Republicans, it seems, are dead set on forcing another debt ceiling crisis later this year. Kevin McCarthy might or might not want this, but the lunatic faction of the GOP bullied him into promising a showdown in order to win their votes for Speaker. So we can expect yet another tedious game of chicken sometime this summer, when government spending breaches the ceiling.
So what's the best solution? I confess that I'm partial to doing nothing. No negotiations, no hostage taking, nothing. When we hit the ceiling, the government stops writing checks and all hell breaks loose. This would be a disaster—I don't think there's any question about that—but at some point we have to put a stop to this idiocy. After watching an implosion of this magnitude, no one would ever try it again.
But this is only in my dreams. I don't really want to destroy the country's finances. I'm afraid I'm too much of a patriot for that.
So what's the best real-life solution? The most popular answer on Twitter is the trillion dollar platinum coin. On the off chance you haven't heard of this, it turns out there's a quirk in the law that allows the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination and use them as legal tender. So Janet Yellen mints a trillion-dollar coin or three, couriers them over to the Federal Reserve, and deposits them in the government account. Crisis averted!
I've never been a fan of this for two reasons. First, it's stupid. Second, the Fed has to accept the coin and I don't think they would. You can argue all day long that they have to accept it, but I think they'd do their own legal analysis and then decline to play the game.
What, then, is the real, non-dreamland answer? My preference is for the easiest possible solution: Just ignore the debt ceiling and keep writing checks. That's it. Get an OLC opinion stating that (a) the spending in question has already 
been legally appropriated, and (b) the Constitution says the debt of the United States "shall not be questioned." Then tell Republicans to pound sand. The government will continue operating unless they go to court and get a judge to order the Treasury shut down.
Would they call this bluff? Going to court would shine a klieg light on the Republican Party's willingness to stop grandma's Social Security check from being issued. They might think twice about that. And if they went ahead anyway, would a court have the balls to order the printing presses shut down? Would they instead toss the case for lack of standing and breathe a sigh of relief? Or rule on the merits in favor of the government?
I can't say for sure, but I don't think Republicans could win in court, and this would kill the debt ceiling once and for all. It's a low-risk option that's worth a try.
"I don't think Republicans could win in court"
Really? They could certainly win in some selected lower courts. Would the federal government disregard an injunction by one of the Trump judges? Then would the Supreme Court pass up an opportunity to give Republicans a major victory? Maybe they would rule that honoring the debt means that expenditures have to be curtailed so that interest payments could be made.
The courts can no longer be relied upon to make reasonable decisions.
Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week.
Visit this article for more details.. http://incomebyus.blogspot.com/
I don’t know — who pays federal judges again? 🙂
If SCOTUS did this, it would clearly be deciding on the real budget and arrogating to itself the spending power of Congress, including the Senate. The House GOP would have to face a new system in which "appropriations" don't mean anything.
David Super at Balkinization thinks the House GOP is now so chaotic that the budget will be adopted by a coalition of the President, both parties in the Senate, House Democrats, and five sane House Republicans.
"If SCOTUS did this, it would clearly be deciding on the real budget and arrogating to itself the spending power of Congress, including the Senate. The House GOP would have to face a new system in which "appropriations" don't mean anything."
I fail to see why that would matter to the insane caucus members in the House.
How so?
Like, how does a straightforward ruling of "if the Treasury wishes to issue debt, that debt must be authorized by Congress; that's black-letter law" arrogate to itself the spending power of Congress?
"that debt must be authorized by Congress; that's black-letter law"
It has been in the past. Since the budget has been agreed on already, that is also the case out through September or so. What the crazy caucus wants to do is NOT PAY THE DEBT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED! It's their statement that they have that power that does not agree with the language in the Constitution.
That's not what the debt ceiling is. If the crazy caucus refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the direct effect of that is "Treasury can't issue any more t-bills."
