The Heck With John Boner And The Tea Party-Here's The Way To Go

WASHINGTON - As lawmakers struggle to resolve the debt crisis, a growing number of observers wonder whether President Barack Obama has one last trump card at his disposal: ignoring the debt ceiling altogether.

Top Democrats are reviving an argument - one that has arisen several times - that the White House could invoke the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval.

"Is there anything that prohibits him from doing that?" Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told the newspaper The Hill. "The answer is no."

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., has described it as the least bad option if Congress doesn't act.

The White House, for its part, continues to resist the speculation.

"Only Congress can increase the statutory debt ceiling," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday. "That's just a reality."

But many legal scholars are suggesting that Obama could do it.

Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale, has laid out how this would work. At some point after Tuesday's deadline, Obama would face the demands of multiple contradicting laws. On the one hand, the government is required to pay out money that has already been appropriated. On the other, it would not be allowed to float new debt to cover its obligations.

So, Balkin notes, Obama "has a constitutional duty to treat at least one of the laws as unconstitutional as applied to the current circumstances." And the wording of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment
suggests that the debt ceiling would have to give way: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law...shall not be questioned."
If Obama interpreted that clause to mean that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and authorized the Treasury Department to begin issuing new debt, it's not clear that anyone could stop him.

As Jeffrey Rosen writes in the New Republic, individual members of Congress would not have standing to sue - Congress would need to pass a joint resolution, which is unlikely given Democratic control of the Senate.

It is also unlikely that individual taxpayers or bondholders would have standing.

"The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case," Rosen argues. And if a suit did make it through, Rosen adds, even the conservative justices would probably rule in Obama's favor - at least if they held to their judicial philosophies.

But Obama would still face political blowback. The decision would probably set off an extensive legal and public-relations battle over the scope of the president's powers. Democrats and Republicans alike were upset about Obama's decision to intervene in the armed conflict in Libya without Congress's consent. An unprecedented constitutional maneuver would allow the opposition to paint a portrait of a president who thinks his authority has no bounds.

"I think it is one of those too-clever ideas that, when you reflect on its ramifications, does a lot of bad things," said Dan Hazelwood, a Republican pollster.

The biggest problem, however, is the practical one - how markets would react to the 14th Amendment option.

"On the one hand, it shows that the feared disruptions from no debt-ceiling increase wouldn't happen," Tom Gallagher, a fiscal and monetary policy specialist at the Scowcroft Group, said via email. "On the other hand, it plunges the U.S. into a genuine constitutional crisis. How quickly would courts rule? Who would bring suit? Would the House initiate impeachment proceedings? That's hardly a reassuring set of questions."

Nor is it clear that invoking the Constitution would calm the credit-rating agencies.

Standard & Poor's has declared that it will downgrade the nation's credit rating within the next three months "if we conclude that Congress and the administration have not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden and are not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future."

No votes yet

The key here is this statement:
"Standard & Poor's has declared that it will downgrade the nation's credit rating within the next three months "if we conclude that Congress and the administration have not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden and are not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future.""

Now if Odumbo and the mindless Dimocraps in Congress invoke this 14th Amendment B.S. then AMERICA CAN SEE ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT DIMOCRAPS ARE THE PROBLEM, 100% THE PROBLEM. NO REPUBLICANS CAN BE BLAMED.

Because not cutting all the spending will prove to Standard & Poor's that " Congress and the administration have not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden and are not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future."" Get that Dems? Standard and Poor's is saying that they will downgrade the nations credit rating if Harry Reid, Barak Sotero and the rest of the Dimocraps "have not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden"
Nowhere did Standard and Poor's say anything about not raising the Debt Cieling so Odumbo can spend more money America doesn't have.

Invoking this 14th Amendment B.S. will put the blame fully and completely where it belongs. ON the forheads of Harry Reid, Barrak Odumbo and the drunken sailors called Democraps.

I can't believe how much Barry Sotero and Harry Reid have helped the Republican party.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

The term "spending like a drunken sailor" was used by John McCain referring to George W. Bush. Two illegal and unfunded wars and a Social Security prescription plan which was unfunded plus a Big tax cut enacted by W. is what got this country's finances into the shape they are in now. When Bush first stole the 2000 election there was a budget surplus. When he left office 8 years later we were in a depression which is further bankrupting this nation. Put the blame where the blame lies_ GEORGE W. BUSH and his Republicrap cohorts!

True, Bush ran up the national debt hugely. It essentially doubled during his 8 years, from about $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Most of that time he enjoyed the collusion of a Republican Congress, and even remarkable support from the Democrat minority (who always supported his war spending).

But Obama has already accomplished Bush's feat in only 2-3 years: Adding about another $5 trillion. By the time Obama is done with his 1st term, he will nearly double the national debt again.

