Nov. 30. And Sankey actually says he prefers the nine-game SEC schedule, even if his coaches oppose it.

However, the possibility of the status quo standing for a bit longer remains.

What the Big Ten has proposed is a dramatic shift for a sport that has been bombarded with dramatic shifts — conference realignment, the transfer portal, NIL, revenue sharing, etc.

The league wants to stage multiple “play-in” games on conference championship weekend. The top two teams in the league would meet for the league title (as is currently the case), but the third- and fourth-place teams would play the fifth- and sixth-place teams to determine the other automatic bids.

Extend this out among all the conferences and you have up to a 26-team College Football Playoff (with 22 teams in a play-in situation). This would dramatically change the way the sport works — devaluing the stakes for nonconference games, for example. And some mediocre teams would essentially get a playoff bid — in the Big Ten’s case, the sixth seed last year was an Iowa team that finished 8-5.

Each conference would have more high-value inventory to sell to broadcast partners, but it’s not some enormous windfall. Likewise, four more first-round playoff games would need to find television slots and relevance.

Is anyone sure this is necessary? Do we need 16 at all, let alone with multibids?

In the 12-team format, the first round wasn’t particularly competitive — with a 19.3-point average margin of victory. It’s much like the first round of the NFL playoffs, designed mostly to make sure no true contender is left out.

Perhaps last year was an outlier. And maybe future games will be close. Or maybe they’ll be even more lopsided. Wouldn’t it be prudent to find out?

While there were complaints about the selection committee picking SMU and/or Indiana over Alabama, it wasn’t some egregious slight. Arguments will happen no matter how big the field. Besides, the Crimson Tide lost to two 6-6 teams last year. Expansion means a team with a similar résumé can cruise in.

Is that a good thing?

Whatever the decision, it is being made with little to no real-world data — pro or con. Letting a few 12-team fields play out, providing context and potentially unexpected consequences, sure wouldn’t hurt.

You don’t have to be Gordon Gee circa 2007 to favor letting this simmer and be studied before leaping toward another round of expansion.

Continue Reading

Sports

Arch to victory? Texas preseason pick to win SEC

Published

on

By

Arch to victory? Texas preseason pick to win SEC

Texas, with Heisman Trophy candidate Arch Manning set to take over as starting quarterback, is the preseason pick to win the Southeastern Conference championship.

The Longhorns received 96 of the 204 votes cast from media members covering the SEC media days this week to be crowned SEC champion on Dec. 6 in Atlanta at Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Georgia, with 44 votes, received the second-most votes.

If that scenario plays out, it would mean a rematch of the 2024 SEC championship game, which Georgia won in an overtime thriller. The SEC championship game pits the two teams with the best regular-season conference record against one another.

Alabama was third with 29 votes, while LSU got 20. South Carolina was next with five, while Oklahoma received three and Vanderbilt and Florida each got two votes. Tennessee, Ole Miss and Auburn each received one vote.

Since 1992, only 10 times has the predicted champion in the preseason poll gone on to win the SEC championship.

The 2024 SEC title game averaged 16.6 million viewers across ABC and ESPN, the fourth-largest audience on record for the game. The overtime win for Georgia, which peaked with 19.7 million viewers, delivered the largest audience of the college football season.

Continue Reading

World

Every shop and home burned or ransacked: The Syrian city engulfed in tribal violence

Published

on

By

Every shop and home burned or ransacked: The Syrian city engulfed in tribal violence

The Syrian presidency has announced it’s assembling a special taskforce to try to stop nearly a week of sectarian clashes in the southern Druze city of Sweida.

The presidency called for restraint on all sides and said it is making strenuous efforts to “stop the fighting and curb the violations that threaten the security of the citizens and the safety of society”.

By early Saturday morning, a ceasefire had been confirmed by the US special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, who posted on X that Syrian President Ahmed al Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed to a ceasefire supported by US secretary of state Marco Rubio.

The post went on to state that this agreement had the support of “Turkey, Jordan and its neighbours” and called upon the Druze, Bedouins, and Sunni factions to put down their arms.

Sky News special correspondent Alex Crawford reports from the road leading to Sweida, the city that has become the epicentre of Syria’s sectarian violence.

For the past 24 hours, we’ve watched as Syria‘s multiple Arab tribes began mobilising in the Sweida province to help defend their Bedouin brethren.

A fighter aims a gun
A body is wrapped in a blanket

Thousands travelled from multiple different Syrian areas and had reached the edge of Sweida city by Friday nightfall after a day of almost non-stop violent clashes and killings.

More on Syria

“We have come to protect the [Arab] Bedouin women and children who are being terrorised by the Druze,” they told us.

A fighter in Syria
Image:
Arab fighters said they had come to protect the Bedouin women and children

Fighters at a gas station
Image:
Fighters at a petrol station

Every shop and every home in the streets leading up to Sweida city has been burned or ransacked, the contents destroyed or looted.

We saw tribal fighters loading the back of pickup trucks and driving away from the city with vehicles packed with looted goods from Druze homes.

A burning building
Image:
Shops and homes leading up to Sweida city have been burned or ransacked

A burned out car

Several videos posted online showed violence against the Druze, including one where tribal fighters force three men to throw themselves off a high-rise balcony and are seen being shot as they do so.

Doctors at the nearby community hospital in Buser al Harir said there had been a constant stream of casualties being brought in. As we watched, another dead fighter was carried out of an ambulance.

The medics estimated there had been more than 600 dead in their area alone. “The youngest child who was killed was a one-and-a-half-year-old baby,” one doctor told us.

A doctor talks to Sky's Alex Crawford
Image:
Doctors said there had been a constant stream of casualties due to violence

The violence is the most dangerous outbreak of sectarian clashes since the fall of the Bashar al Assad regime last December – and the most serious challenge for the new leader to navigate.

The newly brokered deal is aimed at ending the sectarian killings and restoring some sort of stability in a country which is emerging from more than a decade of civil war.

Continue Reading

Trending