Beeho's fiscal cliff strategy

[Sharpienads]

Stand by.

Standing by.

[Irving]

Refusing to pass a debt ceiling raise would not be unconstitutional. The Democrats tried to float that argument over a year ago, and it was really laughable.

The Constitution provides that Congress has the power to raise money, appropriate funds, etc. If there is a law setting a maximum amount that the Federal government can borrow (and there is), that is the limit of the Federal government's authority to borrow, period.

Amendment 14 Section 4.
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.

So this says that any debt (except the mentioned exception) is valid and will not be questioned. My stance was going to be that by not raising the debt ceiling, that would be the same as defaulting on the debts of the US. I imagine this is the same thing the liberals tried to say, which you referred to. However, upon further consideration, it seems to me that raising the debt ceiling may not be the ONLY way to repay US debts. So, if there is even one other option to make good on our debts, then I conceded that not raising the debt ceiling would not be unconstitutional.

I am under the impression that the purpose of raising the debt ceiling is to cover debts that the US has already accrued, not to free up money for more spending in the future. Just to be clear, I think the spending is out of control and needs to be stopped. Once the debts are on the books though, to not pay them would be unconstitutional.

[spqrzilla]

Irving, raising the debt ceiling allows the Federal government to increase its borrowing. Currently the Federal government is borrowing around 40% of all the money its spending each year.

The Public Debt clause of Amendment 14 states that the debt's validity shall not be questioned. That does not mean that failing to make an interest payment is unconstitutional.

[Ronin13]

I thought failing to pass a budget for 3 years was unconstitutional...

[Sharpienads]

I thought failing to pass a budget for 3 years was unconstitutional...

I don't believe it's unconstitutional. Illegal, perhaps. But not unconstitutional.

[spqrzilla]

The Democrats' intentional refusal to pass a budget is indeed illegal.

[centrarchidae]

Heres the plan that will work, go Back to the Eisenhower tax rates (last best Republican president) Problem solved in no time.

Can we have the Eisenhower spending levels as well? The Eisenhower-era regulatory burden? The Eisenhower-era levels of social and entitlement spending?

[Singlestack]

Pretty clear now that the deal isn't about revenue at all - its about politics. Even though Boehner and the squishy house republican leadership agreed to $800B in tax increases that Beeho wanted during the campaign, it is through limiting tax deductions and not rate increases. Beeho is demanding rate increases - or no deal - and no specified spending cuts or entitlement reform. He refuses to negotiate, letting the media be the negotiator for him.

Although by most measures in a negotiation, Boehner is being "reasonable", he continues to play by traditional rules and is utterly losing the game. Beeho is 100% about power politics, all the time - and this is no different. Most of the media will give Boehner no credit for being reasonable, and we will go over the cliff. The house republicans will own the blame. It seems to me that given Beeho's approach, there are really only two responses:

1. Let Beeho's plan pass and let Beeho own the results. Although the media will somehow try to hang that on the republicans, I don't see that as successful if the republicans vote "present" and nothing more.

2. Pass the Bush tax cuts in the house, send to the Senate, and go home. They will get blamed anyway, might as well get blamed while staking out your position. That is, if there aren't going to be negotiations then defend your position and principles and let the chips fall where they may.

The republicans still need to figure out they need to play 100% hardball if they are going to have any future at all. With Boehner's approach, there will be great bloodletting in the republican party and look for a change in many seats in 2014. Maybe ultimately thats what had to happen.

Singlestack

[Ronin13]

I honestly think the GOP stands less and less of a chance of really doing much of anything anymore- we're seeing them now in the last days- since we all learned that over 50% of the nation wants to live under Liberal rule and socialist tendencies.

[Singlestack]

Completely agree. I really don't think a 3rd party can win in a presidential election, so we may be looking at more and more extreme dems running things for a long time. The republicans seem to stand for nothing now, and the sad part is I don't think most of the republicans in Washington are even aware of it - they just seem themselves being "bipartisan" and willing to compromise. They will be completely rolled...