Now, that will have a million more knock-on effects, but that's the heart of it, and, well... the Constitution is on their side here. You in fact do need Congressional authorization to issue t-bills. I have a hard time seeing a court ruling "you need to that authorization" as said Court arrogating Congressional power to itself.
What the crazy caucus wants to do is NOT PAY THE DEBT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED!
The necessary debt (borrowing) has not been explicitly authorized by Congress. It is indeed stupid that we have long required a separate debt authorization to back up spending, but lots of areas of US governance and public policy are stupid.
I agree 100% with those who claim that a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution indicates that any spending duly authorized by the legislative branch allows (indeed requires) the executive branch to write checks, and, if necessary, sell bonds.
But it's far from clear five Supreme Court justices agree with that reasonable interpretation.
This interpretation is not just reasonable. Not accepting it would mean the founders advocated national suicide as an option for government.
I'm partial to your second solution: call their bluff, and put this "debt ceiling" nonsense into its long-deserved grave.
Jeffries only needs to peel away about 6 Republicans who won't go along with this game of playing chicken with the national economy to effectively block it. Those individuals could probably kiss their careers, at least in the GOP, goodbye at that point, but I don't know. These Freedumb Caucus nutjobs made a lot of enemies over the past two weeks, so perhaps there are more than a half dozen Reps willing to do something to mess with them.
Interesting concession of the Speaker was that any one member can now move a vote of no confidence (U forget the actual name of the procedure)
I doubt six Republicans can be found to do as you suggest. Maybe I'm cynical. And maybe I'm mistaken about that (I sure hope so). But that's how I see it.
Republicans would absolutely 100% win in court if they follow the usual Texas playbook: file in a one-judge division of a federal district court in Texas, where not only would they get the ruling they want, but any appeal would go to the 5th Circuit, the Trumpiest, most political of all the circuits. This is the path that has successfully allowed them to destroy a multitude of democratic laws, executive orders, and executive rules and policies already.
I should have said, "one-judge division (with a sole R/Trump judge)".
I doubt that there are any one-judge divisions with a Dem or R/non-Trump judge surviving anywhere in the Fifth Circuit, much less anywhere else in the country. Republicans know how to stack the judiciary with their appointees, and I doubt they would've left a one-judge division anywhere that could start ruling always in favor of Dem priorities.
Economic Armageddon will not be decided by any lower court. The Supreme Court will rule one way or the other.
The 14th Amendment is clear. I don't see Roberts +1 or +2 siding with the nuts who want to take us over the cliff.
The business sector would be frantic over the possibility of either default or a drastic cut in Federal spending. It may not get the column-inches that the abortion litmus test does, but the Federalist Society definitely doesn’t put forward any nominees that aren’t business-friendly. On the other hand, if an adverse decision would somehow advance the theocracy project, ACB, Thomas and Alito would be onboard …
That's likely, except, one would hope the Supreme Court would issue a stay. We'd very likely be in a national emergency at that point.
Democrats need 5 republicans to vote with them to increase the debt ceiling. Oh wait... they won't be able to find even 5 responsible republicans. Blow it up.
Senate takes a House bill they will never otherwise pass, gut it and send it back. Get every dem to sign a discharge petition and make the dem district freshman refuse to sign it and make a big deal out of it.
Then later do this.
"Fed has to accept the coin and I don't think they would." - true but an incomplete analysis.
Almost certainty, there would be legal action around the coin: is this legal tender? This legal action would result in the governmental debt market, until the case is solved, placing a significant risk premium on US Treasury (bonds and bills). The yield on the US Treasury would go wild: this would, likely, have significant, global impacts.
If it were me, I'd do this:
1. Tell Congress it's their constitutional duty to raise the debt ceiling
2. Explain the White House will not engage in negotiations to make a deal
3. Promise that if Congress fails to act, the White House will investigate alternative solutions. All options are on the table.
4. If the debt ceiling is reached, continue to pay bills as the constitution stipulates. Who can stop them? (Even if the Supreme Court sides with the nuts, and I doubt it this time, continue to pay the bills.)
