Compromise. A ten letter word that until 2011 was largely misunderstood in Washington, D.C. Compromise: to give up something the other guy wants in exchange for something that you want. Sadly, Democrats and moderate Republicans until now have never gotten it right. It is small wonder that Harry Reid and Barack Obama expect to demand something from Republicans in return for something Reid and Obama agree to give them.

Republicans, thanks to 87 freshmen in the House of Representatives, have held firm. They are willing to compromise but their price thus far is something that Democrats are apparently unwilling to pay. In my opinion, this rather makes the cry of potential calamity if this Debt Ceiling is not raised look like another game of smoke and mirrors.

Timothy Geithner was on two Sunday talk shows that I saw. His emphasis was on the catastrophe that would result if Republicans continue to say, "No," to this president. He was most assuredly laying the blame on Republicans for what would according to Geithner be a catastrophe. a default on our debt. Why is Geithner even talking default as long as there is sufficient revenue to service this debt, pay Social Security and pay the military? Is this smoke and mirrors? Maybe, maybe not. The problem is that Geithner said the very same thing before the Stimulus Bill, a bill that made things far worse. Geithner said the same thing earlier this spring on his first attempt to get an unrestricted increase in the Debt Limit.  Then the bewitching date was May, 2011. He next said August 2. This morning he was saying it is 4 o'clock this afternoon. What is it Tim? We shouldn't have believed you then. Why should we believe you now? Just as mentioned in my article on the Boy Who Cried Wolf, this administration has cried, "Wolf," too often.  If this is the time we should believe him, Geithner will have no one but himself to blame if nobody comes to his aide with a necessary sense of urgency.  Like that boy in the field crying, "Wolf," he and the administration he represents are not credible. See Article   George Will said Geithner has "zero credibility" with Republicans. I consider this to be charitable. This man's credibility is not zero, it is negative. Zero implies that we have no faith in his judgment. Negative carries the extra connotation that we expect him to be deliberately misleading us.

When Chris Wallace asked Geithner whether the President would accept a six month solution Geithner responded that the only 'responsible' solution would be an 18 month extension and that the President would veto any short term solution even if it might enable a better long term solution.  Bill Daley said the same thing on Meet the Press.  Why? The length of this solution is not an accounting or a financial imperative. It is a political imperative. Obama and Democrat incumbents do not want to be running with this as a live issue in 2012. To my point of view, what better time to see the Congress and the President debate an initiative that describes the kind of country we want to be.

President Obama was on the record when he asked whether House Republicans are willing to get serious and whether they will say, "Yes," to anything. From all evidence it would appear that the Republican House is the only body as yet that HAS said yes to something. They passed the Paul Ryan Budget Plan earlier this year and they passed Cut, Cap and Balance earlier this month. The Democrat controlled Senate has not passed a budget in over 800 days. That's nearly three years. With regard to Cut, Cap and Balance the Senate tabled the bill without consideration. By this I mean they have not reviewed the bill by paragraph and told us what they are willing to accept and what they might want to amend. They have yet to present their own plan. The President speaks in vagaries that the Congressional Budget Office cannot even score. He has yet to offer one piece of legislation on this issue. He has yet to explicitly define one cut that he would accept. He has yet to offer a thing to this conversation except to demagogue. Who is the child in the room that refuses to say yes to anything? It would appear to me that the room is the Oval Office and the child is the President.  Mr. President, you sought the office.  You asked for this responsibility.  Is it not time for you to put on your long pants and start acting like an adult with great responsibilities?

On FNS Juan Williams referenced the Republicans in the House as intransigent. He believes they have already won the fight and that now they should be willing to declare victory and then give in to this President to save the country from default. I like Juan Williams but this is a great indication of shallow, inside the Beltway logic. Perhaps this October one of the 3 game winners in Game Seven should simply declare victory and give the World Series title to the other team. I'm sorry Juan but your logic is not persuasive. There is a reason for this intransigence, the Republicans want something in exchange for raising the Debt Limit that will for them make this a reasonable deal. It is my fervent hope that they will continue in this intransigence until they get what they want and what I want, a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that forces this and all future Congresses to behave in a mature fiscal fashion. But I am also going to later want more. I want the repeal of Obamacare and all those cuts that I have previously enumerated. How to Deal With the Debt

Here is my concern. We currently have an irresponsible administration that is spending money like a runaway train. We elected a new House of Representatives in 2010 to stop this runaway and irresponsible spending by this administration. I am certain that I am not alone when I say that I never expected this new Congress to effect change overnight because like that train, this administration has too much momentum to be immediately stopped. What I do expect from this House of Representatives is that any compromises they make must begin to physically and fiscally slow down that spending train. I do not regard Cut, Cap and Balance to be a perfect solution because it does not contain any provision for retiring this debt and reducing that debt ceiling over time. However, it is a compromise that I can live with because it contains practical solutions to slowing down that train. The rhetoric of the White House would indicate agreement that we must begin to live within our means yet when confronted with a piece of legislation that might actually do that we learn that this is purely rhetoric coming from the White House Hypocrite in Chief and nothing more. I listened to a third Sunday show today that talked extensively on the subject as to whether our government is broken. Some apparently long for the good old days when these Senators and Representatives stayed in Washington over the weekends, got to know one another, became friends and provided a sense of comity to the legislative process. This is exactly what those of us in the Tea Party wanted to see end. Yes, many of us are intransigent when we see something presented as a compromise that is merely capitulation. If the President wants to see this Debt Ceiling raised, I am willing to recommend to my representative that we compromise. But as noted earlier, this means that we must get something that has significant value to us in return for our providing something of value to the leftist Democrats in the Congress. No longer should these Democrats determine both sides of the compromise. If this Debt Ceiling issue is truly as catastrophic as presented by Timothy Geithner and Bill Daley today, then let them put something of value to Republicans on that table that represents a better deal than not raising that limit. As long as the limit is left alone, we have forced this administration to balance its budget. Why should we give that away without getting a Constitutional Amendment that will formally do the very same?