# Second-guessing Dems on the Debt **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 19, 2023, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287 "2023-05-19T17:37:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/161 "2023-05-31T11:48:01Z")
I just read that the new work requirements will actually expand the number of people eligible by a few tens of thousands and increase spending by a few billion, while making it harder for some eligible people to get benefits. Once again, the cruelty is the point – the Republicans are willing to spend additional money in order to make it harder for people to get benefits. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/162 "2023-05-31T11:52:13Z")
I think that separate from the discretionary vs. mandatory distinction (which doesn’t actually indicate that the president is being given discretion) some spending related laws have different language and could be interpreted differently about if the executive branch has to spend it, so in some cases the president Part of that already takes place every time the debt ceiling comes up - i.e. the last several months of extraodrinary measures used by Yellen to avoid going over the current debt ceiling. Also worth noting that there is currently an [active court case](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/23/court-14th-amendment-debt-limit-00098358) saying that the extraordinary measure of deferring payments to government employee pensions is already an unlawful use of executive power and that the 14th allows the Biden admin to make those payments regardless of the debt ceiling. So at least the claim is that even the payment prioritization that the treasury and/or Biden admin thinks they can do is already disputed. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/163 "2023-05-31T11:53:56Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I just read that the new work requirements will actually expand the number of people eligible by a few tens of thousands and increase spending by a few billion, while making it harder for some eligible people to get benefits. The CBO estimate is that the net effect of the SNAP changes will be slightly increasing eligibility. ETA: Some progressives are taking issue with drawing conclusions based on CBO because they think that enough eligible people will not navigate the system and not end up getting benefits. > **[‘Not happy’: Key progressive pushes back on new food aid work requirements in...](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/30/progressives-food-aid-requirements-debt-deal-00099290)** > > Few Democrats have weighed in on the deal’s language extending work requirements for a certain age group of people receiving food assistance. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/164 "2023-05-31T12:10:03Z")
I don’t think you’re disagreeing with anything I said? Providing cites for me, maybe? On the 14th Amendment front, there is actually a pending lawsuit, which is currently on hold (gift article): > **[14th Amendment Questions Linger Despite Debt Limit Deal](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/us/politics/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling.html?unlocked_article_code=rOuG6cIH5xmNeAv8NzrAn4IfEsbWFr0UjLYtaQOTZbWOF1ar0bkYqKAQp0KYoU0iHHWJuRHk1UTdG4tN9EsSt5oTRP44Oejcq5cSNhz5dLDvsCvpaIrT6Fv9ZRC9Ix_fQFmJS-0mitd9Hb-NwvGcMaMG5nHiN52BF79FQC_c6K6X2uARB2DPcZFirfeAgGYVBJ9VDrTPXrS9z4iKeFuKaWiKcTtDYQgwjgIf12kqqM0XQ5Os1hVbG7g-F0A-FxyjP4YmwgIDTRyqpQo9rmCCQWjDMKI5stHk8vA9jlNHtz39FCphiTR48k-W4lh7-oTSBd3S2-YYp06s3vwUY07hiFTeyE5dJDUI5Q&smid=url-share)** > > President Biden has been considering ways to challenge the constitutionality of the debt limit to defuse the risk of default. Laurence Tribe says that this can’t get resolved by the courts unless it’s a live issue. Can someone explain why? I would argue that there has already been harm done, in the increased costs due to “extraordinary measures”, so why can’t that be the basis? ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/165 "2023-05-31T12:11:21Z")
Presumably because this is a dispute that would have massive implications and if the courts can just punt on it by saying there’s nothing material to dispute (because the political system already resolved the issue) they’re going to do that. Also part of the case in the lawsuit is that the debt ceiling statute is unconstitutional because congress needs to give the executive branch clear directives and forcing them to untangle what’s a required payment and what isn’t at the debt ceiling is an unconstitutionally vague combination of legislation. I think this does have merit, but I also think this is the kind of thing the courts would rather just declare a political question than have to make a ruling that huge. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/166 "2023-05-31T12:14:37Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > It all has to be spent according to the rules that Congress lays out. Yes. But if, for example, the Congress authorizes to incur up to $100 million for Project X, but appropriates less than that, it does not mean the agency _has_ to spend $100 million anyway and borrow the difference, it can say “we’re out of money” and stop until the next budget. > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > Also part of the case in the lawsuit is that the debt ceiling statute is unconstitutional because congress needs to give the executive branch clear directives and forcing them to untangle what’s a required payment and what isn’t at the debt ceiling is an unconstitutionally vague combination of legislation. An excellent argument, though one wonders if the Court would reach for “political question” to bail on it. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/167 "2023-05-31T12:14:40Z")
