Top Senate Dems to White House: If you unilaterally raise debt ceiling, we’ve g

[Freeper]

octoberlib (788 posts)

Top Senate Dems to White House: If you unilaterally raise debt ceiling, we’ve got your back


 
In a move that will significantly ratchet up the brinksmanship around the debt ceiling, the four members of the Senate Democratic leadership are privately telling the White House that they will give Obama full support if he opts for a unilateral solution to the debt ceiling crisis, a senior Senate Democratic leadership aide tells me.
The four Democratic leaders — Senators Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Patty Murray — have privately reached agreement that continued GOP intransigence on the debt ceiling means the White House needs the space to pursue options for raising it that don’t involve Congress, and that the White House needs to know that Dems will support whatever it decides to do.
In a letter to the White House signed by the four leaders that will soon be made public — and was sent over by a source — the Democrats say:
“In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension as part of an unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promise and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary.”
That’s key, because it means top Dems will support a unilateral executive resolution to the crisis even in response to a legislative solution passed by House Republicans that they deem unacceptable — such as a bill that contains a debt ceiling hike and only spending cuts.
The top Democrats have not settled on any preference for any particular unilateral action Obama might take. They are making a “balance of power” argument to the White House, indicating that they are fully supportive of the idea that the executive branch has the power to resolve the situation as it sees fit.

Obama’s two leading choices are the 14th amendment option, under which the president claims the power to ignore the debt ceiling, and the “platinum coin” option, under which Treasury mints one and deposits in the Federal Reserve, enabling the country to continue paying its debts.
The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim recently reported that Harry Reid, in particular, has privately raised the 14th amendment option with the president, and that Reid has not ruled out support for any other unilateral options.
Now the entire Senate Democratic leadership is uniting behind an even sharper message to the White House, the aide tells me. “If the White House concludes any given option is lawful, the Democratic leadership would support it,” the aide says.
The White House has said it doesn’t believe the 14th amendment option is legal, and has refused to engage on the question of whether it sees the coin as a viable option, saying only that there is “no Plan B” and that the onus is on Congress to raise the debt limit.
The aide tells me, however, that top Senate Democrats see the 14th amendment option as far preferable politically to the coin. “Of the available options, the coin, on its face, is politically much worse than the others,” he said. “Whatever the legal arguments for and against it, the imagery will be difficult to combat. What better symbol of out-of-control government spending could you have than a trillion dollar coin?”
In a general sense, the decision by top Dems to signal unified support for a unilateral option, should the White House opt for one, is all about maintaining leverage. The idea is to counter the continued GOP claim that new revenues are off the table by signaling clearly that Dems are prepared to activate a fallback option — meaning that in the end, Republicans are not in control of the battle’s outcome.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/11/top-senate-dem-to-white-house-if-you-unilaterally-raise-debt-ceiling-youve-got-our-back/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251274677

Let a repuke president try this and these same goons would be howling about it.
The left bitched and moaned for 8 years that Bush was a dictator yet they applaud 0bama every time he goes around congress.

Cha (120,501 posts)
7. As I said in another post on this.. Let them

piss, moan, whine, scream, etc, etc, etc.. They damn well DO ANYWAY

Thanks octoberlib.. It's good to know the Senate Dem Leaders have the President's back on this.. We're at war with an enemy of the state.

And we are at war with enemies of the Constitution.

[wasp69]

Boy, you commie ****ers are just begging for it, aren't you?

[BEG]

Cha (120,501 posts)
7. As I said in another post on this.. Let them

piss, moan, whine, scream, etc, etc, etc.. They damn well DO ANYWAY

Thanks octoberlib.. It's good to know the Senate Dem Leaders have the President's back on this.. We're at war with an enemy of the state.

So when you are in debt up to your eyeballs you can unilaterally decide to raise your credit so you can borrow more?  The bank that loans you the money doesn't have a say?  Seriously DUmmies, step away from the group think orgy and think about what you are saying.  Remember, the democrats wont always have the White House.

Unilateral decisions mean unilateral blame.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Go ahead and try it, assholes...you'll find out the financial markets are not run by the Democrat Party if you do.

[diesel driver]

octoberlib (788 posts)

Top Senate Dems to White House: If you unilaterally raise debt ceiling, we’ve got your back


 
In a move that will significantly ratchet up the brinksmanship around the debt ceiling, the four members of the Senate Democratic leadership are privately telling the White House that they will give Obama full support if he opts for a unilateral solution to the debt ceiling crisis, a senior Senate Democratic leadership aide tells me.
The four Democratic leaders — Senators Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Patty Murray — have privately reached agreement that continued GOP intransigence on the debt ceiling means the White House needs the space to pursue options for raising it that don’t involve Congress, and that the White House needs to know that Dems will support whatever it decides to do...

The Four DUmbasses Of The Apocalypse.   

[Carl]

I hope Sen McConnell is listening closely and realizing why negotiating in good faith with a leftist is as useless as tits on a boar hog.

They will never keep their word nor ever reduce spending...the treasury is their campaign fund and reduce the flow from it to the yammering parasites means they are out of a place of power and personal enricment.

[JohnnyReb]

I hope Sen McConnell is listening closely and realizing why negotiating in good faith with a leftist is as useless as tits on a boar hog.They will never keep their word nor ever reduce spending...the treasury is their campaign fund and reduce the flow from it to the yammering parasites means they are out of a place of power and personal enricment.

At least the tits tell you which side goes up.

[USA4ME]

... we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promise and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary.”

Without Congressional approval?  Well then, you won't be doing it legally.

