# Countdown to the 11/3/2015 Debt Ceiling Breach **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 25, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674 "2015-10-25T00:06:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/41 "2015-10-26T20:27:39Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Why does this keep coming up? Sans debt ceiling legislation then we go back to the old system: Congress has to _specifically approve all debt issuance_, the debt ceiling is **an expansion of executive power** , because it allows “restricted free issuance of debt, subject to a pre-set cap.” If it went away then the President couldn’t issue a single cent of new debt without specific legislation from Congress for each series of bond issue. You could get rid of the ceiling by keeping the “free issuance of debt” part, and getting rid of the “subject to a pre-set cap” part. Just pass legislation authorizing the Treasury Department to borrow as needed to cover the costs of Congressionally-authorized spending not covered by Federal revenue from taxes, fees, and other sources. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/42 "2015-10-26T20:30:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What would happen if, due to his interpretation of the Constitution, Obama just tells whatever department is responsible for borrowing to just go ahead and ignore the ceiling and borrow anyway? Impeachment, assuming the House could get its act together to do so. I don’t know if they could take the Administration to court or not, but ISTM that this Supreme Court has been less reluctant than some to get involved in disputes between the other two branches. (Admittedly, I haven’t been paying close attention, so I could be wrong, but that’s my impression. But if accurate, Congress could take the Administration to court.) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/43 "2015-10-26T20:40:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Martin Hyde** : > > Why does this keep coming up? Sans debt ceiling legislation then we go back to the old system: Congress has to specifically approve all debt issuance, the debt ceiling is an expansion of executive power, because it allows “restricted free issuance of debt, subject to a pre-set cap.” If it went away then the President couldn’t issue a single cent of new debt without specific legislation from Congress for each series of bond issue. And Congress does in fact approve all debt issuance. If they set revenues at a lower level than they set spending, then they have authorized that amount of debt, by virtue of requiring it. If you tell someone they must do something, then implicit in that is that you’ve also told them they may do it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2015, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/44 "2015-10-26T20:48:08Z")
Then by virtue of Congress approving taxes, the Executive can spend money any way it wants and there are no more government shutdowns. This whole argument doesn’t survive any “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” examination. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/45 "2015-10-26T20:50:18Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Quick question on the issue of the debt ceiling. I know it has to do with how much money the US can borrow, but hypothetically, if they don’t raise it, what specific entity is prevented from borrowing? What would happen if, due to his interpretation of the Constitution, Obama just tells whatever department is responsible for borrowing to just go ahead and ignore the ceiling and borrow anyway? The Treasury Department issues the debt and sells it to investors. If the Treasury Secretary just decided to go selling random amounts of bonds, I would think he would have few buyers, because investors are not stupid. They can read English and know that debt not authorized by Congress is worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/46 "2015-10-27T00:45:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The issue is that the powers to tax, to borrow, and spend, are all different constitutional powers entrusted to Congress. > > If Congress passes spending bills in excess of revenues, the Executive Branch doesn’t get to say, “Hey, Congress, your math doesn’t add up, so we’re just going to raise taxes on our own initiative until things balance.” Similarly, the Executive Branch can’t just go and issue more debt because Congress passed those spending bills. > > If one party of the Legislative Branch wants to drive the nation into a fiscal tree to prove that it isn’t chicken, the Constitution actually protects their prerogative to do so. I get that - and it’s possible that a court could rule that the debt ceiling legislation takes precedence over all other appropriations bills. It might even be the most likely outcome. And I certainly agree that the President can’t look at a shortfall and levy a tax; this is clearly outside the scope of his/her power. But at the same time, the 14th Amendment says that the public debt shall not be questioned, so if you have a bondholder who shows up at the Treasury for a scheduled bond payment and gets turned back because there’s no money there, I’m still not sure Congress should have the power to refuse to pay. I guess you could end up with a situation where they give you an IOU or something and therefore they’re not calling it into question, they’re just delaying it . . . but that’s not how I’d rule. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/47 "2015-10-27T00:56:25Z")
