Skip to content

Republicans are developing a clever plan to shoot themselves in the foot

I must be missing something here. The Washington Post reports that Republicans are getting ready to pass a bill that mandates precisely how the Treasury Department handles a breach of the debt ceiling. In particular, it would specify which bills have to be paid and which can be blown off. The must-pay bills are likely to be these:

  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Military
  • Veterans
  • Interest on the national debt

The curious thing about this is not the choice of which bills to pay. It's a pretty conventional list. The curious thing is why MAGA Republicans are so hot to put this down on paper. It's purely symbolic since it will never become law, and it opens up Republicans to pretty obvious attacks:

“Any plan to pay bondholders but not fund school lunches or the FAA or food safety or XYZ is just target practice for us,” a senior Democratic aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a proposal that hasn’t yet been released publicly.

Yes, exactly. I mean, this is roughly what Democrats are going to do anyway, but you might as well make them work for it. Why go to the trouble of opening the door to the shooting range yourself instead of making them kick it down on their own?

25 thoughts on “Republicans are developing a clever plan to shoot themselves in the foot

    1. Eve

      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/

  1. Justin

    Shutdown light. Come on… if you’re gonna shut it down, shut down the whole fucking thing. Otherwise you’re just a pussy. No one will even remember the heroics in November 2024 unless there is chaos, catastrophe, death, and destruction. Bring it!

    1. Vog46

      "if you’re gonna shut it down, shut down the whole fucking thing. "

      THIS is why the debt ceiling fight is so meaningless
      DEMs wanted seniors to get their monthly checks. and republicans wanted to make sure the military got paid.
      There's no bite in this outcome EXCEPT the potential for default which would be uncharted territory for us.

  2. Zephyr

    Because utter stupidity is their platform. Unfortunately, they know the press will now spend the week talking about it as if it is a serious plan.

  3. cld

    Conservatives think they're clever.

    They think this is going to make them look responsible when they take the country hostage over the debt ceiling, and they think that if Democrats vote against it they'll be able to say it's all the Democrats fault we had it all arranged and we weren't going to hurt anybody at all when we kidnapped and threatened to murder the United States.

    How can you fake being this smart? It can't be done.

  4. D_Ohrk_E1

    Personally, I think we're missing the bigger message: GOP are telling us they will allow the US to hit the debt ceiling and reach a technical default, just as they signaled earlier that they will not pass a budget before Oct. 1.

    If you really want to mint a coin to get around the debt ceiling, now (or rather, when Yellen says that the US has hit the debt ceiling) would be the time to take up a preemptive lawsuit against the House GOP. Basically, you ask the Court to greenlight the minting of a coin, not for an arbitrary $1T, but through the end of the fiscal year. This way, you can use the argument that the House is technically violating the law by not adjusting the debt ceiling to match the current fiscal year's spending law.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      I think the less gimmicky way to proceed is simply keep paying the bills without the coin. If Congress has essentially instructed the federal government to do two things that are diametrically opposed—(a) pay certain bills that require the national credit line to expand, (b) don't expand said credit line by making unauthorized, highly damaging spending cuts to the tune of hundreds of billions—they're forcing the executive branch into choosing between those two alternatives.

      It's reasonable, therefore, for the executive branch to choose the action (out of those two) that will harm the country less.

      I think this strategy minimizes the chance of a disaster. It's both in keeping with the practice of other high income country governments, and also makes it hard for the judiciary to go to bat for the Freedom Caucus. What are the justices going to do, order Yellen to start stiffing Social Security recipients or bond holders? And critically, it might kill off the specter of these inane, periodic debt ceiling crises once and for all.

      1. D_Ohrk_E1

        Even if two laws oppose each other when the debt ceiling is reached, only one is constitutionally protected.

        Art 14 §4 states, "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".

        With a debt limit created by law, it would be unconstitutional for the Executive branch to breach it. That is why the coin idea is popular. The belief is that the coin avoids the issue of expanding debt.

