Tag: Debt ceiling

Debt Ceiling: Stupid or Unconstitutional

Debt Ceiling: Stupid or Unconstitutional

At first it just seemed a bit stupid and a bit wrong.  Then the more I thought about it, I came to think that it was not only stupid and wrong but possibly unconstitutional.  Or maybe just outdated by more recent laws

Congress has the legislative power (see Article I of the U.S. Constitution).  They make the laws.  They say what will be spent and appropriate the funds. They would borrow money if needed.  Then the Executive Branch carries out the law (see Article II). A simple division of responsibilities.  It was designed by the Founding Fathers, enshrined in our Constitution, and worked well for over 100 years.

But Congress tried to improve things.  They passed a debt ceiling law which gave borrowing to the Executive branch which did make life a lot simpler for Congress. But they blocked the Executive branch  from exceeding a certain amount of debt for any reason unless Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling.  It seemed kind of stupid but since the debt ceiling was always increased before it was exceeded, it did not seem to be a major problem.

Continue reading “Debt Ceiling: Stupid or Unconstitutional”

Not paying bills is not a conservative thing

Not paying bills is not a conservative thing

A few months ago I wrote about several things Republicans were doing that did not seem conservative to me, yet many of these Republicans claim to be conservative or even very or extremely conservative.

My list of not conservative things included:

Continue reading “Not paying bills is not a conservative thing”

Accept Reality

Accept Reality

I find that I rarely agree with Senator Mitch McConnell. He recently said: “What works is when the majority accepts reality.” And I agree with that. Unfortunately the minority or at least part of it must also accept reality or we will have a badly divided government that cannot govern the country. Ideally both sides need to accept reality.
Continue reading “Accept Reality”

Mitch madness, debt, shutdowns and the filibuster

Mitch madness, debt, shutdowns and the filibuster

I thought keeping the government open and paying our debts was a good thing. But Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans seem to disagree with me. (SURPISE !)

The House Democrats seem to agree that both are good things. They put both in the same bill. Seems to me that while a government shutdown is bad, it has happened before. But failure of the United States to pay debts is unprecedented and catastrophic.
Continue reading “Mitch madness, debt, shutdowns and the filibuster”

Filibuster and debt ceiling

Filibuster and debt ceiling

The filibuster in the US Senate is now being abused to prevent the Senate passing legislation needed to govern the country. In the latest example the Minority Leader announced he will not allow any Republicans to vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Continue reading “Filibuster and debt ceiling”

Fixing the ACA or Obamacare makes more sense than repeal

Fixing the ACA or Obamacare makes more sense than repeal

It seems that ever since the Affordable Care Act (aka ACA or Obamacare) was passed and then passed muster in court, nearly all Republicans have wanted it repealed. The latest efforts involve shutting down the government as we enter a new fiscal year and refusing to raise the debt ceiling so the government defaults on its debts.

Both efforts seem foolish and I have discussed them recently.

I live in Pennsylvania and get emails from Senator Toomey. He discussed his desire to compromise on the government shut-down stand-off by adding 3 amendments to the Senate bill. These amendments did not make it into the Senate bill. I do not think the debate on Obamacare should be part of the government shut-down or debt ceiling debates but these are good discussion points on the law.

The first would repeal the medical device tax that is costing Pennsylvania jobs; the second would provide relief from the infringement on religious liberty in Obamacare; the third would delay the individual mandate for one year.

I probably would back the repeal of the medical device tax. It seems to me the best way to do this would be a a separate bill but now seems a bit rushed. I don’t see much benefit to this tax since I would assume the tax would just be passed along as part of the cost of health care. So there is really no benefit since the users of heath care pay the tax and there well could be a job loss associated with this. But on the other hand with more people insured and using health care there may not be a job loss. I’d like to see more discussion on this point.

Regarding the second suggestion (infringement on religious liberty), I think this is inevitable as long as we insist on standards in health insurance. I think the employer mandate is problematic. The religious objection of an employer may or may not seem reasonable to others. One person may object to contraception and another may object to this or that aspect of health care. A public option would be much simpler here but I don’t think that is what the Senator had in mind.

As to the third point (a 1 year delay), there may be a problem. I assume the insurance companies took the widened risk-pool provided by the mandate into account when setting the rates for 2014. If this is not the case and we do not have additional delays such as a 1 year delay every year, it might be worth discussing this.