I agree that it is an ambiguous phrase. But one of the foundations of legal interpretation is that specific laws trump general laws. In this case, the “shall not be questioned” phrase is basically unintelligible. It might mean nothing at all, and exist only for persuasive purposes, given the situation under which the amendment was adopted. But the phrase about “the public debt, as authorized by law” is very clear. Debt has to be issued pursuant to a law, not by fiat. The idea that the ambiguous “shall not be questioned” phrase directly and intentionally undoes the few perfectly clear words right before it is an assertion that simply makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/48 "2015-10-27T01:15:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not entirely sanguine that a court challenge would have the result you predict. Frankly, nor am I. But I think it’s one of those things that is desperately in need of a challenge. We have two sets of laws, both leading to conflict in the federal budgeting and spending process. In essence, Congress can both enact spending and disallow it at the same time. I see no politically feasible means to deal with the conflict other than through the courts. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/49 "2015-10-27T01:32:49Z")
Regarding Congress enacting spending and disallowing it at the same time – If Congress wants spending to occur, it is also responsible for raising the revenue. If it does not raise the revenue, the spending is constrained by whatever the shortfall is. That isn’t contradictory, that’s real life. It’s like saying that because you put swim trunks on, you deserve to have a sunny day at the beach. That just isn’t how it works. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/50 "2015-10-27T01:38:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You could get rid of the ceiling by keeping the “free issuance of debt” part, and getting rid of the “subject to a pre-set cap” part. Just pass legislation authorizing the Treasury Department to borrow as needed to cover the costs of Congressionally-authorized spending not covered by Federal revenue from taxes, fees, and other sources. I was responding, in part, to the notion that **Jonathan Chance** alluded to that the courts could just “strike down” the debt ceiling. Unless they selectively struck down only the part that puts congressional caps on debt issuance (which is simply not likely), striking down debt ceiling legislation just puts us back in the state to which I referred. Your scenario is certainly possible, but would require Congress to pass legislation giving the President a blank check on debt–and that will simply never happen. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/51 "2015-10-27T01:41:49Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And Congress does in fact approve all debt issuance. If they set revenues at a lower level than they set spending, then they have authorized that amount of debt, by virtue of requiring it. If you tell someone they must do something, then implicit in that is that you’ve also told them they may do it. That’s actually not at all the way the budgeting process or the law has ever worked, in the history of the United States. If you’d like to make that point you’ll need to support it with evidence. Back when we passed budgets (or even now when we just pass CRs) there’s “assumptions” about revenue. Because of the way that the real world works, the revenue assumptions are always wrong. They are either too high or too low. Sometimes the spending can be off a bit too, although it’s a little more tightly controlled. The President has never had the authority to “assume that any discrepancies can be made up for by his issuing debt.” When Congress, through legislation, specifically allows the President to borrow up to x amount, it’s specifically giving him the authority to issue debt, to cover such scenarios and for other reasons he sees fit–but it’s Congress’s decision to do that. Congress could easily pass a budget with a deficit and no authority to issue debt to make up for it–in fact it’s a common thing these days. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/52 "2015-10-27T01:43:02Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Quick question on the issue of the debt ceiling. I know it has to do with how much money the US can borrow, but hypothetically, if they don’t raise it, what specific entity is prevented from borrowing? What would happen if, due to his interpretation of the Constitution, Obama just tells whatever department is responsible for borrowing to just go ahead and ignore the ceiling and borrow anyway? The House impeaches him, which causes a political crisis. The Senate acquits him since the Republicans can’t get 2/3rds in that chamber. That’s one consequence. The other is likely a lawsuit against Obama’s debt issuance, which is more likely to succeed. My bet is the courts declare the illegally issued debt invalid, which itself hurts the United States because now our debt is questionable in the eyes of bond investors. The President likely would never do this precisely for that reason, once our debt is questionable a lot of bad things happen. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/53 "2015-10-27T03:49:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think he’s conflating “shutdown over the lack of passed new FY budget,” and “shutdown forced by the failure to pass an debt ceiling increase.” > > You’re absolutely right that “shutdown” is common to both scenarios. I think the latter’s effects are fairly imagined to be more severe, however. I know the difference between the two. And I grant that the latter might have more serious consequences. Nevertheless, I don’t buy the argument that some Congressional Democrats are selling that increasing the debt ceiling is “constitutionally required.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/54 "2015-10-27T04:53:13Z")
