The United States might be on its way to being a deadbeat nation. In addition to being shameful, this would also be rather damaging for our economy and our reputation. It would be nice to think that congress would not make something so serious into a political game, but such is the way of politicians these days: the only good greater than the good of their party is their own good. The debt ceiling provides an excellent cow to milk for political points, so it is being milked away.
Given that not addressing the debt ceiling would be a disaster, it is no surprise that there have been various proposals to deal with the matter. So far these have been what amount to political spackling paste and what is needed is something a bit more solid.
While Obama seems interested in reaching an agreement of some sort, Tim Geithner seems considering playing some constitutional hard ball. He recently made note of a key part of the 14th Amendment: the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned.”
While I am not a Constitutional scholar, this does seem to clearly state that the debt must be paid. As such, it would seem that Congress cannot pass any law that would forbid the paying of the public debt. This would, it seems, entail that a Republican maneuver that would result in a failure to pay said debt would be unconstitutional.
The Republicans have already anticipated that this card might be played. Tim Scott has made it clear that such a move on Obama’s part could trigger the Republicans to launch an impeachment attempt. It is not clear at this point how that would play out and what sort of impact it might have. On the one hand, this move might seem to be absurd, given that Obama would seem to have the Constitution on his side (assuming he played it correctly). On the other hand, this sort of move by Obama could be reasonably regarded as an attempt to usurp the constitutionally specified powers of congress. From a purely practical standpoint, such a move is not without its risks and possible rewards. On the reward side, going after Obama might enable the Republicans to score political points for 2012. On the risk side, going after the president so as to prevent America from paying her debts might not play out favorably for the Republicans.
The Republicans can, of course, argue against an attempt to use the amendment against them. While it does that the debt “shall not be questioned” it also refers to the debt being “authorized by law.” This part would certainly give the Republicans room to argue. For example, they could contend that the debt in question was not authorized by law and hence can be questioned.
In any case, Congress needs to spend wiser, lower spending and increase revenue to address the debt problem. Unfortunately, while they seem to have the will to play the usual political games, they lack the will to do what must be done. To be fair, stepping up and cutting entitlements while increasing taxes would be political suicide. As a whole, Americans seem to generally want to run the country like we run our personal finances: on credit.
Republicans say the deadline for raising the debt limit is artificial while Democrats say the nasty Republicans are playing Russian Roulette And it costs the US government much more than one cent to mint one penny. Do the math. We have been broke for a long time. The real issue is the high unemployment rate, which allows us to see more readily our bankruptcy (moral and financial). Were there more people working the deficit would be easier to dismiss. But because so many people are out of work the chicken come home to roost, so-to-speak. Meaning it’s much more difficult to bamboozle folks with economic jargonese and con man flim-flam artistry. Our home has no law when it come to finance, because the real wealth of America is her resources, which big business is robbing us (the People) of and will continue to do until we take them back from these thugs, next year.
The budget offered by Obama isn’t even serious enough for Democrats to back.
This is the President’s deal. He refuses to spend less, because his Keyesian and socialist buddies keep telling him not to. He’s worked his way out of the presidency. Whatever one says about either party, the numbers are clear.
Bush spent too much and then Obama made Bush look like a miser.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Next President, please.
I gave myself another thumbs down, as I know I’m on the right track when the Moonbats start hating….
Republicans are just as certain “nothing bad” will happen if we don’t raise the debt ceiling as they were that TARP and the Recovery Act were wrong. Fortunately, for all of us (even Republicans ) I believe, TARP and the Recovery Act happened despite them, so we never got to see what would have occurred if the US and world economies had continued on their downward spirals. My personal belief is that without those actions, one under a Republican administration and one under a Democratic administration, we’d currently be talking about dealing with the aftermath of a world financial collapse now and considering the debt-ceiling as no more than a minor blip.
Well. Republicans now have another chance to test their ideology. I predict –and stick with me here because I don’t have a crystal ball, just a magic rock that was given to me by a neurophysicist friend that–if the debt-ceiling isn’t raised, 8/2/11 will go down in history alongside 9/11 on the short list of dates of the worst attacks on the American people ever to take place on American soil. Just an opinion.
I can only hope the Republicans are right , because at that point we’ll be on the way to deficit recovery. Democrats being wrong on this point won’t matter, and living under another Republican administration or five– Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush1 and 2 is a cakewalk.
If they’re wrong, we all lose. But, if ^anything ^remains^ of the country in 2012, we’ll likely see the beginning of a long line of Democratic presidents and congresses.
Sure, just borrow more money today and deal with the tough choices later..that’s the responsible thing to do.
Obama in 2006:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I gave you another–it’s fun to pile on 🙂
The Federal budget has far more money allocated for “Discretionary Spending” than what is owed as interest on the debt. It’s not like we can’t afford to pay it, it’s a matter of choosing the to do the right thing. Both sides are playing political theater with this issue.
BTW, still awaiting your source of information on a previous comment stating that per capita debt for the US exceeds that of Greece. Not to mention of what relevance that might be, even if true.
Obama in 2006:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Unreal.
“the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law”
The key reading on this is exactly what was authorized by law. Raising the debt ceiling would be new authorization of debt, but the old debt, whose interest claims are coming up, was previously authorized and required to pay. The trick that comes down to is how to interpret these two different claims when new debt must be issued to pay for old debt. It seems that congress is the only one that can authorize new debt, but it might be unconstitutional for them aquiesce in paying old debts and not raise the ceiling (since on that interpretation they are not fulfilling debt obligations).
Sadly though, whatever the right interpretation is, it’s an economic fact rather than a constitutional issue at the heart of it all. And the fact that it makes for political theatre instead of sober reflection and complex analysis of the best economic plan is even more depressing.