Yeah, probably that. That’s why the Biden administration should have pursued it at the beginning of the “extraordinary measures” phase – we actually hit the debt limit months ago. It’s a live issue and the courts would have time to review and do something before there’s a default. ETA: @JRDelirious, the administration has to spend what it’s told to spend. If it’s “up to $100mm”, then you’re right. If congress says to do these projects, it has to do those projects. I’m not really sure what you’re point is – discretionary vs. non-discretionary does not mean what you said it means. If congress only appropriates $50mm, then the executive can only spend that much, and must spend that much if it is required for the project. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/168 "2023-05-31T12:17:42Z")
Oh yeah, I think Biden left a lot on the table as far as strategy with the 14th amendment and also the workarounds like the platinum coin. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/169 "2023-05-31T12:21:14Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > An excellent argument, though one wonders if the Court would reach for “political question” to bail on it. The other thing about this is that it (IMO very unfortunately) means that if executive branch decides they can delay payments to something and get sued over it, the “political questions” doctrine would allow them to keep delaying payments and staying under the debt ceiling, but if they decided to go over the debt ceiling in order to make payments and got sued for that, the “political questions” doctrine would allow the president to continue that policy as well. It’s a frustrating aspect of the practical implications of the courts “punting” on a major constitutional issue like this. (Obviously this is all based on the assumption that the court would consider the 14th amendment vs debt ceiling issue a political question) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/170 "2023-05-31T12:22:25Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > discretionary vs. non-discretionary does not mean what you said it means. You’re right - I don’t know what I was thinking of but it was not that for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/171 "2023-05-31T16:23:03Z")
Seems appropriate for here: [![](https://preview.redd.it/fzdqwjpt473b1.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=1458999250a7c8deafcea35ca9db8201361b42ef) ](https://preview.redd.it/fzdqwjpt473b1.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=1458999250a7c8deafcea35ca9db8201361b42ef) ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/172 "2023-05-31T16:28:44Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Laurence Tribe says that this can’t get resolved by the courts unless it’s a live issue. Can someone explain why? I would argue that there has already been harm done, in the increased costs due to “extraordinary measures”, so why can’t that be the basis? There’s a legal doctrine for this: “Capable of repetition, yet evading review.” A situation that recurs often, where there’s a real issue but by the time it gets to court the current controversy has been dealt with, leaving that set of litigants without standing under the usual course of events. But as others have pointed out, the courts would prefer to run screaming judiciously from having to decide an issue like the debt ceiling if at all possible. Editing: This procedural aspect falls under [exceptions to the mootness doctrine.](https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/exceptions-to-the-mootness-doctrine.html) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/173 "2023-05-31T20:22:13Z")
As of now it seem on the procedural vote to move the bill into final debate the Dems are only going to lend McC enough votes to pass that? Which would be expected, make him count exactly who he has. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/174 "2023-05-31T20:22:23Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The short version: Biden’s redline (“I will not negotiate”) was always a ploy. The very act of negotiation gave McCarthy his major victory, and reporting says that at his closed-door meeting, this is how he repeatedly sold it. “I got Biden to blink! Look, I know we didn’t get much, but we were going to get nothing! I made Biden fold!” > > And in the process, the GOP got very little and the Dems gave up even less. Anyway, per O’Donnell, Biden absolutely ate McCarthy’s lunch. Yep, more or less. McC got just enuf to be able to save face and claim a victory. His hardliners are threatening him already… which to me, indicates a Good deal. > [@flurb](#): > > Of course, the Constitution also