Re McConnell's desperate, pathetic proposal to give POTUS unilateral control over the debt ceiling

[villa]

@Ravenman

First of all, of course McConnell’s proposal is constitutional. There are numerous laws which relate to constitutional powers of Congress for which the Congress has decided that it would rather that someone else do the work. For example, the Art I Sec 8 power to regulate the value of money has pretty much been delegated for the Federal Reserve for the better part of a century now – but if that’s the way Congress wants its power to be exercised, then, goody for them. If Congress authorizes the President to issue more debt each time he dances the hokey-pokey on TV, then as long as there’s a valid law that authorizes such, that’s the way Congress wants the debt handled.

Not all transfers of power between branches get approved by the courts. Otherwise we’d have a line-item veto.

[Ravenman]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

With all due respect, you know little about politics. … Then they can turn around and point out that, while a few of their members did vote for the bill in the House allowing the President to raise the debt ceiling, the majority of Republicans were dead set against it.

Are you saying your dear leader Eric Cantor also knows little about politics?

“Currently, there is not a single debt limit proposal that can pass the House of Representatives.”

[Merneith]

This is cute: Republicans Gorman, Bachmann & King have accused Obama & Boehner with lying about the August 2 deadline. They say that as long as we don’t have to increase our debt limit in order to pay interest on our debt, and doing that should be enough to stave off default. The three have introduced a bill that will allow the interest payments to be made even if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

My favorite part:

But King, calling the president’s statements on the debt ceiling “veiled threats, if not an ultimatum,” said the nation’s credit rating could remain intact even if the debt limit is not increased by Aug. 2, so long as their bill to pay interest on the debt was passed.

“Our credit rating, we’re trying to preserve it with this bill,” King said. “We want to guarantee our credit rating stays.”

None of the three lawmakers responded to questions about who would not be paid should the debt ceiling not be raised by Aug. 2. A failure to raise the debt ceiling could cause a partial government shutdown in which Social Security checks might not be mailed.

But the members of Congress said the threat of shutdown was less important than ensuring major spending cuts as part of the final deal.

cite:Bachmann, Gohmert, King: Obama's Advisers Lied About Debt Limit (VIDEO) | HuffPost Latest News WARNING - this link plays sound

[C3]

So, does McConnell’s plan have any chance of passing? Because this is getting a little nervous-making: Moody’s puts U.S. ratings on review for downgrade.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BobLibDem

It’s all in the spin. Republican-minded voters will swallow the line that the evil Kenyan raised the debt limit which those prudent Republicans voted against. If you’re inclined to vote against Obama, this whole affair didn’t change your mind anyway. If you were inclined to vote for him, likely you still would. It’s those on the fence that make the difference. If they think it through and see that the GOP bungled this and refused to take yes for an answer, then Obama gains. Only if they get swayed by the inevitable right wing media full court press does it pan out for the Republicans. The trouble is, the Republicans never seem to lose when betting against the intelligence of the voter.

I’ve seen FreeRepublic, they are cursing John Boehner only slightly less than they do at Barack Obama.

[Fear_Itself]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

False. The White House package purportedly reduces the debt by $4T over 10 - 12 years, and it does so by increasing taxes (on everyone, btw).

This boils down the Republican position better than any other statement; it is more important to protect tax loopholes and corporate welfare than it is to cut $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

And the GOP will dismiss the Tea Party at their peril. The Tea Party sees the debt ceiling as a Ring of Power that can be wielded to invoke all sorts of magic, from massive cuts to socialist government programs to forcing a balanced budget amendment. When they realize McBoehner gave it to Saurobama, they will absolutely shit, and realize the mainstream Republican Party is only using them to protect their corporate masters. They will abandon the Republicans and run their own candidate in 2012, siphoning off just enough energy to render the GOP impotent.

The end of the age of the Republican Party is nigh.

[Richard_Parker]

I’m not as convinced as Ravenman that it is constitutional. Even if it survives under the nondelegation doctrine, the actual structure proposed – involving one chamber passing a resolution that would become law if not vetoed – is unconstitutional.

However, no one would have standing to bring a challenge, most likely.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Marley23

Yes, that’s fine. The vitriol in that post (“shitbags,” “retarded,” “motherfucking corwards”) was more than I want to see in this forum.

