So the question, yet again:
What options are available that are merely illegal, as opposed to blatantly unconstitutional? On the scale of legal ickiness, what are the least icky choices in front of Obama?
Congress will go through the motions of passing those three laws, perhaps, but when all is said and done, you will inevitably find that at least one of those laws is not in effect.
As I see it, Obama has 3 choices:
- Unilaterally borrow money
- Unilaterally raise taxes
- Impound money
#1 and #2 are clearly unconstitutional. #3 has been held to be unconstitutional by a Supreme Court decision, but I would distinguish the current situation from the case. In the case, the President merely chose to impound the money, but in this situation Obama almost certainly must impound the money, or at least reduce it pro rata.
If I was his counsel, I would tell him that he would have to reduce spending in a good faith way (IOW, no cutting all funding to some red state districts with full funding to some blue state districts). It’s the only choice that has a chance of being legal.
I think the fact that there would be no money in the Treasury is a compelling and rational basis to conclude that money can’t be spent. A law requiring expenditure of funds is predicated on the basis that funds exist: if funds do not, the law cannot be carried out until the funds exist.
Can you explain this once more, without soundbites that sound like the Sphinx in the movie, Mystery Men?
This means a 32 percent cut. This immediate 32 percent austerity could hit anything from Social Security checks to food stamps to the debt itself. But really the cut is more than 32 percent, due to factors such as the immediate decline in GDP reducing tax revenue while increasing social safety net costs. You are talking about a major depression here such as in Spain and Greece and the US of 1933.
America’s separation of powers means that the government can only function if the branches voluntarily cooperate. If they do not, there is no way to hold a vote of no confidence and select a new chief. Instead, you have a constitutional crisis. We mostly have gotten away with the dumb way those founders (except for Franklin, who pushed for responsible government and lost) set up things. But one of these days, it won’t work anymore, and then the Constitution can’t really be followed.
Your advice may be good legally but, in my opinion, is totally unacceptable due to harm to the world economy. Ignoring the debt ceiling is a better move. In the longer run, we should have a parliamentary system.
I know that the President has already promised to more of less do what you say, but, unless Boehner buckles (actually what I expect), I think Obama should change his mind. Not only because all courses are illegal, but also because when you have a constitutional crisis, you can’t really follow the constitution. That’s why it’s a constitutional crisis. The GOP perhaps impeach him, and have the same success as with Clinton.
There could be more money in the Treasury by pushing buttons on a computer. Funds could be clicked into existence.
In most cases, this is illegal – although some people claim that that platinum coin gambit would be legit – but it is also clearly not unconstitutional. That means this option, both with platinum and without, stands somewhere less repulsive than issuing debt on the spectrum of legal ickiness. What’s most interesting is that the platinum thing just might be the least icky legal option while simultaneously being the most icky political option. Economically and administratively, by far the easiest thing would be to overdraw the Fed accounts in some fashion and then have the open market desk sterilize the extra base in the system by reducing their balance sheet. They could get away with that for at least a year, easy, and maybe several.
Any resistance to this isn’t constitutional. It is political, and that’s a different kettle of fish. They can’t tax money. They can’t borrow money. But they can make money, very easily. Is that the cleanest of options available, as some people claim? That’s an interesting question, even if it’s politically impossible.
This is not in Obama’s court, it rests solely within the House of Representatives. If Obama were serious, he’d mint a trillion dollar coin or monetize the nation’s gold and bullion, then be done with it. He’s not going to do that because it’ll play exactly into the Republican’s pre-scripted narrative that Obama is the King of All and Nothing.
This thread echoes “Obama, Obama, Obama,”; in fact, on this page very alone it has been spewed 28 times. But what about Boehner? His demands are completely unreasonable and Obama should not capitulate at all. If the government defaults, shuts down, then so be it, at least it’ll go down in annals of history that the Most Greatest and Prosperous Nation on Earth collapsed in on itself because they’re too fucking selfish to offer their fellow man affordable health care.
