Like Leaper, I’m fascinated by the question. Sorry if I’ve little offer but snark and ignorance.
As others have implied, the Treasury has practiced methods of remaining under the legal debt limit (*) for a few weeks, and it’s not unreasonable to envision months of such delay (albeit with Tea-Party vs Obama lawsuits claiming un-fiscal un-Constitutional).
One of the simplest ways, AFAICT, when Soc Sec is running a surplus is to simply deposit the surplus into an ordinary FRB demand deposit, rather than buying bonds. Doubtful the SS surplus is high enough these days for this method alone to dent the obstacle.
ETA: The scoring criterion for ceiling failure might be SP/Moody ratings of AA or lower. I say “might be” because I’m doubtful of any particular competence in the recent ratings. Who are the best respected non-American raters?
And this has been confirmed by other surveys made since.
So will this affect the decision to actually do so? I’m not 100% sure, since the response seems to be made in ignorance, and it’s not like this is the only time the government does something necessary that voters don’t like. Still, could this encourage Tea Party members, make it harder to increase the limit in the future (though who’ll even remember the next time?), or make it harder to eliminate this requirement in the future (a requirement no other Western country has)?
Why do we have a debt limit? If Congress can just raise it whenever they want (like they have 4 times during Obama’s presidency) then why perpetuate the facade that fiscal conservatism even exists and that both sides don’t conspire together to spend more?
I’ll note that elsewhere on the net I saw claims that the debt limit was raised 7 times under Bush; not only was that from blog entries (why I’m not citing it), but it’s not clear to me how that jibes with “voted to raise the debt limit”.
My use of Obama was not a partisan jab. You’ll note I blamed both parties for the increase spending. I used Obama because
He’s the current President
He recently made a speech in which he said that if the Reps don’t raise the debt limit, the economic ramifications are THEIR fault which probably should get a thread all of its own.
It was easier to vote for a debt limit, and then raise it when required, than to actually pass a budget that reduces the deficit.
I’m of the opinion that the debt limit is stupid, useless, and dangerous. It does nothing to reduce spending, raise revenues, or balance budgets. All it does is cause a period of turmoil, hypocritical political speeches, and debt rating rumblings.
I wonder… Is this a “new era” of public awareness of the limit? Will it force the government to do SOMETHING about it in the long term, whatever that SOMETHING is? Or will it be forgotten by the next news cycle? I’m not sure, but my first impression is that it doesn’t seem to be in the current politicos’ best interests to keep it in the public eye like this.
This article on CNN theorizes that in the end, the ceiling will be raised, probably with fewer political bargains than Republicans might like, because Wall Street won’t let default happen.
It’s certainly a reasonable prediction; certainly it’d explain why few here seem concerned about it in general. It may also answer my question of “will Congress ever ‘follow the will of the current electorate’ and NOT raise it because the people don’t want them to”: most likely not.
Seems to me that this argument completely ignores the “as authorized by law” part of the 14th Amendment. If the Amendment stated that “the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned,” I’d say the author has a point. But there must be a reason that the phrase “as authorized by law” is in there, and the most logical conclusion would be that Congress must authorize the debt; it can’t go on constitutional autopilot.
Section Five of the Amendment is also conspiciously not mentioned: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. In contrast to the author’s conclusion (“This action requires me to authorize borrowing that is not in conformity with the debt-limit statute. But no congressional statute can command or permit our government to violate the Constitution.”), it would seem Congress is very specifically put in charge of the question of regulating debt.
As ridiculous as I find the debt limit debate (that congress should have the power to determine not whether we take on more debt, but whether we’ll actually make good on our outstanding debt is stupid beyond words), I don’t view this as a lie. The deal to keep our government “open” was very specific to those prior budget cuts, and even in negotiating them it was quite clear that the GOP would push for further concessions on the debt ceiling issue. As much as I find the “debt ceiling” debates utterly ridiculous, I didn’t for one second think that the budget agreement was an agreement on the debt ceiling as well. Can’t imagine many others interpreted it that way either.
Are the measures mentioned here the ones taking place mentioned a few posts earlier?
(And the so far lone comment does bring up an issue I asked about before: whether the fact of default matters in the face of the possibility that we could get equally bad consequences by people THINKING we are.)
In order for the budget that was agreed upon to go into full effect, the debt ceiling has to be raised. You can’t support a budget and at the same time intend to block it. Boehner should have only agreed to a 5 week continuing resolution if he only intended the deal to last 5 weeks.