Yeah, if I want to see something as awful as those those words describe, I’ll go sit in the House gallery.

Or,

This is really an unfair comparison to those upstanding citizens who are s*******, r****** and mf* cowards.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Richard_Parker

I’m not as convinced as Ravenman that it is constitutional. Even if it survives under the nondelegation doctrine, the actual structure proposed – involving one chamber passing a resolution that would become law if not vetoed – is unconstitutional.

However, no one would have standing to bring a challenge, most likely.

Does a resolution ever become binding law?

[Richard_Parker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Does a resolution ever become binding law?

I’m not entirely clear on it. But my understanding was that Congress would pass a statute that would give the President the authority to raise the debt limit, thereby altering the current statute. If the President does so, either chamber is empowered to pass a resolution of disapproval with a 2/3 vote, and if they do so, the President must veto it or else the debt statute will revert back to its original level.

[RickJay]

@Ravenman

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. “The Congress shall… have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” I thought conservatives and Tea Partiers wanted to uphold the Constitution, both its letter and intent. Is that not true?

The issue of debt is a legislative power. Being afraid of the responsibilities of governing, and therefore outsourcing that power to another branch of government, may be a legal thing to do, but it is quite clearly in contravention of the intent of the Founders that the Congress have primary say on the finances of this country.

As Congress could simply revoke the power at will, it’s purely procedural in nature. This is nothing but politics.

I can only see this proposal as an admission that the Republican leadership isn’t prepared to accept that with power comes responsibility.

It’s not so much that as it is an admission that the Republican platform, such as it is, has led them into a dead end.

All virtues risk becoming vices, and the Republican virtue of party unity and clarity of message has now become a vice because they got roped, by the politics of the day, into a series of messages regarding the budget that cannot be reconciled; no tax increases, no defense cuts, and no cuts to entitlement that would threaten votes. Those things simply cannot coexist anymore; it’s an arithmetic impossibility. Without acting on some of those things the United States of America will become effectively bankrupt.

So the Republican Party can do one of two things:

1. Compromise a position, or

2. Quit the game, and thereby compromise a position but shift the blame elsewhere.

This is Option 2. The truth is they know they are beat. John Boehner et al. are not complete morons; they know the math, they know the situation, and they are politically powerless to admit that it is not mathematically possible to avoid further debt, or even substantially mitigate it, without raising taxes and making significant long term budget cuts. To admit those things would blow up the party’s platform, so they cannot admit them. They have to pass the potato.

This is nothing to do with constitutional duty; the idea’s perfectly constitutional. This is a political Hail Mary from a party that is a lot closer to utter implosion than I think people realize.

[Alan_Smithee]

@ElvisL1ves

Has there ever been, in history, another bill even proposed that so perfectly represents the utter quintessence of passive-aggressiveness as this one?

@Richard_Parker

I’m not entirely clear on it. But my understanding was that Congress would pass a statute that would give the President the authority to raise the debt limit, thereby altering the current statute. If the President does so, either chamber is empowered to pass a resolution of disapproval with a 2/3 vote, and if they do so, the President must veto it or else the debt statute will revert back to its original level.

Shit, this goes beyond passive-agressive. It’s downright sado-masochistic! I wish I could draw. I’d make a cartoon of McConnell in nipple clips and bondage gear handing a bemused Obama a whip and screaming, “No! Don’t! You’re hurting me! I don’t want to raise the debt ceiling!..Hey, why’d you stop? I didn’t say the safe word. I’m into it!..Oh! You big Kenyan monster, you! You Nubian socialist! Not my loopholes! Please! You’re ravishing me!” The thought balloon over Obama reads, “There’s a ‘safe word’?”

[BobLibDem]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I’ve seen FreeRepublic, they are cursing John Boehner only slightly less than they do at Barack Obama.

That may be correct, but can you imagine the freepers not voting for whoever dons the elephant suit? Do you thing that silly woman with the tea bags hanging from her hat is all of a sudden going to vote for Obama? They have nowhere else to go. They may not walk through a fire in a gasoline suit for Romney, but they sure as hell aren’t going to vote for the Kenyan Marxist Socialist Muslim.

[Fear_Itself]

@BobLibDem

That may be correct, but can you imagine the freepers not voting for whoever dons the elephant suit? Do you thing that silly woman with the tea bags hanging from her hat is all of a sudden going to vote for Obama? They have nowhere else to go. They may not walk through a fire in a gasoline suit for Romney, but they sure as hell aren’t going to vote for the Kenyan Marxist Socialist Muslim.

