Jon Chait says that Republicans are planning once again to hold the economy hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. That could well be. They've done it before and today's Republicans are even crazier than the ones we thought were the ultimate in craziness ten years ago. Chait thinks the answer is for Democrats to end the threat for good:
Democrats need to take one vote to raise the debt ceiling by a quadrillion dollars. Would that vote sound bad in attack ads? Yes. Would it sound worse than a vote to raise the debt ceiling by $500 billion or $1 trillion? Not really. To most voters, any number ending in -illion sounds about as big as any other.
I've always figured there's some reason—I don't know what—that Democrats have never done something like this before. Even $20 trillion or so would solve the problem for a good long time.
As for attack ads, if Democrats do this in November or December, the next attack ads are two years off and probably don't matter. There will be some other shiny object that becomes the center of attention in 2024 and makes the debt ceiling yesterday's news. Probably something about Hunter Biden being the kingpin of the world's largest fentanyl drug ring. Or something.
So sure, give it a try. I guess the real question is whether Chuck Schumer can talk the dynamic duo of Manchin and Sinema into supporting it.
UPDATE: By the way, I'd recommend a yottabillion, not a quadrillion. There's no substantive difference of course, but a quadrillion is still a (barely) recognizable number. A yottabillion, by contrast, is more stars than there are in the universe. It would make it clear just how ridiculous Democrats think the whole debt limit issue is.
Debt limit is unconstitutional. Any policy congress passes has implicit congressional funding authorization.
I don't know about unconstitutional, but it should be that a spending authorization is a spending authorization.
There should not be a debt ceiling at all. Mint the coin, up it by a quadrillion, remove it. It's simply just an occasional GOP grandstanding.
I think Paul Krugman had a tongue-in-cheek proposal to do something like that. A yottabillion debt ceiling could be a useful poison pill to discourage Elon Musk or someone of his ilk from buying the US (a la Trump trying to buy Greenland).
"Americathon"
it was a real movie
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078766/
Debt limit is unconstitutional.
Maybe, but here is the problem. IF the democrats breach the debt limit and issue more debt: then someone will take legal action. Would you buy Treasury Bills, with a inflation adjusted negative yield, knowing there is a risk that the Supreme Court could later rule this interruption and suffer a 100% loss?
Absent a Supreme Court ruling supporting your point of view, the yield on Treasury Bills would sky rocket: this huge change in pricing would cause significant economic challenges...
Of course, a Joe Liebermann Democrat would blame Democrats for breaching the debt limit, w/ w/o having either raised it substantially (by a quadrillion or yottatillion), &/or doing so by invoking one of the Slave Amendments.
Assumes a reasonable, non-hackish SC majority.
Hey, why not a googleplex?
Much better because everyone enjoys saying it.
Beat me to it! Like +10.
Moreover, it can help introduce the public to the concept of scientific notation. No more blather about "trillions" and "quadrillions" and all that cr88, which are dramatically different in the US than in the UK, anyway.
It is a political football each party likes to use from time to time. It isn't going away.
When was the last time Democrats used the debt limit to take the economy hostage? Exactly never, as I recall.
Democrats under Carter passed the Gephardt rule, which said if Congress votes for appropriations it also votes to fund them. Common sense. The Gingrich GOP repealed the rule, and Republicans (not Democrats) have exploiting the situation ever since.
The Constitution says debts will be honored. I don't think a congressional rule can possibly override that. But if it goes to the courts, who the hell knows.
Especially these courts.
I would just pass something (like the Gephardt rule) that removes the limit.
Btw, Kevin, yottabillion would just invite coverage explaining what a yottabillion was, so probably wouldn't be helpful.
Well, for sure "yottabillion" is a LOTTA billions. That should be easy.
Wasn't that a Dunkin (Donuts) commercial?
Well, if it was, I didn't plagiarize it. I don't watch commercial TV. Yes, yes, "elitist", I know. But I HATE ads.
Just becasue two of the Supremes were picked by oneof the biggest deadbeats in the world.
The number is Googolplex.
The other possibility is that we can mint a couple of platinum coins for a big, big number. My choice, to be patriotic, is $1776^1776.
I think we need to make it so big that it will end the debate for EVER.
Is this really easier than repealing the debt limit?
I don't know, I think the point is that if you raise the limit, or repeal it, then the R's get to make a lot of noise about putting it back and being "fiscally responsible".
But if you leave it in, then every time they threaten a shutdown, or a default, they are the ones that look bad, IMHO. That is, they are "fiscally irresponsible"
So, never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
Republicans raise the debt level all the time, when they are in charge that is.
What happens if they shoot the hostage, though?
Like, letting them look bad is only a good strategy if you're sure they'll always cave. What happens if they actually reach the point where they look you dead in the eye and say "we'll set the world on fire if you don't accede to our demands" and stick to it?
Indeed. The old Teabagger Party was good with setting the world on fire, and the current Freedumb Caucus even more so. But these folks are sane compared to the new Q-trumplicans. By now, they'd be whanging multi-megaton nukes into Hurricane Ian. Don't worry about the "fallout"...
