Damn, I forgot about this.
According to what I read in the Washington Post, if there was a free vote in the House, a clean continuing resolution would win. I’m pretty sure that this the vote for a clean debt ceiling limit increase would be even greater. But the way things are set up there, a bare majority of a party that has a bare majority is enough to stop legislation from going to the floor.
As for Barack Obama’s 2006 vote against a debt ceiling increase, he was wrong. It was a protest vote without practical significance, but it is wrong to vote for something you don’t favor and would cause considerable suffering.
I voted for Barack Obama twice, but I see no reason to defend his 2006 vote.
That’s exactly the problem, and that’s what makes the Republicans so reprehensible. Thomas Schelling describes this situation perfectly.
The context of the above article is different, but the bargaining situation is exactly the same. Brinksmanship is often an effective tactic when you want to get your way. But it is so reprehensible because we are all chained to the goddamn government, too. Republican gerrymandered electoral games have real consequences. It is also deeply upsetting that such a small slice of the electorate, the fire-breathers who vote in Republican primaries in certain low-population states, have such a vast and entirely incidental amount of political power when we are all supposed to be members of the one person-one vote club.
Elevating legislation you don’t like is further irresponsible because in a crisis situation when people are on high alert, accidents, malfunctions, and misreadings that would ordinarily be ignored now take on greater consequence, at the very time when honest bargaining is needed the most. In a low alert setting, a minor radar malfunction might not cause you to launch bombers. But if you are alert and sensitized to the possibility of attack, then you cannot take chances and you scramble the air force if you see a blip. Of course your enemy observes this and scrambles his own air force. And so on. The responsibility for raising the temperature is entirely on the Republican side, so any misinterpretations along the way that cause serious damage can be justly laid at their door.
So yes, on some level they are just doing their jobs and standing up for principle. But this requires shearing off all of the details that make this situation so extraordinary. It’s like saying that launching a nuclear attack is “just pushing a button.” It’s not false, but it is dishonest and potentially disastrous.
OK, how about I ask a question that I think I sort of asked in the OP, but danced around: does the 14th Amendment (I think I have the right one) actually mean that it’s illegal for the President to allow default on the debt? I’ve heard this a lot in punditry, but I don’t know if that’s so.
There was an election. It was quite big and well publicized. I think everyone knew about it. The conservatives were quite loud about their beliefs and principles. Most people did not agree with them. They lost.
A number of Constitutional scholars (mainly on the left0 are making that argument. Garret Epps is probably the best known; he claims the historic context behind section 4 of the 14th amendment closely mirrors the circumstances of the current fight:
You should read the full article to understand his argument in detail. Epps argues that payments on Social Security are payments to pensioners–a group explicitly mentioned in this amendment–while default on US bonds is allowed because such a default doesn’t dispute/question the validity of the debt, it merely delays repayment.
Eventually zero.
There are a few reasons why the debt ceiling could be ruled unconstitutional and SCOTUS will pick the one the most justices can agree to.
- Congress implicitly raises the debt ceiling when it passes spending bills that are not supported by revenue.
- Violates 14th Amendment.
- By ordering spending and not allowing more debt, Congress is illegally restricting the Executive Branch in their duties.
Except that SCOTUS ruled that Social Security is not a pension but more of a mandated insurance policy.
None of those arguments succeed even under the slightest bit of examination. Besides which, 3 is just double-talk nonsense.
They won the House. That means they don’t have to go along with what Democrats want.
But apparently it also means that the Democrats have to go along with what they want. In spite of controlling the other half of the Legislature and the Executive. Is that about right?
Nonsense. Democrats could easily come along and say, “Either we have universal health care, or we don’t vote for any budget.” THAT would be a “my way or the highway” situation, and I wouldn’t support that tactic at all.
But that’s not what’s happening. Democrats are saying, “We negotiate without threats of destroying our country, or the highway.” Republicans are welcome to engage in the normal process of negotiation without waving a fiscal gun around.
Some of it, yes, Democrats have to go along with. That’s what it means when one side controls the Senate and the other controls the House.
Without the “fiscal gun” Democrats have absolutely no incentive to negotiate.
But the (Democratic-controlled) Senate has submitted a CR that actually decreases spending below that called for in the Paul budget. So, they have “gone along” with something. What have the Republicans offered in return?
What you refer to as “the fiscal gun” is harming the country in order to get your way. That should simply never be negotiated with. You are right, the republicans have no leverage without that so they are bound to lose. It happens, win the senate and presidency next time.
Are you unfamiliar with negotiations? Each side comes to the table with cards. Right now, Democrats have a very strong hand, and Republicans have a weak hand.
That means Republicans will need to give up something they hold dear in order to get something from Democrats.
Here are some things Republicans could give up:
-Universal background checks.
-Increased corporate taxes.
-Increased estate tax.
-Universal health care.
-Increased spending on impoverished schools.
-Increased food stamp benefits.
The list goes on, and on.
If Republicans want to negotiate, they need to put something on the table. If they’re unwilling to do that, then sure, Democrats won’t have an incentive to negotiate–but that’s because Republicans haven’t offered to negotiate.
What you want is for Republicans to be able to negotiate by threatening to harm the country if Democrats don’t concede. That’s not a negotiation: that’s extortion.
Wasn’t enough, was it? Republicans offered to pass the CR. With small caveats (such as delaying the individual mandate for one year). Democrats refuse. Republicans cannot cave in or they are finished, politically. Democrats want them to be finished, politically, so they are refusing to deal. We get closer and closer to debt limit crisis. Who cares about the country or the economy, we’re doing politics here. Weeeee!
As I said in the other thread, I am out and all in cash. Let the stock market tank.
It happens. Win the House next time.
Democrats refuse to come to the table.