What I would not do is give the GOP crazies any leverage. I would refuse to negotiate, period.
That's why this (a replay of the Obama approach) may be stupidest thing the White House could say right now:
https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1613164443478769664
"The White House has said it's not considering measures to go around Congress, like minting a $1 trillion coin or invoking the 14th Amendment."
Politics is about winning and using power. Democrats, time and again, cede power to the other side for no effing good reason. When will Dems ever learn?
As soon as Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, etc. all started saying stuff like "America needs a responsible Republican Party to make our two-party system work," I gave up on Democrats ever playing political hardball. It's very obvious that an entire generation of Dems needs to die off before Dems will consider "doing unto Republicans as Republicans do unto us." There is more likelihood of the US becoming a de facto rightwing one-party political system/dictatorship than there is of Democrats going for the political jugulars of their opponents.
"America needs a responsible Republican Party to make our two party system work" assumes facts very much not in evidence.
There was a good reason or the statement of the Obama people: Even if the Government just keeps writing checks, disregarding the limit, the economic consequences will be dire (due to uncertainty).
I agree though that the administration should refuse to negotiate. It should also announce that it will do anything to keep the government paying its bills, regardless of the happenings in the idiot caucus.
"And if they went ahead anyway, would a court have the balls to order the printing presses shut down?"
Pretty sure every judge in the Fifth Circuit and all the lower courts it oversees have balls the size of Jupiter.
Acting stupidly doesn't take balls. It just takes stupid.
Personally, I’d call their bluff…after a day or less of crashing markets and general mayhem, at least 6 Republicans will cave and vote to raise the debt limit and I doubt lasting damage to the economy will occur. Plus this should discredit the right-wing nuts.
Secondarily, and this is a somewhat separate topic, and I’m probably an outlier in the readers of this site, but I worry about our continued deficit spending. I rarely see any discussion on the left of the need to not throw money at everything. There needs to be some fiscal responsibility from the Democrats or the GOP will eventually find a way to make draconian cuts in the worst possible way.
UK begs to differ. Their pound still hasn't returned to normal exchange rates following the disaster of Lettuce Truss's prime ministership.
"I worry about our continued deficit spending."
Japan says "hold my beer." They've been happily deficit spending and growing their debt since, oh, 35-40 years ago, and nothing economically bad has happened to them that didn't also happen around the world. The Deficit is just a boogeyman used to frighten people who can't understand that entities that both create their money and have their own armies can't really go bankrupt.
(Actually, America also has been happily deficit spending since at least WWII, and nothing uniquely economically bad has happened here either. If you can do something allegedly dangerous for going on a century and never realize anything bad from it, is it really as dangerous as you thought?)
The US has had a National Debt since 1836, and people have been predicting that the sky would fall for the last 60 years that I know of personally (and in all probability since 1837) and yet the sky continues to not fall. Weird. It's almost like the predictions are wrong, or something.
"There needs to be some fiscal responsibility from the Democrats..."
Yes, yes, only the Democrats have agency here. The last time Republicans were fully in charge in 2017-2018, they responsibly... passed a ton of tax cuts and blew up the deficit.
"There needs to be some fiscal responsibility from the Democrats or the GOP will eventually find a way to make draconian cuts in the worst possible way."
Where to start? Democrats are the only party to give a damn about the deficit. Reagan, the Bushes, Trump all blew up the deficit. Clinton, Obama, Biden have all cut the deficit substantially.
Your falling for a 1980s narrative and it's about time you looked at the facts.
"You're," of course.
This needs to be repeated frequently & where the Republicans can see & hear it.
What problems are those of us on the left throwing money at that don't need money thrown at them? Please be specific.
The idea that the Democrats are not fiscally responsible is just flat wrong. The Democrats are the only party in my lifetime to reduce deficit spending.
