…Could you get any more transparently partisan and idiotic? Come on, this is just pathetic. It was stupid partisan posturing in 2011, and now it’s even more obvious. Not really sure if there’s anything more to say about this than that the Republicans have, once again, put politics above sound policy.
Yeah, they’re bringing back the debt ceiling debate. What the fuck?! What the fucking fuck?! Is there any reason other than bloody-minded political bullshit to do this? It was retarded in 2011, and it’s only going to be more retarded now, a few months before the election. There is nothing to be said about this that cannot be summed up with the following statement: The republican party is a cancer upon our nation, and we would all be better off if they died in a plane crash.
Let’s not forget that the 2011’s unconstitutional fight resulted in a downgrade of the US’s credit rating. WWII couldn’t do it, but Boehner did.
How is all of this unconstitutional? Cue the music:
By refusing to raise the debt ceiling, the Republicans made our debt questionable, as exhibited by the credit professionals at S&P. I call for Boehner to either pledge allegiance to the constitution or tender his immediate resignation.
Boehner also is a weasel and a deal-breaker. Last year, they agreed on big automated cuts to defense if they couldn’t cut a deal with the Dems on the budget. Now they’re just walking away with that. We could trust Boehner’s word moving forward. But that would be immoral: trusting those who can’t keep their word only leads to bad outcomes.
And let’s not forget the deep background. Democrats are willing to discuss entitlements. Republicans rule out tax increases out of hand. And yet pundits say the problem is with “Congress”. Nonsense. Democrats have conservatives, moderates and liberals in their coalition. Washington Republicans only consist of loons and those afraid of being primaried by loons. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/11735314-asymmetrical-debt-reduction-warfare
So your position is that the Constitution requires Congress to vote for any debt ceiling increase that is required?
I don’t agree. You misunderstand the difference between obligations as a result of debt and obligations arising from appropriations.
The Debt Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains Congress from refusing to pay “…obligations which the government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” (Quoting Perry v. US, 294 U.S. 330 (1935)).
A failure to raise the debt ceiling will impact obligations created through the appropriations process: Medicare payments, salaries of park rangers, payments to universities or researchers for research grants, aid to Madagascar, rent on USDA field offices and the like. Interest on the national debt, T-bills, would still be paid. In other words, Congress borrows money on the credit of the United Staes and uses it to pay appropriated expenses. Congress must repay the money it has borrowed; it has no Constitutional mandate to pay the appropriations it has enacted.
In addition to the Supreme Court language I quote above, the Treasury Department’s General Counsel wrote to the NYT when this issue was in the news before, in response to Professor Laurence Tribe chastising Secretary Geither for saying what you just did. The General Cousel’s letter clarified that Secretary Geither agreed with Tribe that Congress did not have a Constitutional obligation to raise the debt ceiling… although he certainly felt Congress had an obligation to ensure that the country honored the appropriated expenses, he agreed that only Congress could raise the binding legal constraint that was the debt ceiling.
The Congress can manage the deficit by authorising (or not authorising) expenditure, and by raising or lowering taxes. Once it has decided to spend $X billion, and to raise $Y billion, doesn’t the level of debt follow automatically? The right time to have the debate is when they authorise the spending – but perhaps that means some actual hard decisions, rather than just posturing.
Hey Bricker, just to be clear, can we agree that this is a fucking idiotic, partisan, politically motivated move? I know you’re a republican, but I assume you’re not totally stupid… The only person on this forum whom I’d trust to say “this is a good idea” is Clothahump, and I think he might be clinically retarded.
@MfM: “lose”? Wrong word. The debt ceiling is an amazing political issue to push, because they get to blame any fallout from it on Obama, and a shameful amount of the populace will buy the lie.
I’d just clarify that the level of “debt” doesn’t follow automatically, because in addition to authorizing itself to spend $X billion, it must authorize itself to raise $Y billion via borrowing. It’s that second step that’s at issue here.
But the main point you make, Giles, is right on the money (no pun intended): The right time to have the debate is when they authorize the spending.
I agree with you, BPC, that this is politically motivated and partisan move. I’m not sure it’s idiotic yet, in that if it’s effective, then ‘idiotic’ might not be a good word, but it’s in bad faith. That is, this does not arise from a principled objection to the increased debt; if it did, then the time to object was when the appropriations bill was being debated. It’s… dishonorable… for Congress to agree to spend money and then cut off the spending by refusing to authorize the debt necessary to service it.
In my opinion, anyway.
But note well that dishonorable, just like idiotic and partisan and nakedly political, are all terms with one thing in common: they are not synonyms for “unconstituional.”
I agree, but as I pointed out in the last thread, this sort of partisanship has been going on for a long time. The earliest reference I could find to it was in 1881 when President Hayes vetoed a debt rollover bill which had attached to it some kind of measure affecting competition in banks.
Is Budget Player Cadet a principled observer who objects to all use of the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip? Or is he just a partisan hack whose real objection is to Republicans and their goals?
Who cares? If he’s right, he’s right. It may well be that BPC wouldn’t piss on the GOP if they were on fire. But that doesn’t transform the current technique into something honorable.
It’s a good political move by Republicans. Just hope they stick to it and don’t fold with a transparent cop-out like last time. Well, “hope” is the wrong word. It would be a miracle if they don’t fold.
I don’t know about Budget, but I, for one, would like to go on record as condemning President Hayes for this maneuver … which he pulled off 131 years ago.
Now why aren’t the current Republicans being petulant assholes in this regard again?
I care, because if it’s just a matter of partisanship then he is being fundamentally dishonest in his criticism. He should just come out and say he hates the Republican goals rather than dishonestly pretending his problem is with their methods.
But that’s a classic ad hominem argument – you’re saying that BPC cannot advance this argument because of his other beliefs.
So now I advance the precise argument he was offering: that this move is partisan political grandstanding, and not an honest objection to the debt. Clearly (I hope) I am immune to the charge that I simply hate the Republican goals.