The sad fact is that having a Democrat Congress combining their power with a Democrat President has given rise to nearly unthinkable levels of government borrowing.

It's your money? These republicons haven't learned a damn thing, that is why we have to make sure that they realize that we were and are tired of their shit.They keep whining about unfairness when they have f--ked up this country. Bush is going around the country trying to sell his bullshit like he did about social security and his favorite slogan then was " Remember its your money" Yes, its our money that he is using to kill,steal,start more wars and turn the world against us.

Barry Obama has been president for over 2 years. That "Blame Bush" crap is worn out, old and another damn lie.
Since the Socialist Bastard Child in Chief took over in 2009, look at how Government spending has ballooned and the deficit has grown..

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

You can't fix a problem of excessive spending, with even more excessive spending.

You can't fix a problem of borrowing, with even more borrowing.

Obama isn't fixing anything. He's only turning Bush's deep recession into a full-blown depression.

Question for you: Why isn't Obama doing what Clinton did? Clinton managed to run a few years of budget SURPLUS. You admire Democrats and revile Republicans, right?

The truth is that the Senate will become Republican in the 2012 elections and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Then Obama (if he survives re-election) will have to actually lead for once. And what's going on now, plainly shows that he was promoted far above his level of basic competence. He's no leader. He's just some community organizer who runs up his credit cards without a second thought. That's no way to administrate a $10 trillion economy.

"Question for you: Why isn't Obama doing what Clinton did? Clinton managed to run a few years of budget SURPLUS."

So, by asking this question--does that mean that you think we should restore tax rates to Clinton-era levels?

Pink Slip

You asked: "So, by asking this question--does that mean that you think we should restore tax rates to Clinton-era levels?"

Sure. IF AND ONLY IF we at least return spending to Clinton-era levels.
I'm not opposed to raising taxes, BUT CONGRESS HAD BETTER DO EVERYTHING IT CAN TO CUT SPENDING first.
ONLY after all the fat has been trimmed, ONLY if money for solar panels for a frikin bridge is removed, ONLY if money earmarked for Harry Reids Cowboy Poet Museum is cancelled, ONLY if ObamaCare is repealed etc. etc.etc.

IF AND ONLY IF all the fat and earmarks are removed from the current budget, IF AND ONLY IF there is a balanced budget Amendment so this crap never happens agaion, IF AND ONLY IF we are no longer required to pay taxpayer money into Government Motors and/or foreign owned car companies like Fiat/Crysler, IF AND ONLY IF the bribe-for-votes money called the "Stimulus Package" is re-payed.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

No, we should drop spending.

When you don't have the income, you must reduce your spending.

Of course, you're relying on the federal government to fire up the magic money machine a notch more, and just keep borrowing, since you can't see the terrible outcome from that barreling down on us like a freight train.

"No, we should drop spending.

Then why the hell would you bring up the budget SURPLUS of the Clinton years???

Pink Slip

Because you end up with a surplus when you drop spending enough.

Why are you Liberals so fucking dense about how to balance a budget? Do we have to draw you comic-like diagrams since words aren't able to penetrate the solid bone that you laughably call a skull?

Without income or credit, you cannot spend. Equally so, when your spending means you must seek income that you cannot actually seize, and when your spending means you must seek borrowing that will destroy your economy, then there's only one rational course of action: Reduce spending.

The root of the problem is the same as ever: Reducing spending is against the Liberal religion. And so the solution is the same as ever: Remove Liberals from positions of power in the government. That solution was partially obtained from the 2010 elections when the House flipped to the Republicans, and the remaining solution will be obtained from the 2012 elections when the Senate will finally flip to the Republicans. And there's another factor, where more and more of the incoming Republicans are actually members of the TEA Party, as John Boehner is about to find out, much to his chagrin. (His spineless behavior about the debt limit will be remembered and revenged upon him a hundredfold. His leadership position is already lost; he just doesn't know it yet.)

"Because you end up with a surplus when you drop spending enough"

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CLINTON ERA. Tax rates were RAISED along with spending cuts. It wasn't just spending cuts, you fucking moron.

Yes--reduce spending when economic times are good--I've said that dozens of times. But not in a depressed economy. That's just stupid.

Pink Slip

The recent increase in the debt is due to the recession--period. (which began in 2007)

Pink Slip

No, the recent increase is due to both parties supporting politicians who only look to borrowing in order to make up for perceived shortfalls. The recent increase is only due to a failure to restrain government spending.

"perceived shortfalls"? HA! You must be the one person who didn't hear about the housing market crash. Check out the "perceived shortfall" in revenue:

The increase in spending comes from automatic stabilizers built into the system (i.e. welfare due to increased unemployment). These automatic stabilizers and increased revenue would have occurred (they're "automatic") whomever is in the White House (Obama, McCain, Palin, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, etc.)

edit--Damn this website, it cut off the graph. Here you go:

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/rev_outs2.png

Pink Slip

"Automatic stabilizers" is a made-up term by Liberals to get around what's supposed to be a limited government by constitutional design.

