Commentary By Ron Beasley
There has been a lot of talk recently that if congress fails to increase the debt limit Obama should simply tell the Treasury Secretary to ignore it because it's unconstitutional. Doug Mataconis has a good post on the pros and cons of this argument here. As James Joyner points out Tim Geithner made that very argument yesterday. I see this as a sign that the administration does not think a deal to raise the debt is possible. Ironically this threat might actually facilitate and agreement. There is a lot of politics going on here. There are political dangers for both the Obama administration and the Republicans. A majority of US voters are still opposed to an increase in the debt limit but that will change rapidly when they government services the like and depend on suddenly stop. It might be a political advantage for the Obama administration if the debt limit were to expire since they can decide who gets paid and who doesn't. If the administration were to ignore the debt limit it would be seen as a power grab. Of course the crazy Republicans in the House would impeach him and we all know how that worked out for them last time so that may be a draw.
That said I think all the talk about the constitutionality of the debt limit is silly. It does'nt really matter what the constitutional scholars think it's all about how the Supreme Court will respond. The corporate SCOTUS will respond the way the Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street banks want them to respond. They will decide the debt limit is unconstitutional.
I hope Geitner pays a few US obligations with the $4 billion in US $1.00 coins that are just sitting around doing nothing.
ReplyDelete$4 billion may not be very much, as money is counted these days, but currently, we're paying an outrageous amount per year just to store those unused $1.00 coins.
If Geitner isn't interested in using them to pay a few bills, Obama should use them as a mini-stimulus -- by handing them out to food banks, for instance.
The amendment does not say that the debt has to be paid, it says that it cannot be declared invalid, and those are two different issues. If we fail to pay a debt due to lack of cash on hand with which to pay it, we are not saying that we do not owe the money, which the amendment prohibits, we are merely saying that we are unable to pay it, an issue upon which the amendment is silent.
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that Obama use this amendment as a �cover story� to usurp the power of Congress, to disrupt the checks and balances of our system of government, and to further the �imperial presidency� which has already advanced to an appalling degree is seriously disturbing.
"I hope Geitner pays a few US obligations with the $4 billion in US $1.00 coins that are just sitting around doing nothing.
ReplyDelete$4 billion may not be very much, as money is counted these days, but currently, we're paying an outrageous amount per year just to store those unused $1.00 coins.
If Geitner isn't interested in using them to pay a few bills, Obama should use them as a mini-stimulus -- by handing them out to food banks, for instance"
Well said
@Bill H
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that Obama use this amendment as a �cover story� to usurp the power of Congress, to disrupt the checks and balances of our system of government, and to further the �imperial presidency� which has already advanced to an appalling degree is seriously disturbing.
I am opposed to the imperial presidency as much as anyone but congress has become so dysfunctional - so unbalanced that it has lost it's place at the checks and balances table. When congress decides that governing is more important the tribal warfare we can talk about checks and balances. Until them we may need an imperial president.