The ACA is a complex law with many parts. There are things I like and things I don’t. There seem to be things we could fix now and problems that would not be apparent until parts of the law are implemented. And we certainly could use a reasonable discussion of the pros and cons of parts of this law.

Rather than have a series of political stand-offs to attempt to repeal the law, maybe Congress could work to improve the law.

Fix Health Care, don’t just repeal the attempted reform

Fix Health Care, don’t just repeal the attempted reform

A few days ago, I remarked on the apparent public disapproval Affordable Care Act (aka ACA or Obamacare) although there are many clear benefits some of which seem quite popular.

I like some provisions and dislike others. I like the idea of universal coverage. The ACA doesn’t get us to universal health care but sure gets us closer. There are certainly things I don’t know and perhaps are unknowable until we try.

So my vote is for fixing the parts of the law that don’t work or cause problems. I think a repeal is foolish. And it is certainly foolish to shut down the government to try to force a repeal.

And even more foolish to fail to increase the debt ceiling and have the United States default on its obligations in an attempt to force the will of some Republicans on the entire county.

The House Republicans have shown the ability to manufacture a crisis when there is no need. It is a shame they can’t direct their efforts at solving the problems of the country.

National debt crisis solved

National debt crisis solved

It seems to be a repeat of recent events. Congress creates a crisis when there is no need.

Of course the manufactured crisis in the news now is the budget for next year, but that is soon to be followed by a more serious crisis when Congress needs to increase the debt ceiling so we can pay our national bills including interest on the debt and current expenses in excess of revenues.

I am of the opinion that an agreement between the President and Congress the best course but that the President can act by himself and ignore the debt ceiling but that is opinion.

We had a similar crisis just a few years ago. I think the President gave into Congress too easily then.

But are good arguments on both sides. And it could be that neither side really want to push their arguments too hard as they might lose the court case and be much worse off than having this ambiguous situation. So here are the Arguments:

Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President:
… “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” …

So if Congress passes a budget that requires borrowing by spending more than revenues, the President has a duty to borrow so he may execute the laws. It would seem unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to limit his abilities.

The President has an obligation to execute the laws. It is impossible to execute all laws since the debt ceiling law denies him the money to execute many laws, and so he has no choice but to ignore the debt ceiling law unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. By failing to increase the debt ceiling in a timely manner, Congress is blocking his constitutional obligation.

So it seems to me there are 2 good arguments in favor of this. First, the President is in a situation where he cannot execute all the laws so he must pick either this one debt ceiling law or all the others. The second is that the debt limit law is unconstitutional since it prevents the President from carrying out duties specified in the Constitution.

On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the same Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the Debts” and “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States” so maybe there is a Constitutional case for the debt ceiling. But then nowhere does it say that Congress can refuse to pay debts or limit the ability of the President to carry out the laws that they passed.

But then we have Amendment 14, Section 4:

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. …

Here is a part of the Constitution that would seem to suggest that this should not be an issue.

Who to blame for the sequester

Who to blame for the sequester

Today’s question seems to be: Who is to blame for the sequester? And the answer most people will reach very much depends on personal beliefs.

Democrats blame Republicans and Republicans blame Democrats. John Boehner has called it, “the president’s sequester”. And it is commonly called the Obamaquestor (hashtag #Obamaquester on Twitter).

But according to factcheck.org a member of President Obama’s administration did first propose the sequester idea but it was supposed to be a such a bad thing that Congress would be forced to find the deficit reduction required by Congressional Republicans to to increase the debt ceiling. This Budget Control Act passed on a bipartisan basis so it would seem silly to me to say that the sequester belongs to one side or the other.

Debt ceiling: do the right thing, compromise now

Debt ceiling: do the right thing, compromise now

I’ve writtten many times deficit and the debt ceiling. I think law makers on both sides of the aisle should “do the right thing” and compromise now. Some feel compelled to stick to a position because of a previous pledge or stance. I have previously written about The “no taxes” pledge or a higher duty. But the same applies to both sides. To members of Congress are concerned that the deficit ceiling or budget negiotiations may cause them to violate their previous pledges or stances, but need to remember that you took a more important oath when they were sworn in to offfice.

But if both sides are stubborn, everyone loses. Think about it. If we default or even come close, the markets are likely to reward us with a higher interest rate on our debt. Even a small increase on a mutli-trillion dollar debt is a lot of money. We could also stubbornly refuse to reform pet programs and find those programs can not last in the long-term.