FWIW, the deficit spending of the last few decades has been at essentially zero percent interest. Many economists, notably Dr Krugman, had repeatedly advocated spending much, much more, on infrastructure and obviously necessary upgrades (see FCC Shutdown this morning), while money was cheap.
Alexander Hamilton, who basically invented the modern financial system, was strongly in favor of having a national debt. By maintaining a debt, and continually paying back the many borrowers, it proved the fiscal soundness of the new country. In that vein, I have a friend who has a ridiculously low credit score. Why? He's quite well off! ... but he pays cash for everything. That includes cars and houses.
A "national debt" is not, repeat NOT, the same as your car loan.
The answer is higher taxes and more funding for the IRS.
We could always stop cutting taxes for the .001% and use those funds to pay off the debt and deficit.
You're ignoring that after your day and 6 republicans caving, the freedom caucus can throw more than enough road blocks in the way to prevent anything moving in the house for weeks. Simple have every republican nutjob move the privileged motion to vacate the speakership in series. Nothing else can be done until that is taken care of. Repeat 40 times. And weeks of this nonsense will permanently damage all US financial institutions and all US debt instruments.
You should ignore Republican rhetoric and look at actual performance in government. In recent decades, the deficit has tended to grow under Republican administrations and shrink under Democrats. Obama-era budget outlooks forecast its eventual elimination; then Republicans in 2017 decided to add a trillion or two over the following eight years,
The American government doesn't have a spending problem. It has a revenue problem, caused by Republicans' addiction to tax cuts as a policy response to every economic challenge.
I feel like this misapprehends the nature of the debt ceiling and what that would entail. when you say this:
It makes me think you maybe don't know what you're talking about, because the debt ceiling relates to issuing debt, not spending money. It's only related to writing checks inasmuch as that debt produces money you can use to write checks.
Put simply: US debt takes the form of bonds, treasury bills. If you buy a bond, you're buying government debt. Constitutionally speaking, Congress MUST authorize all bond issues. All that the "debt ceiling" is is getting to the limit of bond issues that Congress has authorized. Stuff like "social security checks" don't really come into it except to the extent it intersects with those bonds and the money they produce; the SSA can't buy bonds with surplus, as legally required, if there are no bonds to buy, for example.
This makes things legally tricky. Suppose we smash into the debt ceiling. Okay, the government stops being able to issue T-bills. This by itself would be a calamity; the worldwide bond markets would seize up entirely.
Now, existing T-bills will still be honored. They HAVE TO BE honored, that's black-letter law in the 14th Amendment. If you present a mature T-bill, the government has to fork over the cash. No court in the land is going to rule differently; if they do, we're already way beyond the event horizon.
But we won't, legally, be able to issue more. Trying to do so anyway would ignite another shitstorm; you'd have people suing in court saying "these T-bills are phoney-baloney and I won't accept them."
Now, that's going to cause us to not have money to honor other obligations. My understanding, which may be faulty (I am not a law talkin' guy) is that when the executive branch is put into a position where conflicting directives from the legislative branch would require it to break the law either way (for example, if Congress directs the executive to spend money on two different things, but doesn't provide enough money to do both) that the last-passed legislation controls. So if Congress says "spend fifty dollars on this," and then says "spend fifty dollars on that," and then says "you are authorized to issue fifty dollars worth of debt," the executive is obligated to spend the money on the second one, "spend fifty dollars on that," because it was the most recently passed. The executive is violating the law by not spending the first fifty (appropriations bills are laws, the executive is breaking them if it tries to impound, that was settled half a century ago) but since it has to break the law either way, it has to go with the most recent one.
(I might be wrong here.)
However!
The federal government also has broad authority to simply print money. That's not issuing debt. We usually fund things via debt and taxes instead of just printing money; Modern Monetary Theory says that this isn't necessary and it can all be done monetarily, but so far nobody has put that into practice. It is possible that we end up in a scenario where we can't issue debt (has to be authorized, that's in the Constitution) but when someone sues the executive on the grounds of "Congress authorized this spending, you must spend" and the Executive says "but we have no moneys to spend" a court goes "then create that money out of thin air and spend it; that's the remedy we order."
