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.
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 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.
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.
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):
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?
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.
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.
An excellent argument, though one wonders if the Court would reach for “political question” to bail on it.
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.
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.
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)
You’re right - I don’t know what I was thinking of but it was not that for sure.
Seems appropriate for here:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Those were his “stick” in the negotiations. McC stick was a government shut down.
But incorrect, as most of the GOP went along with his deal. Only a few hardliners didnt.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Just so sad, that acting to avoid a self-created disaster is likely the most pivotal vote…