This "14th Amendment solution" argument is that the 14th Amendment's clause providing that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned," implies that the president has the authority, even without congressional approval, to borrow money if necessary to pay off public obligations.
 
The trouble with this argument is that it ignores the distinction between public debt and spending that Congress has mandated. Spending mandates have the force of law, but the 14th Amendment gives greater force to the government's obligation to pay off its debt. That means that in the event of a cash shortfall caused by an inability to borrow, the servicing of existing debt would have to take priority over congressionally mandated expenditures.

If Congress fails to increase the debt ceiling (or to reduce spending or raise taxes enough to obviate the need to borrow more), anything the president does would violate some law.  Anything he does would be unconstitutional because all of the relevant powers--spending, taxing and borrowing--belong to Congress (with a secondary role for the president in signing or vetoing legislation).

The solution we've read some mention is for Obama to issue bonds without legal authorization. But without legal authorization, that debt would not be legally binding. Investors who bought such bonds would have no assurance of being paid back.  The U.S. is able to borrow money cheaply because of the 14th Amendment's ironclad guarantee of repayment. U.S. bonds are the safest investment going because they will pay their promised rate of return barring a complete financial or constitutional collapse. Since the legally unauthorized Obama bonds would lack that guarantee, investors would demand a significant risk premium, assuming they were willing to buy the debt at all.

An investor who bought such bonds would presumably be betting that once the political crisis passed, Congress would retroactively authorize the debt, thereby ensuring its repayment. That would be a high-stakes gamble, since the president's open defiance of congressional authority would be likelier to exacerbate than ameliorate the crisis. If the crisis dragged on, spending obligations would continue to mount, leading to the issuance of more and more legally unauthorized debt at higher and higher interest rates--or, perhaps, to an inability to borrow money at all.

Now perhaps the public would blame Republicans for all this and vote them out in 2014. That would leave Obama and a Democratic Congress the decision of whether to authorize the extralegal, high-interest Obama debt, thereby committing the full faith and credit of the U.S. to its repayment, or to repudiate it, thereby calling the country's creditworthiness into question and pushing up interest rates even on legal debt.
 
Either way, such a resolution would involve a massive transfer of wealth to bondholders, making it even harder to sustain, never mind expand, the entitlement state. If Obama follows this advice, he'll have quite a mess on his hands. This time, it'll be one he inherited from himself.

- James Toranto (WSJ)

.

[tac]

But Obozo is their dictator so it's OK with them.

[17 Oaks]

Without Congressional approval?  Well then, you won't be doing it legally.

This "14th Amendment solution" argument is that the 14th Amendment's clause providing that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned," implies that the president has the authority, even without congressional approval, to borrow money if necessary to pay off public obligations.
 
The trouble with this argument is that it ignores the distinction between public debt and spending that Congress has mandated. Spending mandates have the force of law, but the 14th Amendment gives greater force to the government's obligation to pay off its debt. That means that in the event of a cash shortfall caused by an inability to borrow, the servicing of existing debt would have to take priority over congressionally mandated expenditures.

If Congress fails to increase the debt ceiling (or to reduce spending or raise taxes enough to obviate the need to borrow more), anything the president does would violate some law.  Anything he does would be unconstitutional because all of the relevant powers--spending, taxing and borrowing--belong to Congress (with a secondary role for the president in signing or vetoing legislation).

The solution we've read some mention is for Obama to issue bonds without legal authorization. But without legal authorization, that debt would not be legally binding. Investors who bought such bonds would have no assurance of being paid back.  The U.S. is able to borrow money cheaply because of the 14th Amendment's ironclad guarantee of repayment. U.S. bonds are the safest investment going because they will pay their promised rate of return barring a complete financial or constitutional collapse. Since the legally unauthorized Obama bonds would lack that guarantee, investors would demand a significant risk premium, assuming they were willing to buy the debt at all.

An investor who bought such bonds would presumably be betting that once the political crisis passed, Congress would retroactively authorize the debt, thereby ensuring its repayment. That would be a high-stakes gamble, since the president's open defiance of congressional authority would be likelier to exacerbate than ameliorate the crisis. If the crisis dragged on, spending obligations would continue to mount, leading to the issuance of more and more legally unauthorized debt at higher and higher interest rates--or, perhaps, to an inability to borrow money at all.

Now perhaps the public would blame Republicans for all this and vote them out in 2014. That would leave Obama and a Democratic Congress the decision of whether to authorize the extralegal, high-interest Obama debt, thereby committing the full faith and credit of the U.S. to its repayment, or to repudiate it, thereby calling the country's creditworthiness into question and pushing up interest rates even on legal debt.
 
Either way, such a resolution would involve a massive transfer of wealth to bondholders, making it even harder to sustain, never mind expand, the entitlement state. If Obama follows this advice, he'll have quite a mess on his hands. This time, it'll be one he inherited from himself.

- James Toranto (WSJ)

.

Quoted for truth.

That said, we must not forget that Obammy is the SMARTEST man in the world and of course he knows how to get around the Constitution, turn wood to gold, water to wine, Cuba imports cigars from him, his touch can heal, he can raise the dead, heal the sick, he does not need a umbrella when it rains, lights brighten when he walks into a room, he can mint a coin and wipe out Trillions in debt with a single coin and all is well...  

[Vagabond]

They would have him take on all the trappings of a tyrant and then tell us he isn't a tyrant.  They're creating a monster that they can't control.

[JohnnyReb]

But Obozo is their dictator so it's OK with them.

The Dick-taker has plans to use a train load of K-Y Jelly on America.