Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
Following up on the continuing saga of the debt default crisis and our earlier articles, I had a few more thoughts on how the crisis should be handled. The first suggested solution came from President Clinton who argued for it in a recent interview.
“Former president Bill Clinton said he’d solve the debt crisis Old School Style: just raise the roof. In an interview with the National Memo, Clinton said he believed a deal would be struck before August 2, but if he were in charge, and both sides failed to reach an agreement, he would simply raise the debt ceiling himself using powers granted under the 14th amendment of the Constitution. The amendment says that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Clinton said he’d “force the courts to stop me.” “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said.” Bill Clinton
At first I did not think much about it because it was a concept that I was unfamiliar with, but the idea has not gone away. It struck home when I read an article by two conservative law professors partially supporting the same process that President Clinton had suggested.
“PRESIDENT OBAMA should announce that he will raise the debt ceiling unilaterally if he cannot reach a deal with Congress. Constitutionally, he would be on solid ground. Politically, he can’t lose. The public wants a deal. The threat to act unilaterally will only strengthen his bargaining power if Republicans don’t want to be frozen out; if they defy him, the public will throw their support to the president. Either way, Republicans look like the obstructionists and will pay a price. Where would Mr. Obama get his constitutional authority to raise the debt ceiling? Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. “ New York Times (Registration may be required)
The proposal by Prof. Posner and Prof. Vermuele is not the same as the one advanced by President Clinton, but the result is the same. Posner and Vermuele are suggesting that the President has authority to act in order to protect that the laws are faithfully executed. These two professors are suggesting this approach as a constitutional matter and as a negotiating stance. I understand their approach, but I am not sure it isn’t too late for this approach since the White House already shot down President Clinton’s suggestion. Reuters
In light of the risks involved if we do default, I have to agree with Prof. Posner and Prof. Vermuel’s negotiating approach and their reliance on the President’s duty to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. However, it is not a perfect answer or a perfect theory. Something needs to get done and one of these arguments just might get the country over this self-inflicted hurdle. How should Congress and how should the President act in order to stave off a default that will kill Main Street? The default clock is ticking!
Additional Source: Think Progress
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
Mike,
I do not like it when Pols screw with Social Security checks. Can President Obama order Congress’ checks to be withheld first?
http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/07/gallup-perry-emerges-as-romneys-main.html Perry starts out in second place.
SwM,
Thank you for the article. Since we as a family pay automatically, if I don’t get my SS check we will be bouncing checks for the first time in decades.
Excellent post Raff,
This is what should be done, or should have been threatened to be done. This issue is a non-issue created to make political hay and unfortunately the President immediately caved in to the Republican meme of debt reduction. The House may well try to impeach him and in the process destroy the Republican Party. It’s time for the President to use some of his power, unfortunately he seems a man more willing to make unneeded compromises rather than standing up to bluffing bullies.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/638168/what_to_do_if_social_security_checks_are_stopped/
“This issue is not an abstraction: we see it being played out on the battlefield of the debt ceiling debate. Because, after all, who will lose and who will win if the debt ceiling isn’t raised? The losers will be the bankers who buy and sell government bonds, i.e. those who finance the War Machine that is today devastating much of the world. My leftie friends might protest that these bonds also finance Social Security payments, and I would answer that they need to grow a spine: President Obama’s threat that Social Security checks may not go out after the August deadline is, like everything out that comes out of his mouth, a lie. The government has the money to pay on those checks: this is just his way of playing havoc with the lives of American citizens, a less violent but nonetheless just as evil version of the havoc he plays with the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Libyans every day.
This isn’t about Social Security checks: it’s about an attempt to reinflate the bubble of American empire, which has been sagging of late, and keep the government printing presses rolling. For the US government, unlike a private entity, can print its way out of debt – or, these days, by simply adding a few zeroes to the figures on a computer screen. A central bank, owned by “private” individuals, controls this process: it is called the Federal Reserve. And the Fed has been the instrument of the banksters from its very inception [.pdf], at the turn of the 19th century – not coincidentally, roughly the time America embarked on its course of overseas empire. ”
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/14/the-banksters-and-american-foreign-policy/
Posner and Vermuele are suggesting that the President has authority to act in order to protect that the laws are faithfully executed. These two professors are suggesting this approach as a constitutional matter and as a negotiating stance.
————————————————————
Would that not mean that the President was derelict if he DIDN’T now act?
Great link Bud!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/27/gop-fault-lines-deepen-as-boehner-says-tea-party-seeks-chaos-in-debt-deal/
Of course they are, Swarthmore mom. When they rip people off, they just call it good business and innovative financial products, but they most certainly want to get what they pay for in their politicians.
Wall St. is all over Boehner now. He can’t afford to disappoint them.
Boehner is now going to get his bill passed. The tea party embarrassed him so he is now whipping up some votes. Vote is scheduled tomorrow.
Swarthmore mom,
You’re probably correct…
I honestly hate to be so uncivilized
but, what is more important?
And just how long can a bunch of (good) lawyers
delay an impeachment hearing???
Swarthmore,
I am not worried about impeachment proceedings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/tim-scott-impeachment-obama-14-amendment-debt_n_891521.html It makes sense to me but I think the tea party would immediately start to introduce bills of impeachment.
Raff,
Great post.
But, the White House said it would not do that. Time is running out.
Maybe it’s time for a flip flop…
No… Never happen with this administration ever. /snark off.
rafflaw,
I hear ya
Blouise,
That would be nice, but I am not holding my breath.
Tom,
It took me a couple of looks at the argument before it made sense to me as well.
Simply put … it’s time for Obama to man up. He’s played the gottcha game long enough.
For a while I had been thinking that the phrase “authorized by law” would be a sticking point in using the 14th amendment to force through honoring US debts – after all, the debt ceiling law doesn’t authorize the debt. But then someone pointed out appropriations! (Clinton’s statement references appropriations, but i had missed it initially.) It does seem that Congress has “authorized by law” certain spending and payments already.
One problem though, is that while using either generalized Executive Power or the 14th amendment to prevent true default, in this scenario, no real spending/revenue improvements have been made. Ratings agencies would be very much justified in downgrading the ratings of US treasuries, as the folks responsible for running the country are showing that they aren’t terribly responsible.
A reduction in the ratings of US debt would lead to slowdown in the US economy. While the over politics of this kerfuffle would seem to make the middle-third voter less sympathetic to Republicans, a damaged national economy would seem to benefit Republicans. The frightening economy was probably the single biggest factor in their doing well in the 2010 elections, and they know it. The more hosed the economy is going into November 2012, the better they’ll do at the polls.
Take a photo of any given Republican big-wig or Tea Parry politician with their creepy, poop-eating grin, and caption it with the Mad Magazine classic, “What, me worry?”