Somebody has to geek out over this … ‘yotta-‘, as other SI prefixes, is meant to be prefixed to a unit of measures e.g. yottagram, yottameter; ‘billion’ is itself a multiplier, not a measure. A more correct usage would be ‘yottadollar’, I suppose, although to speak even more strictly, the dollar, while it is a measure of economic value, is not an SI unit, so …
Agreed. After a quadrillion (10 exp 15) comes, in multiples of one thousand, a quintillion, a sextillion, a septillion, an octillion, a nonillion and a decillion. The prefixes continue using the Latin names for small numbers. For instance, after a decillion comes an undecillion, a duodecillion, a tridecillion, etc.
The multiplier prefixes are mega (million), giga(billion), tera (trillion), peta (quadrillion) etc. "Yotta" is the prefix for a multiplier of a septillion, so the debt limit would be raised to a septillion dollars, not a "yottabillion".
Technically, a yottabillion would be a septillion billion, which would be a decillion.
When you sign a contract, the Amount field is frequently written as (e.g.):
Four Hundred Twenty dollars ($420).
If Congress wants to pass one of these suggested Super-Limits, they may have trouble writing it.
Not really. A quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. A decillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
A googol (10 exp 100) would need a couple of lines but it can be written out. A googolplex (10 exp googol) literally can't be written out in non-exponential form. There isn't enough mass in the universe for the ink, never mind the paper.
Yottasmoot
Well you did say to geek out
The prefixes need not be restricted to use with SI units. If they were, we wouldn't have megapixels, megabases, or terabytes. (Or keV, MeV, etc, although no one seems quite sure how to spell those out.)
I believe this would require 60 votes or removal of the filibuster (at least a limited removal): seems like changing the filibuster requires a solution that excludes Sinema and Manchin....
It's a budgetary issue. Reconciliation applies.
Unfortunately, both reconciliation bills (the one held over from 2021 because they waived it for Covid emergency aid in 2020 and used that one in 2021 and the one for 2022) have been used. They can't use Recon until next year.
It's not like a timeshare where you can borrow next year's allotment. If it WERE, the Dems should surely use it up, in order to deny it to the Rep next year.
Unfortunately, both reconciliation bills (the one held over from 2021 because they waived it for Covid emergency aid in 2020 and used that one in 2021 and the one for 2022) have been used. They can't use Recon until next year.
It's not like a timeshare where you can borrow next year's allotment. If it WERE, the Dems should surely use it up, in order to deny it to the Reps next year.
Favor eliminating the debt ceiling because Cruz hasn't suffered nearly enough for shutting down the government.
But learned that banking has a new offering:
https://www.withyotta.com/
Maybe safer than cryptocurrency.
How can there be so many stars in the universe, and where did that matter come from if the universe didn't use to exist?
I'm a tiny speck of foam on a giant wave and I want answers!
Democrats had opportunities in the past to get rid of this thing. I can't imagine why they did not. I suspect there were blue dogs concerned about the debt & deficit & placating their donors.
The Dems cannot get rid of debt ceiling without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, so no, they have not had many (or any?) opportunities in the recent past to get rid of it. I believe they can raise it by reconciliation however and I think they will unless Manchema/Sinechin submarine them.
The Dems cannot get rid of debt ceiling without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate
Sure they can. Chair rules it's not subject to filibuster. Just needs 50 votes to sustain. Easy peasy. Dems don't need 60 votes. They need a simple majority. That is what they've been lacking (a majority willing to do the right thing).
Republicans eschew the national interest in favor of electoral politics more often and egregiously than Democrats, for sure. But the latter are hardly angels.
Be careful of the precedents you set. Harry Reid nuked the filibuster for certain judicial appointments; then Republicans took that and ran with it, and now we have a fucked up SCOTUS.
If the current chair rules it's not subject to filibuster, Republicans are sure to take that and run with it - and for all that this debt ceiling issue would be resolved by the chair's actions, matters will eventually become much, much worse.
I'm happy to see the filibuster go. Republicans can pass destructive legislation anytime they want when they have a trifecta. It's not the filibuster that stops them. It's the fact that their batshit ideas are deeply unpopular. The filibuster is just a handy excuse they use with their own wingnuts to explain their failure to enact right wing prerogatives.
Reid nucked the filibuster affter McConnell went back on his word, Troll. And you thought you could slip this one as an unquestioned fact?
Not just a troll, but a dumb troll at that.
I vote for one mol dollars. If Republicans are explaining, they would be both losing and teaching.
A yottabillion, by contrast, is more stars than there are in the universe. It would make it clear just how ridiculous Democrats think the whole debt limit issue is.
The Right Wing Supreme Court would declare that unconstitutional. Can I think of the exact reason they'd cite? Nope. But they'd find one.
Carl Sagan is a witch. Well, technically, warlock.
The lawyers 'round these parts are welcome to correct me, but I'd guess the rational basis test might be seized upon to strike the yottabillion strategy. They'd say something to the effect of: "It's patently absurd on its face; if Congress wants to jettison the debt ceiling, it must pass a bill saying so." (And they'd kinda have a point*). But a quadrillion isn't absurdist in my view. Our GDP could conceivably get there in (back of envelope math) 60 or 70 years in nominal terms. So if debt/GDP ratio were to gradually drift upwards, the quadrillion limit might be pretty relevant within a half century or so...
*As far as I know Congress could pass a narrowly tailored bill to grant the Treasury permanent authority to borrow whatever is necessary to fund it duly enacted spending priorities (a statutory Gephardt Rule, IOW). Or, yes, it can pick a comprehensible number and raise the ceiling accordingly. But it's not clear it can pull a banana republic gimmick to deal with the debt ceiling, at least not with these six MAGA judges.