But basically, any discussion of what happens with the debt ceiling needs to center on bonds and their issuance, because that's what this is about.
The thing is, in this case there are two contradictory acts of Congress (well probably more than 2 but you get my drift). 1) X amount of money will be allocated to such and such. 2) No more than Y amount of debt may be issued.
If the government runs out of money and Y amount of debt has been issued, the government will be forced to ignore one of two acts of Congress. Why should it pick 1 instead of 2? And if it does decide to ignore act 1, how exactly does the government decide to which programs get funded and which don't? It's pure insanity.
Ignoring the debt ceiling might end up in a lawsuit but who even has standing? Probably no one. It would take months to litigate just that piece of the puzzle. Meanwhile maybe Congress decides to fix the problem. Or maybe not. But as KD says, who wants to be on record saying that the government MUST go bankrupt?
My understanding, and again, I might be wrong here, is that when the executive branch is put into a position where it cannot comply with all acts of Congress (that is, it is in violation of at least one of them no matter what it does) that the most recently passed one controls. The "tiebreaker" between "why should it pick 1 instead of 2" is "which one was more recently passed."
Tons of people would.
Ignoring the debt ceiling means issuing treasury bills that have not been authorized by Congress. Once those hit the bond markets, a lot of people will have standing to litigate, because bonds are sold and traded and provided as collateral and as the fulfillment of contracts and deals all the time.
If someone tries to satisfy their obligations to a counterparty with these "new" bonds, the ones without Congressional authorization behind them, and the counterparty says "those aren't real bonds. They were issued properly. We demand the real deal, thank you" that's a matter that would head to the courts.
"bonds are sold and traded and provided as collateral and as the fulfillment of contracts and deals all the time."
Sounds like "money" doesn't it? In fact, even the Fed notes that the financial markets regard Treasury securities as "wholesale money."
The Federal Government conjures up money in three forms: paper notes and coins (walking around money), deposit balances at the Federal Reserve Bank (checking account money) and Treasury securities (most properly thought of as just future money). All three are financial assets of the private sector and corresponding liabilities (debts) of the Federal Government, printed (if you'll excuse the term) on the same printing press. In practice, any of the three can be easily exchanged for any of the other three. They are practically equivalent, if not exactly identical..
Historically, the Treasury sold bonds as a way to protect its gold supply. Every (non-convertible) bond sold took the (convertible) currency used to pay for it out of circulation temporarily, and foreclosed on the possibility that the currency would be presented to the Treasury for conversion to gold. The interest on the bond was motivation and reward for forgoing convertibility. With a fiat currency, issuing bonds or paying interest is entirely at the discretion of the Government.
Actually, the Constitution only mentions debts 3 times in the main body.
Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Next sentence is: "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"
Article I, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; "
Article VI: "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
Amendment XIV, 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
I'd say the Constitution is pretty clear that debts can be authorized by Congress, and must be honored. A debt ceiling that causes a debt to NOT be paid, seems to violate the the plain (if florid) language of the Constitution and Amendment XIV.
Sure, but that's not what hitting the debt ceiling will do. It will prevent Treasury from issuing new debt, not honoring old debt. The most likely legal result of the executive branch going "we can't honor these t-bills" (or any other form of debt, but t-bills are like, the enormous bulk of it) is a court case followed by a court going "honoring t-bills is a constitutional obligations, constitutional obligations beat legislative ones; move the money from somewhere else."
Even eminent constitutional expert Sean Hannity is hopelessly confused about the difference between shutting down the government by letting approved appropriations expire, and refusing to lift the debt limit. As you say, they lead to vastly different consequences.
I think the most likely scenario is that (at least) five Republicans will vote with Democrats to approve a "clean" (i.e. no sneaky add-ons) increase, while business and the media give McCarthy et al. hell for being recklessly irresponsible. I imagine that's the outcome Democrats envisaged when they opted not to fix the issue in their lame duck period.