This is precisely why I despise Republicans. It’s not enough that they elect neo-racists like Rand Paul (“Business owners should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act”) but now the clowns are electing anti-government ideologues who* hate *government. It’s mind-boggling to me. It would be analogous to electing President of PETA to Chair the National Beef Association and think that something positive will emerge from it. Why is it that conservatives play these games with the nation when they don’t like the direction the winds of change are coming from? They did it during the Civil War, they did it during the New Deal,they did it with the Civil Rights Act, they did it with Federal holiday for MLK, and now they’re doing again with the ACA. Enough already.
- Honesty
I know. Conservatives should just shut up and be quiet about their beliefs and about their principles. Goshdarnit. And preferably not vote or elect people you don’t like.
No one saying that Conservatives shouldn’t be vocal about their principals. For all I care, conservatives could climb the highest mountaintop and extol on their beliefs until the Second Coming. What I’m saying is that Conservatives should not use the threat of default or shutdown to extract demands.
- Honesty
No, but they shouldn’t use government shutdowns and debt defaults as a negotiating tactic. If the Democrats agree to negotiate, that will just encourage the Republicans to do it again.
This should not be a legitimate negotiating tactic, and the Democrats are behaving properly.
The Republicans in the House are voting for the bill that they want. They pass it in the House - because a majority in the House voted for it. Democracy, right? The Senate is rejecting the bill by voting House changes down - again, democracy. What exactly is your complaint? Assume that the Republicans are actually voting their beliefs and their principles, for the sake of the argument (otherwise we can get into the argument of why Democrats are voting as a solid block as well). Would you prefer them to betray their principles? If so, why do you demand that of Republicans and not of Democrats?
You’re saying Republicans are using the threat of shutdown or default to “extract demands”. I see Democrats using the threat of shutdown or default to “extract demands” - gleefully, I might add (because they think Republicans will be the ones blamed). Why is one not like the other?
The threat of shutdown is a negotiating tactic on both sides.
The ACA, gimpy and crippled git that it is, is the product of negotiation. By elected representative following correct legislative procedure. There was an election, largely about that very legislation, and the President, the Senate that produced that legislation was affirmed, and the party that opposed it in the House lost seats. It can be fairly said that the people affirmed that decision.
What legitimacy can the Insane Clown Posse claim outside of their firm commitment to an agenda that was rejected?
I think you’re deliberately missing the context here, which is fine, because I’ll continue to frame the context as thus: The ACA has already been passed by Congress, signed into law, and found constitutional by SCOTUS. The ACA was the central issue in the 2012 election and Obama who platformed on the ACA won a second term. The House is attempting to readjudicate settled law and a voter mandate by tying its repeal or delay with the funding of government. This is wrong.
I also don’t think you can equivocate Democrats and Republicans on this issue. When Democrats swept into power in 2006, there were no calls to repeal of the prescription drug program or force a government shutdown because of it. In fact, if I recall, Democrats took the unpaid legislation and improved upon it, by closing the “doughnut hole”. On the other side, Republicans have not offered their version of the healthcare program. They’ve made some natterings about repealing and replacing but the details of the replacement are always scarce. If they hate the ACA, then offer amendments to improve upon it, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- Honesty
If by “negotiation” and “correct legislative procedure” you mean voting along strict party lines, then yes. But if so, by the same logic the current shutdown crisis is also the product of “negotiation” and “correct legislative procedure”.
In your opinion. In my opinion it is principled and courageous, even in the face of the risk of backlash. But then both are just opinions. What is fact, not opinion, is that it is legal and follows democratic procedure.
Since Republicans took over the House in 2010, they have voted nine times for uncontroverial, short term spending bills to keep the government running. Why was keeping government open without strings attached good then, and bad now?
Doesn’t this change in Republican policy - that short term spending bills have to come with strings attached - confirm that the House, not anyone else, is responsible for the shutdown?
Push came to shove. Did you ever hear the expression “past performance does not guarantee future results”?
Not that I expect what I consider the principled and courageous behavior by the conservatives to continue for long.
Yeah, the acid wears off after a few hours.