"(we are now borrowing $100 billion each month). And the President has dared
Congress to stop him."I really despise articles that promote a
false premise.The president, this one or previous ones, do not spend
money without the approval of congress.The debt ceiling debate is about
PAYING for the spending that congress has previously approved.So,
Congress can "stop him" anytime they want by cutting spending.
I was quite happy and silent when Bush/Cheney spent the country to unprecedented
levels of debt. Now that Obama is spending at a slower rate than Bush, I'm
really angry.Sincerely, the average republican.
Mr. Liljenquist,Congress still has the " power of the
purse." The House can refuse to pass new spending can't they? But we should never refuse to pay the bills we've already incurred.
The fact that some legislators think that is appropriate just illustrates the
ignorance and extreme element in the Republican Party.
If House Republicans are going to be so reckless and so irresponsible as to even
contemplate not raising the debt ceiling, risking the good faith and credit of
the United States solely to make some cheap political point, then they deserve
whatever comes to them. Of course, the trillion dollar coin is a sub-optimal
solution. But if it enables our country to pay bills already incurred, and is
our only recourse, then we should go ahead with it.
Congress determines what the debt is because they pass the tax rates and the
spending. If they want lower debt they can increase taxes or cut spending. The
debt ceiling is entirely superfluous and it may well be unconstitutional. It
violates the fourteenth amendment provision that the public debt of the U.S. can
never be questioned.The GOP only controls one half of one branch of
the government. They can not achieve their goals through legitimate democratic
means. They can only achieve their goals by holding the economy hostage if we
don't do what they say. That makes them hostage takers in my book too.
I think it interesting to note that the Democratic candidate for US Senate who
lost to Orrin Hatch proposed "holding the economy hostage" via the debt
ceiling as well. This is not a partisan issue. It's a fiscal responsibility
issue. Take your partisan blinders off and look up what the CBO says about the
next ten years of federal spending on health care alone and you'll begin to
understand why people from every side of politics are demanding we get our
fiscal house in order.As for those saying the House controls the
purse strings - you're right, and ultimately Americans get what we want
from Congress, even if it's terrible. And asking for high spending and low
taxes is terrible policy. But let's be clear. The president's last TWO
budget proposals were so ridiculous they didn't get a single yea vote from
any member of Congress. Zero. And the Senate hasn't passed a budget in
what, four years now? At what point do you say the Party that controls
Washington actually takes blame for what happens in Washington?
Liljenquist is absolutely right when he says Congress has delegated its law
making responsibility. Two years after Obamacare is passed and we're still
figuring out what actual laws, regulations, and taxes it created. Same goes for
the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. The fact that Congress
won't pass a budget means we're on spending autopilot. It also means
no one has to take responsibility for that spending.
To "Ernest T. Bass" I don't know where you get your misinformation,
but you really should check in with reality. The facts are that under Bush we
averaged about $400 billion deficits. Under Obama we have averaged $1.2
Trillion deficits. Obama is spending at unprecidented levels. If you look at
it as a strict %GDP, Obama still is outspending Bush.To "Roland
Kayser" you realize that the Republicans in the House of Representatives has
created budgets and sent them to the Democrat controlled Senate where they are
not even considered for a vote. You also have amnesia of 2009 and 2010 when the
Demcrats controlled congress yet never had the time to set a budget.
Oh, for Pete's sakes!This whole thing started out as a JOKE. A
joke!Now even Dan Liljenquist is joining the ranks of those who
cannot seem to recognize a joke as a joke.But maybe that's
because the GOP is a joke in itself.
The simple answer is:Is this Legal - Yes.Is it a Smart
Idea - No.Next?...
Take away.Republicans can create a partisan budget that has no
chance of passing.Democrats can create a partisan budget that has no
chance of passing.This is not governing. It is gridlock, partisan
government.And it does the country no good.
Cameron,"The president's last TWO budget proposals were so
ridiculous they didn't get a single yea vote from any member of Congress.
Zero."I know that this is a favorite conservative talking point, but
it's not true. What happened is that Senator Sessions, from Mississippi,
presented, as an election year stunt, a fake budget, and called it
"President Obama's budget." That is the proposal that didn't
get a single vote. The Sessions stunt budget was ten pages long--actual federal
budgets are over a thousand pages. The Senate never voted on the
President's actual proposal, because of a Republican filibuster.
@VST You are correct that federal spending would immediately have to be cut by
40% if the debt limit is not increased. As domestic discretionary spending is
only 20% of the budget we would also have to cut Social Security, Medicare, and
Defense. The 20% of the budget that is domestic discretionary also includes many
items that simply can't be eliminated: the FBI, Air Traffic Control,
safeguarding our nuclear weapons, weather satellites,federal courts and prisons,
and dozens more.Paying for all of this with current revenue is not
only impossible, it would require the President to break the law because every
option at his disposal would be illegal. He can't refuse to pay the bills
congress has already authorized, yet he would have to. Or he could instruct the
treasury to continue selling bonds, which would also be illegal. He could
declare the debt limit unconstitutional, which many constitutional scholars
agree with, but he does not have authority to do so.Maybe the
platinum coin is the best option, because there is already a law authorizing it,
even though this is not the purpose for which it was intended.
This coin will be a nightmare for the vending industry.