More importantly how is one going to stop paying congressmen? It’s not like we could just line all the lobbyists and PACs up against the wall and open fire. That’s completely immoral. The ricochets might hit innocent bystanders.
Wait, isn’t the government “too big to fail”? Maybe the banks should give us a bailout?
In consideration of the creeping irrelevance of Congress over the last 30 years it seems inevitable the executive branch will gain more and more authority over the budget, which is the real and only measure of Congress’ legal power. How and by what justification this happens will be interesting to see.
Indeed. Bartlett’s article is somewhat scary in that it makes a lot of sense, at least from this layman’s perspective. Don’t get me wrong, I think the debt limit has to be raised and I think that holding it hostage is pure stupidity and scumbaggery, but if the power over the purse strings is taken away from the Congress …
Technically, in Bartlett’s hypothetical, the president wouldn’t be authorizing new spending, he would be telling Treasury to exceed the debt limit to continue paying for the spending which Congress has already authorized. So he wouldn’t be seizing “power over the purse strings” per se; he would in effect be making sure Congress’s spending continued as planned.
Why raising the debt limit doesn’t happen automatically is what makes no sense to me, precisely because it’s about paying for the spending Congress has already authorized.
The justification doesn’t make sense; it’s really the first steps towards fascism. Maybe Ameri-fascism, crypto-fascism, electoral-monarchism, ect. But by that twisted logic the executive could claim jurisdiction over virtually any form of economic activity in a globalized economy where production of resources and products by state and non-state actors that could be construed as ideologically “un-American”, hostile, potentially hostile, or could otherwise pose a threat, and used as justification for greater “wartime power” control over the budget.
Whoa, no need to hit the Godwin button so soon! IIUC, Bartlett is essentially arguing that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because it violates Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” In essence I think he’s saying that since Congress has already voted its own budget bill into law, it cannot then refuse to pay for it by not raising the debt ceiling. I dunno if that’s a valid legal interpretation - certainly it seems to be one which hasn’t been challenged before - but it hardly means we’re a hop-skip-n-jump away from seizing the means of production. EDIT: if anything he’s arguing that Congress is shirking its responsibilities (how unprecedented!), so it’s up to the executive branch to step in.
Whoa.
You don’t find it weird to claim jurisdiction, “potential debt default is far more than a domestic consideration; it is a matter of foreign policy”, due to the external effects of internal policy decisions? That’s like saying the valuation of the dollar, inflationary policy, ect., are all under the header of “foreign policy”.
I think he means there’s an overlap, and the argument is that because so much of the debt is held abroad, that more of the issue falls under the foreign policy umbrella instead of the domestic policy umbrella. The value of the dollar is entirely based upon a comparison to foreign currencies and therefore their opinions on this matter, so at least that one makes sense as a foreign policy issue. It’s less weird and more scary.
Think of it this way:
[ul]
[li]Person A eats a burrito because he likes how they taste
[/li][li]Person A farts, but figures it’s worth it
[/li][li]People B, C, and D smell the fart and back away
[/li][/ul]
There’s a problem. It gets fixed by not eating burritos, but the possibility of losing friends is what makes that sacrifice worthwhile. So is this a digestion problem, a social problem, or both? I’d go with the latter.
In the general sense, that’s true: America is such a big player in the world market that our monetary policy has broad implications far beyond what happens on Wall Street, not least because so much of our public debt is now in foreign hands. To ignore that when making public policy is short-sighted at best.
In this specific case, I think his argument is two-fold: that a debt default will have very serious repercussions, destabilizing the global economy and threatening our national security; and that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because it threatens the “validity of the public debt” under the 14th amendment. Essentially he’s arguing that the latter empowers POTUS to take drastic steps to prevent the former. Again, I don’t know if that’s a valid interpretation of constitutional law; but it’s not like, say, inventing an entirely new quasi-legal definition for people you don’t like so you can do whatever the hell you want to them…what sane country would do that?
Whether it’s plausible or not it’s a dangerous as hell argument from a long-term constitutional perspective.
I’m not sure what alternative Obama has, of course, other than sit by and watch the economy melt down. Way to go, fucking Republicans.
I agree on both counts. Frankly, I’d say that something should be addressed via amendment to make sure this dillemma doesn’t occur again. It’s neither good that Congress can take this action nor is it good that the President can arguably override them when they do. There’s a hell of a lot to debate and arm wrestle over, but the debt limit isn’t it even though its name makes it sound like the sexy pick.
Why is it a good idea to give the government unlimited spending ability?
The point is that it’s an over-constrained system. Congress has authorized a certain level of spending and a certain level of income, but not the borrowing needed to square that circle. It’s like a boss telling hourly workers to work round the clock, but not authorizing overtime.
I’m not suggesting that Obama just thumb his nose at Congress and tell them to go “suck it, bitches!” while Treasury keeps selling bonds past the debt ceiling. Simply declaring something unconstitutional doesn’t make it so; it still has to go thru the courts. Though I am curious: how would the executive branch challenge the constitutionality of this (or any other) law? Normally it’s the Justice Dept. which defends federal law from constitutional challenges in court, isn’t it? But I don’t see how they could be both plaintiff and defendant in this case!
Who said anything about “unlimited?” My view is Congress shouldn’t keep the budget process and the debt limit separate laws, because it leads to the absurd political theater we have now, in which Republicans vote for the most recent spending bill (or the Ryan plan, which calls for $5 trillion in more deficits over the next decade), but then act outraged - outraged! - we would even dare raise the debt limit to pay for that very spending they approved! “I voted for the deficit until I voted against it!”
This.
And this.
But it’s not like they don’t know what the limit is or how much they have authorized in spending and borrowing. They should know when they have exceeded the limit and either adjust spending or find a way increase income instead of just raising the limit.
There’s no a constitutional way to force Congress and the President to agree on a budget.
I honestly despair of getting conservatives to understand the slightest fucking thing.
Governments are sovereigns. They control everything. They run everything in a geographical area. The only constraints on their actions on self-defined constraints - constitutions, political systems - and the intersection of public support
As phrased, your question is insane from both a formal and historical perspective. The government already has unlimited spending ability; it controls the currency and can print as much as it damn well wants. As seen in WWII, it can raise taxes and deficit spending as much as it likes. Any given level has tradeoffs, but of course the government can fucking do it. This is the case for every single government on earth. It’s inherent in the concept. It’s flat-out amazing that US conservatives are so ensconced in a la-la land of pretend rhetoric that you can say these sort of things with a straight face - the same government which reserves the right to murder everyone on earth with nuclear weapons somehow doesn’t control the US economy? Christ.
For historical reasons, there’s this asinine showboating probably-unconstitutional-but-never-challenged law where they have to go through the motions of manually authorizing debt increments. It’s a decorative cover on the underlying issue that Congress and the President can’t agree on a budget.
I thought that is what you were suggesting when you said we should make sure this never occurred again.
The only way to make sure it doesn’t happen again is to make each spending bill be have the payment mechanism within the bill or to eliminate it altogether, which it may as well be since they always raise it.
What the point of having a limit if you always raise it when you reach it? Imagine if you could do that with your personal finances!