If failure to raise the debt ceiling were guaranteed to lead to nothing worse than a government shutdown, that would be a fair statement.
But who’s saying that’s true, or even likely?
It won’t come to it. Ryan (unless Boehner’s still around) and McConnell will this weekend get calls from their corporate masters to knock this shit off and pass a clean debt ceiling raise. It will be done and once again the TeaPartiers will swear that next year they’re really gonna kick that football and that their leadership won’t pull it away at the last second again.
The question is, does either Boehner or Ryan command 30 GOP votes on this issue? They will need to get votes from either (a) GOP Congresscritters who voted against the debt ceiling hike the last time it came up, or (b) the GOPers who got elected to the House for the first time in 2014.
From the link in the OP:
I think they will because they have to. Just ignore those in the “Freedom Caucus”, and find 30 guys in safe seats that will vote for it. Of course doing so invites a primary challenge, but at some point they have to grow a spine and stand up to the nuts.
Well, one thing for sure, they better hope there’s no game 6 of the World Series. If there is they may be playing to an empty house.
One more thing, only 28 Republicans voted for it last time because that was all they needed. If they actually needed more, they could have twisted a few arms to get them.
I think the debt ceiling will pass fairly cleanly. With all the chaos over the speakership, I think that even the conservative caucus realizes that Ryan needs some time to settle into the office and too much rocking the boat in such a short time could lead to it capsizing. Further its just another month before they get a second shot at it when the budget comes due. So I think they will wait till then to have their temper tantrum.
Yeah, when the Republicans are getting flak from every which way for choosing that RINO squish, Paul Ryan, for Speaker, it’ll be easy to find a bunch of them to justify the anger by hiking the debt ceiling. Not a problem at all.
Fair point.
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.
Oh I agree. The effects of a debt ceiling shutdown are unpredictable in the extreme. Best guess is that if it’s short the disruption would be minimal. But a longer one would be trouble.
Alternately the administration ignores it and waits for the court challenge to knock the debt ceiling legislation over once and for all.
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.
Who cares about the “debt ceiling shutdown”? The shutdown part* isn’t the problem*. It’s the business about not issuing new debt.
This morning, Ed Kilgore called them “The Party That Couldn’t Kabuki Straight.” Can’t improve on that.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/258091-white-house-gop-near-two-year-budget-deal
“Senior White House officials and congressional leaders are nearing a deal to raise the debt limit and set the federal budget for the next two years, say sources familiar with the talks.”
Now, the opera ain’t over until there are four more GOP leadership changes, but it seems like the adults in the room are behaving like adults.
The Executive also can’t simply stop spending the money Congress has allocated. But one of those three things has to happen. Which one would pass judicial muster is an open question.
I’m not entirely sanguine that a court challenge would have the result you predict.
Not exactly a clean debt ceiling extension.
And even if this cuts spending without cutting benefits, I remember how well that worked out for Dems the last time we did that, back in 2010.
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.
It very likely isn’t even a constitutional issue. Most budget bills read something like: “The following sums are appropriated from any funds in the Treasury, which are not otherwise appropriated…”
If there’s no funds in the Treasury because the revenues have run dry, then most spending laws would not seem to require that the Executive produce blood from a stone.
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?