        1. Jasper_in_Boston

          The clause you highlight merely states that the government must pay its debts provided those debts are legally valid. It doesn't stipulate how those debts gain validity. Moreover, the executive branch's responsibility to pay bills incurred by Congress is also a constitutional obligation (the "faithfully execute" clause from article II).

          But in any event, I'm not arguing that the executive branch should borrow money in contravention of current law (the debt ceiling).

          I'm suggesting that the White House follow a "just pay the damn bills" strategy, without resorting to the inane trillion dollar coin idea. The Federal Reserve already provides Treasury unlimited overdraft protection.

          Presumably this would be a highly temporary measure, but in the interim, the Fed could (and would) conduct its operations so as to minimize the inflationary aspects of the above scenario.

          1. D_Ohrk_E1

            You'll have to explain where the Constitution allows for "just pay the damn bills".

            If the money is coming from the Fed, does it have to be paid back?

            If not, then what's the point of having debt? And if you don't need to have debt, then, you've invalidated two key sections of the Constitution.

            If yes, then, it is debt.

            1. Jasper_in_Boston

              If the money is coming from the Fed, does it have to be paid back?

              That's a key question. Maybe for purposes of law, overdraft protection provided by the Fed is indeed the equivalent of the arrangement a consumer might have with her bank: a debt the bank keeps track of, and must be paid back. But maybe not. I haven't been able to find a cite. We're in uncharted waters here.

              If not, then what's the point of having debt?

              Good question! I'd say it's largely a matter of A) path dependency, and B) desire to avoid inflation. I'm not overly sympathetic to MMT, but on this they have a point: There's no reason in theory the government couldn't simply create money to pay its bills. Now, obviously there's a reason doing so might not be a good idea (inflation), but, as I've indicated above, we're obviously talking about a stopgap measure. And in any event the Fed would be free to take action to mitigate inflation.

              The course of action I'm suggesting here is identical to the trillion dollar coin concept in terms of effects. It just doesn't give off the same "banana republic" vibe. Am I 100% confident it's legal? No. But I'm also not confident the trillion dollar coin is legal (Kevin has touched upon this). I'm also not 100% confident taking discretionary action not to pay the costs of this or that congressional enactment is legal. There are no great options when 100% of the political power in a polity is held by a cult of lunatics.

              1. Jasper_in_Boston

                There are no great options when 100% of the political power in a polity is held by a cult of lunatics.

                Meant to write 50%, of course...

          2. D_Ohrk_E1

            I misstated. Not Art. 14. I meant to write Amendment 14. (My excuse: I was watching football while typing 😀)

            Read it closely. It predicates debt to be " authorized by law".

  5. emh1969

    The rock band INXS has a song titled Elegantly Wasted. I like to think that in an alternative universe, they wrote it about Republicans and called it Arrogantly Stupid. So there's your why Kevin...

  6. CalStateDisneyland

    When Republicans hold the presidency and both chambers, they never even start to go down this path during regular budget proceedings. Only when they lack the power to make these changes unilaterally do they start down this path.

  7. Salamander

    As I read it, the bondholders come first in the Republican list, and maybe Social Security and Medicare would be added, not that the social safety net will at the top of their priorities, as Mr Drum's list would indicate. Also, the defense spending would be targetted towards the military-industrial complex, not pay for the soldiers.

    These are important distinctions, left out in Mr Drum's summary!

    Let's also recall, and remind everybody in case the journalism-industrial complex and the barely-functional Democratic messaging shops faiil to do so, that under that former guy and his all-Republican Congress, the debt ceiling was "suspended" and the national debt literally exploded.

    But they were fine with that, then.

  8. Zephyr

    They want to say they are protecting Social Security and Medicare while actually cutting benefits to "save" them. Then they will blame Democrats for forced cuts because of wasteful spending. If the whole economy is wrecked so much the better because they will be able to blame it on Biden.

  9. golack

    I just read that Kevin McCarthy sent Biden a letter inviting him to give the State of the Union address.
    How long will it take before the wack-a-does insist that the letter be withdrawn?
    Will they want to invite Trump?

    Just asking 😉

Comments are closed.