The Republican leadership will take this game as far as they can get away with, and then some. It will involve economic terrorism, and there will be tons of ways to make them look bad.
Biden has to stand firm, and conduct business as if the ceiling doesn't matter (Here's your check. What debt ceiling? If they don't let you cash it, not my fault). Rightly blame it on Republicans. I don't see the standoff going more than a few weeks before some Republicans cave.
"Now, existing T-bills will still be honored. They HAVE TO BE honored, that's black-letter law in the 14th Amendment. If you present a mature T-bill, the government has to fork over the cash. No court in the land is going to rule differently; if they do, we're already way beyond the event horizon." You're ignoring that this isn;t true since the government won't have the cash. And you're in left field with the next paragraph "Now, that's going to cause us to not have money to honor other obligations." . All obligations are debt and the government has equal duty to fulfill them. Tbills and treasury notes do not have special standing on the basis of your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word debt.
It will, actually. However, that cash will have to come from other sources, especially if courts rule that bondholders have first claim.
Courts rule that executive branches must honor certain obligations above others all the time, and move the money from somewhere else even the money has already been appropriated. For example, if you win a suit against a city where a court rules that city owes you money, the Mayor can't just go "sorry, the city council hasn't authorized that expenditure, so we can't pay you." In that case the court will go "we don't care; move the money from somewhere else."
This is almost certainly what will happen, or something analogous to it, if someone sues in court for their t-bill to be honored. The most likely outcome, it seems to me, is a court going "this obligation is constitutional, whereas appropriations bills are merely statutory. Move the money from somewhere, we don't care where. Constitution beats legislation."
There's also the added wrinkle that the federal government specifically has the authority to create money out of thin air; the Fed has broad statutory powers to do that, it just usual doesn't. There's a chance a court might also rule "just make dollars and pay debts with the dollars" as a remedy.
This isn't true. Straight up, as both a legal and conventional matter. An appropriations bill is an obligation to spend, but that obligation to spend is not debt. Not in any way, shape, or form. This becoming legal doctrine would upend over two centuries of convention and precedent.
It is you who does not understand what debt is.
As an emergency measure the President should suspend spending in every state where the reps. vote against raising the debt ceiling.
Have a phased shut down of ALL Federal activities. First in Texas,Tennessee and Florida. Then South Carolina, Idaho, Montana......
14th amendment equal protection clause forbids that.
I mean, when you look at it even as closely as this thread, the "debt ceiling" is a ridiculous concept as applied to the current Federal government.
The reason its ridiculous is that, as is pointed out here, the federal government is not, unlike what many believe, running around spending money randomly.
Spending is specifically authorized by Congress first. So to not raise the debt ceiling to provide funding for acts already authorized makes zero sense.
It would be one thing if debt was being incurred to pay for, oh, I don't know, Joe Biden's personal decision to build a wall on the border between Alaska and Canada, but that's not even close to what is going on. At least my hypothetical would involve a balance between two branches.
No other country in the world, to my knowledge, has such a limit. As you say, it is quite incompatible with the normal government budgetary process.
I agree with Kevin, Biden should just say "We are not defaulting on my watch." and keep writing checks. If someone sues, and SCOTUS rules against the admin, then ignore them, and keep writing checks.
He can tell them, "The constitution is not a suicide pact. If you don't like it, impeach me!"
If someone sues, and SCOTUS rules against the admin, then ignore them, and keep writing checks.
I agree the government should keep writing checks in the face of a debt crisis. But if MAGA actually got a SCOTUS ruling (heaven forbid) stopping this, it's not clear they'd be able to continue such a policy.
I think it's pretty clear that they can't keep writing checks, unless those checks are paid for by newly printed money as opposed to by debt.
It strikes me that newly printed money might be a worse tool than debt, as it would start to increase the money supply. OTOH, given what the Fed did to us with those too-aggressive rate hikes, maybe that's a good thing?