Doesn’t make it any less necessary. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/55 "2015-10-27T09:49:02Z")
Apparently we’re closing in on a resolution, and in part because [the terrorists can’t agree on their list of demands in time](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/26/us-usa-congress-freedom-debt-idUSKCN0SK2R520151026?utm_source=twitter): > [@](#): > > Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives’ most influential conservative group told Reuters on Monday it was too late to stop an extension of the federal debt ceiling this week, but they will not hold it against the expected next House Speaker, Paul Ryan. > > Representatives Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan and Mick Mulvaney, founders of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, told Reuters in an interview that there was not enough time for House Republicans to rally around a list of demands for raising the $18.1 trillion U.S. borrowing limit. > > Outgoing House Speaker John Boehner is working with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders to finalize terms of an extension of federal borrowing authority through March 2017 along with a $112 billion deal to ease military and domestic spending caps for two years, according to House and Senate aides and lawmakers… The gang that couldn’t [del]shoot[/del] get its list of demands straight. I tell ya, between the primary season, the comedy surrounding the Speakership, the _Benghazi!_ hearing, and now this - can they look any more ridiculous? It’s pretty damned impressive, really. The Democrats’ commercials for 2016 are going to write themselves. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I was responding, in part, to the notion that **Jonathan Chance** alluded to that the courts could just “strike down” the debt ceiling. Unless they selectively struck down only the part that puts congressional caps on debt issuance (which is simply not likely), striking down debt ceiling legislation just puts us back in the state to which I referred. OK, gotcha. sorry I misunderstood. > [@](#): > > Your scenario is certainly possible, but would require Congress to pass legislation giving the President a blank check on debt–and that will simply never happen. Can’t see why not, in a more rational world. Suppose you take away the debt ceiling. The President could turn around and borrow trillions of dollars above and beyond the debt that budgetary circumstances required. But that would just pile up equal amounts of assets and liabilities on the government’s balance sheet, since the Treasury would then have all the money it had borrowed and was obligated to repay. There would be little purpose or consequence to doing so. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I know the difference between the two. And I grant that the latter might have more serious consequences. > > Nevertheless, I don’t buy the argument that some Congressional Democrats are selling that increasing the debt ceiling is “constitutionally required.” Is there any connection between these two? (Nope.) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/56 "2015-10-27T12:22:15Z")
It looks like it’s a done deal, although by lifting the spending caps it makes me wonder what exactly the Republicans were fighting for when they threatened default the first time? “We will send this country over the edge unless we get spending cuts!” Then they got spending cuts. A few years later, “Never mind.” Spending is still much lower than it would otherwise have been, but the CBO forecasts entitlements pushing our deficit much higher starting in about 10 years. We simply cannot run deficits for every one of those years and then much huger deficits after that. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/57 "2015-10-27T12:51:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …it makes me wonder what exactly the Republicans were fighting for when they threatened default the first time? The core principle of the people who run the GOP is, “FUCKOBAMA!!!11111!!” I think there’s a bumpersticker. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/58 "2015-10-27T12:56:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The core principle of the people who run the GOP is, “FUCKOBAMA!!!11111!!” > > I think there’s a bumpersticker. Not to worry, the Republicans will smoothly transition to hating Hillary with the same intensity with which they hated Obama. Now that they’re ready to drive a stake into the sequester, all we need is for them to move on the revenue side. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/59 "2015-10-27T13:13:33Z")
If that was true, there wouldn’t be a deal. It amazes me how facts don’t seem to change liberals’ perceptions too much. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674/60 "2015-10-27T13:19:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If that was true, there wouldn’t be a deal. It amazes me how facts don’t seem to change liberals’ perceptions too much. You find that trouble in liberals particularly? You might want to question your perceptions if that’s the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countdown-to-the-11-3-2015-debt-ceiling-breach/735674.md?page=4)