Anything that hugely drives up costs in a time when the economy is in paralysis, is automatically DE-stabilizing.

We're always back to the same problem: Whatever happens, Liberals try to spend more money than they have. They used to beat their desks and demand more taxes to make up for it. Now they've looked at the Republican playbook and decided to take it one better: Borrowing and spending, when taxes can't be raised.

If you as a person or business want to draw down your savings to adapt to economic paralysis, then that's your decision. But that decision is obviously ruinous in the hands of government. The borrowing from the last 3 years alone has produced unpayable added debt on the average, actual taxpayer. Since such things cannot be paid back, then it's clear that continued borrowing is fraud at best, and will invoke a civil war at worst.

To return to the numbers that so terrorize Liberals like Pink Slip, since there are 3143 counties in the USA, and since we've added $4.5 trillion to the national debt, then that's $1.4 billion per county just for that added debt. That's real money, and it's actually owed. How can anyone out there believe that Lucas County can come up with almost a billion and a half dollars, on top of all other expenses that must be incurred? I mean, look around: Where the fuck are we going to get $1.4 billion just to pay off that debt?

Liberals like Pink Slip never believe that such amounts are actually owed, and have to actually be paid off. But they're wrong.

"Automatic stabilizers" is a made-up term by Liberals to get around what's supposed to be a limited government by constitutional design.

No, it's actually the law. Look it up.

Look--you obviously have no fucking clue what macroeconomics is. I suggest you do some reading. I shutter to think that you actually vote. You have no grasp of the facts, you deny the obvious, you literally make up things on the fly that are CLEARLY false. You sound like a cross between Shawn Hannity and Andrew Dice Clay--aggressively ignorant.

Pink Slip

A main selling point for the cuts was that, by offering lower marginal tax rates on wages, dividends and capital gains, they would encourage investment and therefore boost economic growth. But when it comes to fostering growth, this isn’t the whole story. The tax cuts also raised government debt — and higher government debt leads to higher interest rates.

Once again, let me remind you mindless zelots of SOME FACTS that I have continually posted to set the record straight. You can see the original post here > http://swampbubbles.com/20101212/bush-tax-cuts-rich-passed-democrat-cont...

1) The 111th Congress, controlled by Democrats, is in session until January 3rd, 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
2) The 111th Congress, controlled by Democrats, is the same group of elected officials who had no problem passing the socialist ObamaCare Healthcare takeover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Ac...

3) Today is Dec. 12, 2010. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are still in power of the 111th Congress and the 111th Congress is in session until January 3rd, 2011. The Inauguration of the Republican sweep of the House DOES NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY 3RD 2011.

Get it?

So, when the "Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich" is extended, IT WILL BE BY THE SAME SOCIALIST DEMOCRAP CONTROLLED CONGRESS THAT STUFFED OBAMACARE DOWN YOUR THROAT.

I realize you stupid moronic Libtarded Democrap sheeple will claim that the Republicans passed the "Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich" extension, but the fact is, the same group of Democrats who controlled Congress when ObamaCare was passed are STILL in control of Congress until January 2rd, 2011.

Obama does NOT need to "work with Republicans". His people, the Democraps, are still in control of Congress.

The Democrats who control Congress can still pass whatever bills they want. Including taking away the "Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich".

When the "Tax Cuts For The Rich" passes. remember, DEMOCRATS WERE IN CHARGE.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

....to drunken sailors...

Drunken sailors only spend their own damn money...democrats spend everyone else's money...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

If they didn't need to do it, then why have they been voting for decades in the Congress to do it?

The answer is that the US constitution is as much a "piece of paper" to Obama as it was to Bush Jr.

There is a reason the WH never threatened using the 14th Amendment. They know it's not in their best interest.

First the constitution clearly lays out that the country's finances lay upon the duties of the legislature and not the executive. So despite what the 14th Amendment says the President could not ignore the debt ceiling or break it without being ruled unconstitutional.

Secondly, he's trying to get reelected. If the Dems thought 2010 was bad 2012 would be even worse had the President invoked the 14th Amendment. He would have been painted as a Dictator and Chief and the Tea Party would have had all the enthusiasm (right now they have an edge but it remains to be seen how much).

The President was essentially walking through a minefield for this issue. If he went one way he'd piss off his base. If he went the other way he'd energize his opponents.

What's I've always laughed about it was the Dems talking point was that the Tea Party "Terrorists" were taking DC "hostage". The Dem Congress and President hadn't even passed a budget in over 800 days (and it's mandated by law) yet the Tea Party was "Terrorists". Because that's what Terrorists do they come to your work and make you do your job. Well I guess how I could see how union members could call that terrorism.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.