Do the right thing, compromise now.

Debt ceiling and the Constitution

Debt ceiling and the Constitution

If Congress and the President do not reach an argreement on the debt ceiling, the U.S. could default for the first time in its history. Since this has never happened before, we don’t know with certainly what will happen. But do we want to take a chance to make a point?

I am of the opinion that an agreement is the best course but that the President can act by himself and ignore the debt ceiling but that is opinion. There are arguments on both sides.

Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President:
… “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” …

So if congress passes a budget that requires borrowing by spending more that revenues, the President has a duty to bowrow so he may execute the laws. It would seem unfair and perhaps unconstituional to limit his abilities.

On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the same Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the Debts” and “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States” so maybe there is a Constitutional case for the debt ceiling.

I don’t knows how the Supreme Court would come down on this. Sort of like the War Powers Act in that both sides have a good argument but both also have much to lose if the courts decide that the other side has a better argument.

Debt ceiling fiasco

Debt ceiling fiasco

More on the debt ceiling fiasco –

Bill Clinton has an easy answer for the current debt stalemate: If push comes to shove, President Obama should just raise the ceiling on his own and force Republicans to sue to stop him.

“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether they pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy”

I’ve quoted Slate in the blockquote and the quote within the blockquote is President Clinton.

I agree it does seem crazy for Congress to appropriate money we don’t have and then have to vote again to approve the borrowing. If they didn’t want to spend it, why approve the budget in the first vote?

A compromise is probably the best and most certain solution. But will compromise come in time?

The President also has Article 2, Section 3 of the constitution on his side. Of course, the abilty of the President to ignore the debt ceiling law could be challenged and we can never be sure how the courts will decide but the suggestion that this is a likely outcome could increase the seriousness of Republican negotiating. (see Can the President ignore the debt ceiling?).

The Republican position now seems to be that your side is not giving enough and our side doesn’t have to give anything. But it would be good to remind Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor that they do not hold all the cards. If we are going to negotiate this, let both sides give a little.

Can the President ignore the debt ceiling?

Can the President ignore the debt ceiling?

In my past few posts I’ve said that I believe the President has authority to exceed the Congressionally authorized debt ceiling by virute of his (or her) duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Article 2, Section 3). (See http://www.jackreidy.com/blog/2011/07/15/government-by-separation-of-powers-and-ambiguity/ and http://www.jackreidy.com/blog/2011/07/14/debt-ceiling-choices/ )

This is what I would do if I were in the President’s position. I would remind everyone the President has an obligation to execute the laws. It is impossible to execute all laws since the debt ceiling law denies him the money to execute many laws, and so he has no choice but to ignore the debt ceiling law unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. By failing to increase the debt ceiling in a timely manner, Congress is blocking his constitutional obligation.

So it seems to me there are 2 good arguments in favor of this. First, the President is in a situation were he cannot execute all the laws so he must pick. The second is that the debt limit law is unconstitional since it prevents the President from carrying out duties specified in the Constitution.

Of course, the abilty of the President to ignore the debt ceiling law could be challenged and we can never be sure how the courts will decide but the suggestion that this is a likely outcome could increase the seriousness of Republican negotiating.

A compromise is probably the best and most certain solution. But will compromise come in time? The Republican position now seems to be that your side is not giving enough and our side doesn’t have to give anything. But it would be good to remind Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor that they do not hold all the cards.

Government by separation of powers and ambiguity

Government by separation of powers and ambiguity

Yes, in my last post I did indicate that the President has authority to exceed the Congressionally authorized debt ceiling by virute of his (or her) duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Article 2, Section 3). I think it would be a reasonable intepretation that although Congress has the power to appropriate money they cannot limit the executive’s ability to pay bills or debt resulting from previous Congressional actions. This seems to be reinforced by the 14th amendment. And if laws conflict, the President has discretion in deciding which laws to carry out.

But that is just my opinion and who knows how the Supreme Court would come down on this. Sort of like the War Powers Act in that both sides have a good argument but both also have much to lose if the courts decide that the other side has a better argument.

So we not only have a separation of powers but ambiguity and somehow it all works. That seems to be the genius of the Constitution. There is quite a bit of ambiguity in the Constituion but lawmakers add more as we go.