3 ms·

That's a false equivalence. Almost all bills have "dirty" attachments, but no party has ever held up the debt limit bills until the last minute like this, or at

That's a false equivalence. Almost all bills have "dirty" attachments, but no party has ever held up the debt limit bills until the last minute like this, or attempted to extort concessions. The Republican talking points are trying to compare Obama show-voting against the debt limit, or Tip O'Neil negotiating with Reagan, but in those circumstances, there was never the threat to take the government to the edge of the deadline. Prior to the recent crop of idealogue Republicans in the House, much political compromise came about by horse trading legislation, earmarks, committee appointments, et al, behind closed doors. Now with earmarks mostly gone, Tea Party republicans have nothing to show off to their constituents except for achievements in idealogical concessions from the other side. This is a new and dangerous precedent because "compromise" on idealogy appears as a loss to one's radical constituents. Your congressman used to go home and brag about an earmark for a local library or bridge, now he goes home to brag about how to overturned a Obamacare. In no way is the current disfunction "the way it's always been" or "business as usual" Also, the idea that the US can prioritize payments like that is false. First of all, the Republicans have tried numerous times to actually ban the practice of prioritizing payments to avoid default. Secondly, the Treasury's ancient computer systems can't just be updated overnight to hand these kinds of changes, secretary Jack Lew said as much. Republicans have no faith the government can fix healthcare websites, but somehow are willing to risk the health of the US economy on the treasury to be agile and fast moving enough to both update computer systems as well as navigate a legal morass of contractual obligations to avoid potentially missing debt repayments. Trying to downplay a default IMHO is pretty irresponsible. We don't need to run this experiment.

protomyth 13y ago
"No party has ever held up the debt limit bills until the last minute like this" You might want to check the history on that. "Prior to the recent crop of idealogue Republicans in the House, much political compromise came about by horse trading legislation, earmarks, committee appointments, et al, behind closed doors." We cannot keep paying for those. Even the sequester is a joke for spending cuts. "Also, the idea that the US can prioritize payments like that is false. First of all, the Republicans have tried numerous times to actually ban the practice of prioritizing payments to avoid default." The House passed a bill to prioritize payments that was not allowed to be voted on in the Senate. This is just plain a false statement. "Tea Party republicans have nothing to show off to their constituents except for achievements in idealogical concessions from the other side." They have showed how alike the party leaderships are and are making a lot of people think about third parties. The 2012 election also showed that the 2012 convention problems were not a fluke.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  "The House passed a bill to prioritize payments that was not allowed to be voted on in the Senate. This is just plain a false statement." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/10/house-debt-ceiling-plan-would-ban-emergency-measures/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/10/house-debt-ceiling-...
  - protomyth 13y ago
    The actual bill passed in the House is H.R.807 - Full Faith and Credit Act, which was buried in the Senate. It provided for continue servicing of the debt.
AnIrishDuck 13y ago
> the Republicans have tried numerous times to actually ban the practice of prioritizing payments to avoid default. I was with you up until this point, but saying "the Republicans" want to ban prioritization of payments is false. Most appropriations laws do not specify that the executive can spend "up to $X" on a given thing, but must spend exactly $X on that thing. To wit: > Regarding the spending power, the picture is a bit more nuanced. In > the early years of the Republic, Congress passed laws that authorized the > president to spend “up to” certain sums of money, and the president was > accordingly able to carry out his constitutional duties while spending > money in amounts not precisely specified by Congress. > In most areas of the federal budget, however, that practice has long > since ended. Congress now typically specifies precise amounts of money > (or, in the case of so-called entitlement programs, precise formulae to > determine amounts of money) that the president must spend for each > authorized program. > When Congress appropriates the money necessary to fund those authorized programs, it effectively orders the > president to spend no more and no less than those amounts. It would be > odd, indeed, if a president were to assert that he could choose to, say, > send Medicare beneficiaries (or their medical care providers) less money > than they would be entitled to receive under the relevant statute. [1] I agree with your other points. But the illegality of spending prioritization is (1) not a creation of Republicans and (2) a much bigger issue than changing some Treasury software. 1. p1199, http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Buchanan-Dorf.pdf http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/...

protomyth 13y ago

"No party has ever held up the debt limit bills until the last minute like this" You might want to check the history on that. "Prior to the recent crop of idealogue Republicans in the House, much political compromise came about by horse trading legislation, earmarks, committee appointments, et al, behind closed doors." We cannot keep paying for those. Even the sequester is a joke for spending cuts. "Also, the idea that the US can prioritize payments like that is false. First of all, the Republicans have tried numerous times to actually ban the practice of prioritizing payments to avoid default." The House passed a bill to prioritize payments that was not allowed to be voted on in the Senate. This is just plain a false statement. "Tea Party republicans have nothing to show off to their constituents except for achievements in idealogical concessions from the other side." They have showed how alike the party leaderships are and are making a lot of people think about third parties. The 2012 election also showed that the 2012 convention problems were not a fluke.

cromwellian 13y ago
"The House passed a bill to prioritize payments that was not allowed to be voted on in the Senate. This is just plain a false statement." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/10/house-debt-ceiling-plan-would-ban-emergency-measures/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/10/house-debt-ceiling-...
- protomyth 13y ago
  The actual bill passed in the House is H.R.807 - Full Faith and Credit Act, which was buried in the Senate. It provided for continue servicing of the debt.

AnIrishDuck 13y ago

> the Republicans have tried numerous times to actually ban the practice of prioritizing payments to avoid default. I was with you up until this point, but saying "the Republicans" want to ban prioritization of payments is false. Most appropriations laws do not specify that the executive can spend "up to $X" on a given thing, but must spend exactly $X on that thing. To wit: > Regarding the spending power, the picture is a bit more nuanced. In > the early years of the Republic, Congress passed laws that authorized the > president to spend “up to” certain sums of money, and the president was > accordingly able to carry out his constitutional duties while spending > money in amounts not precisely specified by Congress. > In most areas of the federal budget, however, that practice has long > since ended. Congress now typically specifies precise amounts of money > (or, in the case of so-called entitlement programs, precise formulae to > determine amounts of money) that the president must spend for each > authorized program. > When Congress appropriates the money necessary to fund those authorized programs, it effectively orders the > president to spend no more and no less than those amounts. It would be > odd, indeed, if a president were to assert that he could choose to, say, > send Medicare beneficiaries (or their medical care providers) less money > than they would be entitled to receive under the relevant statute. [1] I agree with your other points. But the illegality of spending prioritization is (1) not a creation of Republicans and (2) a much bigger issue than changing some Treasury software. 1. p1199, http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Buchanan-Dorf.pdf http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/...