6 ms·
It's unlikely the House will pass a clean debt ceiling hike. The GOP has not budged since the beginning of the new Congress. The MAGA caucus is determined to ex
by GalenErso 3y ago
It's unlikely the House will pass a clean debt ceiling hike. The GOP has not budged since the beginning of the new Congress. The MAGA caucus is determined to extract spending cuts at any costs. The way I see it, one of three things will happen:
1) The executive branch will invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment[1] and direct, by Executive Order, the Treasury Department to continue paying interest to bondholders, effectively abolishing the debt ceiling with the stroke of a pen, and without Congress' approval. This is my preferred option. There already exists a strong legal argument that the existence of the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. This maneuver would allow the White House and Congress to fight the issue in the courts without defaulting. The administration could also mint the oft-discussed trillion dollar coin, or a couple of them, if that loophole still exists.
2) A few sane House Republicans will cross party lines and vote for a clean debt ceiling hike with the Democrats. The Speaker would not be able to prevent it, and what happens to Kevin McCarthy doesn't matter here. Democrats can introduce a bill and force a floor vote without the Speaker's approval (?) Someone correct me on this.
3) Default. Either the US government stops paying bondholders, or the Fed buys bonds in default (this is called a technical default), or the Treasury keeps paying interest but slashes spending in other areas, like Medicare, to pay for it. However, there are serious doubts as to whether this "debt prioritization" maneuver would be legal and/or constitutional.
Or the administration could cave and give the Republicans what they want, but I don't see that happening, because it would greatly harm Biden's reelection chances and hand a huge political victory to the GOP.
[1] 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.
- albatross13 3y ago[flagged]
- Larrikin 3y agoBoth sides are the same is such a tired line.
- albatross13 3y ago[flagged]
- mikem170 3y agoI've held a view similar to yours for a while, that the two parties are the same in many ways, more beholden to money and power than concerned about their constituents. But I'd point out that one real difference lately is the whole stolen election thing and the related attempts to delegitimize the judicial system. That's some scary stuff. That's how democracies disappear.
- mikeyouse 3y agoAnd the debt ceiling crisis right now - Democrats raise the debt ceiling under Republican presidents because it’s insane to threaten to cause default.
- hackbinary 3y agoNice, an appeal to a false equivalence. The conservative obstructionist and scorched earth tactics are obscene.
- albatross13 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- albatross13 3y ago[flagged]
- HDThoreaun 3y agoSociety can not allow people to be uninsured while also forcing medical care providers to treat emergencies as we currently do. It's a horrible moral hazard and increases health care costs for everyone else. There is no political will to end the "hospitals must admit people even if they don't have insurance" rule, so we had to do something about getting everyone insured.
- atkailash 3y ago[dead]
- JamesBarney 3y agoRight now one party is to blame for the debt ceiling not being raised. That might change in the future, and if it does I'll be the first one to blame the Democrats. But today, right now, it's the Republicans screwing up.
- albatross13 3y ago[flagged]
- aschearer 3y agoYou are part of the problem.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoThe problem with 1 is that, if the Supreme Court rules that the debt ceiling limit is constitutional, then the US is right then, as of the moment of the ruling, in default. That's an insanely risky gamble.
- GalenErso 3y agoSure, and what if the court said the First Amendment of the Constitution was unconstitutional? The courts can interpret the Constitution. They cannot disregard it wholesale. The power of the judicial branch is not absolute. It can be checked by the other two: the legislative branch and the executive branch. And one way for the executive branch to check the judicial branch is to disregard judicial rulings that are blatantly unconstitutional, just like the judicial branch regularly invalidates entire laws and government programs. This is not a dictatorship or a coup. It's just the balance of power. The courts check the executive. The executive checks the courts. Of course, there's a fine line between disregarding a ruling that would cause the US to default, and disregarding a ruling that would, say, invalidate a conservative or liberal policy bill. But if the courts stop playing nice with the executive, the executive should stop playing nice with the judicial, as much as necessary. "I have directed the Treasury Department to continue honoring our financial commitments to bondholders. My administration will ignore any rulings, by any court, or judge, that would seek to impair all or part of this order, as such rulings would be unconstitutional. I will not allow legal technicalities or political games to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America. It it so decided." I would say these words.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago>And one way for the executive branch to check the judicial branch is to disregard judicial rulings that are blatantly unconstitutional. That is not at all how the Constitution is set up. There is no explicit power for the executive to ignore the judicial. It has happened once in US history, when Andrew Jackson continued his genocide against the Cherokee after the Supreme Court had ordered it stopped. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!", Jackson supposedly said. It would be a VERY BAD precedent to do that again. It would be a huge step towards enshrining the President as a dictator.
- Georgelemental 3y agoWhat is the desired end game supposed to be, of successive "clean" debt ceiling hikes? How much longer should we be spending money we don't have—enough to make inflation even worse? Enough that nobody will lend to us anymore and default is forced? What's the plan here?
- aschearer 3y agoWhatever needs to be done must be done during the budgeting process. Not when the check comes due. Congress wrote the check years ago. Now it's time to pay. If Republicans truly want a more balanced budget they should pursue it then. Of course, the last time the Republicans passed a budget it was far from balanced. Make of that what you will.
- Georgelemental 3y ago> Whatever needs to be done must be done during the budgeting process. If the "normal" process could fix our serious problem, it would have done so long ago. Instead, deficits have exploded. If the only way to force a discussion on reigning in spending before disaster strikes is via debt-ceiling negotiation, so be it. > Of course, the last time the Republicans passed a budget it was far from balanced. And shame on the Republicans who passed that budget!
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoOur debt will continue to grow exponentially, along with our overall economy and population size. That's the plan.
- jesushax 3y agoYour population size is not growing anywhere near exponentially: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=us+population+growth https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=us+popula...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- scott00 3y agoThere's a much simpler legal rationale for simply ignoring the debt ceiling than the 14th amendment. The constitution allocates both spending and borrowing power to Congress. The executive has some discretion, but largely _has_ to spend the money the budget says should be spent. So once the debt ceiling hits there are two conflicting laws. The executive must violate either the budget or the debt ceiling. There is common law precedent about how conflicting laws should be handled, and the precedent is that the more recent law takes precedence. The budget was passed after the last debt ceiling, so that's what the executive should follow.
- hgsgm 3y agoStrangely, the 14th Amendment's original intent was to prevent forgiving debt, not prevent default.