gives Congress the explicit enumerated power to declare war, which has not happened in any of the wars we’ve fought since WWII. Not really true. Congress did pass resolutions allowing the Oval office and the Military to act. True, they didnt actually “declare war” but no one does that nowadays anyway. > [@flurb](#): > > We haven’t “officially fought any wars” because the Executive has repeatedly taken us to war without the Constitutionally required Congressional declaration. This is not correct. Congress authorized many Military actions. They dont have to actually “declare war”, they just have to authorize military action and the funds for it. > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > Oh yeah, I think Biden left a lot on the table as far as strategy with the 14th amendment and also the workarounds like the platinum coin. Those were his “stick” in the negotiations. McC stick was a government shut down. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seems appropriate for here: But incorrect, as most of the GOP went along with his deal. Only a few hardliners didnt. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/175 "2023-05-31T20:29:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > McC stick was a government shut down. This is false. A government shutdown happens if the budget (or a continuing resolution) isn’t passed. In this case, the US would default on its debt, but the government would keep on running. McC’s stick was a global economic collapse. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/176 "2023-05-31T21:02:15Z")
The big issue with trying to use the Courts to resolve this is that it would add a lot more risk to the equation. Markets don’t like uncertainty. So the only point it would make sense to try is when the risk of default is high enough that the damage of trying this strategy would be appealing. Yes, the debt ceiling does seem to be unconstitutional on its face. It compels the government to default on its debts, which it is constitutionally not allowed to do as long as it has money. Ironically, the best time to try this argument from a market perspective would be when we aren’t in danger of defaulting. Unfortunately, that’s exactly when the Courts could say it isn’t a live issue. And, yes, McConnell’s stick was a global economic collapse, which ironically is weaker as a stick than a shutdown. A shutdown is something the non-extremist Republicans might get on board with. It wouldn’t affect them all that much, and they’ve let it happen before. The Republicans got very little–just minor face saving measures. As the leaders in the House, they would normally be expected to get a lot more. (And, yes, if you watch him, you may I’m mostly just saying what Beau of the Fifth Column said about this in a few videos. But his argument seems sound.) ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2023, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/177 "2023-05-31T21:25:43Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > A shutdown is something the non-extremist Republicans might get on board with. It wouldn’t affect them all that much, and they’ve let it happen before. And it wouldn’t harm the Republican paymasters nearly so much. To the extent that things are going on behind the scenes that pushed McCarthy to behave somewhat reasonably here, I tend to think it’s more the vested interests of Republican backers than negotiating genius on the part of Biden. Or, to be more generous to Biden, that he knows this and played off it to call McCarthy’s bluff. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2023, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/178 "2023-06-01T02:25:54Z")
The bill to raise the debt ceiling has passed the House 314-117. Republicans voted 149 yeas to 71 nays, Democrats were 165-46. Four members did not vote. This is a huge win for Kevin McCarthy. For as shaky as his grip has seemed on the gavel, he pulled a 2/3 majority of his caucus with him on probably the most pivotal vote of the session. And for all the concessions they won, the Freedom Caucus is right back where they’ve usually been – bitching and moaning but unable to effectively exert their will on a major issue. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2023, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/179 "2023-06-01T03:02:56Z")
> [@flurb](#): > > For as shaky as his grip has seemed on the gavel, he pulled a 2/3 majority of his caucus with him on probably the most pivotal vote of the session. Further, before that on the procedural vote to bring it to the floor at all, the GOP bench broke 189-29 (4 No Shows). Most of the 29 being those he already knew he could not count on, the Biggs, Gosars, Boeberts, Gaetzes and suchlike. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2023, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287/180 "2023-06-01T11:24:42Z")
> [@flurb](#): > > For as shaky as his grip has seemed on the gavel, he pulled a 2/3 majority of his caucus with him on probably the most pivotal vote of the session. Just so sad, that acting to avoid a self-created disaster is likely the most pivotal vote… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-guessing-dems-on-the-debt/984287.md?page=10)