Congress approves debt as soon as it passes a budget that allocates more spending than revenue. That's all that the Constitution says in Article 1, Section 8 - which also says Congress can borrow money...
Your statement is analogous to saying: "We need a massive austerity policy right now."
Given the downward trajectory of inflation clearly visible in recent months and the ongoing impact of the Fed's tightening (fastest in history), that seems reckless.
Friday cat blogging can’t get here soon enough…
Like +50!
Only +50? KD should show us a herd of cats!
The Republicans know better, but continue the lies & threats & stopping them by allowing the US to default would not only be irresponsible, it wouldn't even stop Ted Cruz. And lunatic Bannon thinks he'd like the government destroyed to start over.
1. Get the OLC opinion
2. State your intentions to ignore the DC based on the OLC opinion
3. At that point given the prior showdowns, conflict between the OLC opinion and the statute, massive stakes, and likely continuing conflict unless resolved by the courts, there should be a justiciable controversy under Federal standards. The president can make the speaker of the house. File suit in an appropriate (non trump hack DC circuit court for a declaratory ruling on the legality of the DS.
Pingback: A possible solution to debt-ceiling hostage-taking | Later On
This is what I've been saying for 9 years.
The main issue is that Democrats need to prepare the ground for this strategy. It will work if the markets don't panic, and they need to be prepared not to panic. But Democrats never do this stuff in advance do we are probably screwed.
Just ignoring the debt ceiling is the best option, and it seems to me Biden is the president most likely to do it in recent years.
But that's why it's unlikely to happen. a handful of Republicans looking at retiring at the end of their terms or who are in swing districts will offer up their votes in exchange for some modest concessions.
The ideal solution is for Democrats to take this issue of the table when they have the votes. Unfortunately, they didn't have the votes in 2022 (Sinema and Manchin wouldn't go along, per my reading).
But, yes, Kevin's idea is a good one: just keep writing checks. See where it goes.
No printing presses. Courts would have to order that bits not be flipped.
Your proposed least-painful strategies are lacking any consideration about how Republicans would respond and how a conservative SCOTUS would rule. The debt ceiling limit, as a law, is not in itself unconstitutional. As a result, it seems dubious to expect SCOTUS to support any Executive work-arounds on account that the law is the law that must be faithfully executed by POTUS.
I think Congress and Biden will embrace the familiarity of the Budget Control Act and agree to automatic draconian sequestration that goes halfway towards meeting the Freedom Caucus' goal of eliminating the deficit in 10 years.
Why would Democrats reluctantly go along with this?
Because in two years, the House will be controlled again by Democrats and that'd be the end of sequestration.
Why would far-right Republicans go along with this?
They wouldn't. They represent 10% (give or take) of the GOP. Instead, this launches the Freedom Caucus' repeal of McCarthy's gavel and another set of votes for a new Speaker.
Why would Biden embrace this?
He's the guy who negotiated the BCA. He lives for political negotiations and finding compromise.
"So what's the best solution? .."
The best solution would have been for the Democrats to have had the last increase raise the limit to a googleplex which would have eliminated the problem. But apparently they like having periodic crisis.
I'm not sure which is the best solution either, but the Administration had better pick one and be ready to use it.
I'm not sure which is the best solution either, but the Administration had better pick one and get their ducks in a row sooner rather than later.
Generally speaking, when two laws contradict each other, usually we hold that the one that was passed later constitutes a repeal of the former. If the budget contradicts the debt ceiling by authorizing spending above revenue that would mathematically require borrowing above the debt limit, and the budget was passed after the debt limit, then you can claim that Congress repealed the debt limit when it passed the budget.
I doubt that the Fed would reserve a deposit of legal tender.
But I like your idea better than the coin, because your plan makes the Republicans put their names all over the destruction of Social Security. It's easy, it's fast, and the fingerprints of the idiots are all over any damage that gets done.
I doubt the Fed would *refuse* a deposit of legal tender.