What if Bachmann fails to be nominated, and goes rogue?

[DigitalC]

@BobLibDem

That may be correct, but can you imagine the freepers not voting for whoever dons the elephant suit? Do you thing that silly woman with the tea bags hanging from her hat is all of a sudden going to vote for Obama? They have nowhere else to go. They may not walk through a fire in a gasoline suit for Romney, but they sure as hell aren’t going to vote for the Kenyan Marxist Socialist Muslim.

They don’t have to go anywhere, they just have to stay home. The 2008 and 2010 elections were both crushing victories for either party on nothing but extremely high enthusiasm.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BobLibDem

That may be correct, but can you imagine the freepers not voting for whoever dons the elephant suit? Do you thing that silly woman with the tea bags hanging from her hat is all of a sudden going to vote for Obama? They have nowhere else to go. They may not walk through a fire in a gasoline suit for Romney, but they sure as hell aren’t going to vote for the Kenyan Marxist Socialist Muslim.

Its guite simple really, form a Third party. If they can get a moderately famous Tea Party figure to win it’ll gainat least as many votes as say Henry Wallace’s run in 1948.

[jayjay]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Its guite simple really, form a Third party. If they can get a moderately famous Tea Party figure to win it’ll gainat least as many votes as say Henry Wallace’s run in 1948.

Oh, from your mouth to the Political Gods’ ears…I would love nothing better than to see an actual Tea Party separate from the GOP.

[TriPolar]

@BobLibDem

That may be correct, but can you imagine the freepers not voting for whoever dons the elephant suit? Do you thing that silly woman with the tea bags hanging from her hat is all of a sudden going to vote for Obama? They have nowhere else to go. They may not walk through a fire in a gasoline suit for Romney, but they sure as hell aren’t going to vote for the Kenyan Marxist Socialist Muslim.

@Fear_Itself

What if Bachmann fails to be nominated, and goes rogue?

@DigitalC

They don’t have to go anywhere, they just have to stay home. The 2008 and 2010 elections were both crushing victories for either party on nothing but extremely high enthusiasm.

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Its guite simple really, form a Third party. If they can get a moderately famous Tea Party figure to win it’ll gainat least as many votes as say Henry Wallace’s run in 1948.

Ron Paul may be in the race as a 3rd party candidate. He could carry the Palin and Bachmann sheep, along with his own Libertarian coalition, and plenty of disillusioned Republicans and the generic Obama haters.

[MEBuckner]

[QUOTE=Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, R-KY]

…I refuse to help Barack Obama get reelected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy…And all of a sudden we have co-ownership of a bad economy.
[/QUOTE]

You know, this is kind of astonishing to me. You mean they don’t have “co-ownership” of the economy? Are Republicans from Mars? Were they all secretly born in Kenya? Did Mitch McConnell come via a rift in the fabric of the space-time continuum from an alternate universe where Al Gore became President in 2000 and had solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress all through the Aughts and George W. Bush ranks with Wendell Wilkie and Thomas E. Dewey in the annals of American history, and the Democrats trashed the economy with their wild socialistic healthcare policies and nationwide gay marriage and the infamous “Hookers and Blow for All Atheist Welfare Recipients Act” of 2003?

I mean, geeze–don’t we all have “co-ownership” of the economy? Perhaps the Republicans in Congress are so isolated from the rest of us, sitting around on their yachts, having their servants light their cigars with hundred dollar bills, that they don’t feel any connection to the rest of us and our quaint “economy” of providing goods and services in exchange for money to pay for food, shelter, and clothing and/or failing to find a position that will allow us to provide goods and services in exchange for money to pay for food, shelter, and clothing.

[Ravenman]

@Richard_Parker

I’m not as convinced as Ravenman that it is constitutional. Even if it survives under the nondelegation doctrine, the actual structure proposed – involving one chamber passing a resolution that would become law if not vetoed – is unconstitutional.

to be clear, I understand the resolution as something that has to be passed by both houses of Congress, vetoed, and then the veto overridden by both houses.

I would also think the nondelegation doctrine would not apply because the authority being transferred to the White House seems to be limited in terms of scope and time.