As soon as the Republicans won the House last November, everyone with a brain knew they would try to take the economy hostage by refusing to raise the federal debt limit. That’s what they did in 2011, and the Tea Party Republican crazies were sober and sane compared to this crew of MAGAts. Voices were raised that the Democrats should head off the crisis while they still controlled both houses of Congress, but when it became clear the Republicans would force Democrats to do it on their own and then attack them as “big spenders,” the Democrats claimed it was the responsibility of both parties to solve and they would therefore allow the incoming Republican majority to act responsibly and would then work with them to deal with things.
I agree that they should have done this when they had control (it's a reminder that Nancy Pelosi is not perfect, despite so many on our side making claims to the contrary), but I also think the administration will take the action it needs to take, probably invoking the 14th despite all this.
This is, unfortunately, the best piece of yours I've read to date. Your logic is irrefutable and, unless a lot of Democrats wake up and start channeling their inner Dick Daleys, 2024 is going to be very ugly.
Thanks for a reminder of my dad's favorite comment on assumptions.
I'd also like to find out what they were smoking because we're gonna need some.
Biden has been much better than expected by many of us. Failing to be what he never was -- would not surprise me. I think of his departed son, Beau, …does he have the 'right stuff'; would he whisper in his father's ear; could he intervene? Kamala?
'Wishing Upon a Star': how is that for an argument?
“I am Nervous? Sure. But even saying you’re not going to negotiate is itself participating in a negotiation. You can’t get around it. Let’s keep in mind what we said we won’t negotiate. We will not default. Not going to happen. We never said we won’t negotiate the budget. We said we won’t countenance a default. We will not accept a default even for a few days. We have means in hand to be sure of that (14th A., platinum coins, premium coupon bonds). The budget is a different matter. And if the GQP fools themselves into believing that they traded a budget for debt ceiling, I’m ok with that.
“Timing, of course, is everything and for now I’ll assume that Biden is working the clock. His actions and statements as president to date allow me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
“For now.”
And as for the Democrats’ persistent insistence on following the Marquis of Queensberry Rules when facing a murderous thug, I have neither explanation or excuse.
This sounds like shadow play to me, Gary. If Lawrence Tribe is right, no negotiations; use the 14th as he outlined it; 'they' would have nothing to go to court with. That does not stop these terrorists, but then again, why go to court when you go to the streets of America with your guns?
Fern, speaking as a lawyer with 40 years experience (not intending to pull rank, just testifying to my bona fides), I can assure you without hesitation or fear of contradiction that there can ALWSYS be a lawsuit filed. Unfortunately.
Gary, my comment didn't dismiss the idea that House members would choose the courtroom as an option. What are the odds that such a case would be dropped? With respect to your bona fides, what do you think of Tribe's on the Constitution and the 14th Amendment?
PS There is no fear of me hiding from the high beams of bona fides.
Much respect for Prof. Tribe. However, let’s get practical. When contemplating how politically motivated judges will rule, assume intellectual dishonesty. First off the House GQP will file the suit with that nutball Trumpy District Judge in Texas. So Biden starts with a loss. Then the case is appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which is stuffed with partisan Republican judges. So another loss. Then to SCOTUS, which is stuffed with…well, you know where I’m going.
So what dishonest reasoning will Alito use to find for the House? (It will be Alito who will write the opinion. Roberts is too clever to be the one who throws the US into default. He will probably join Kegan’s dissent, making it a 5-4 decision.) Let’s read Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: “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.” The provision pivots on the definition of “public debt” which is not defined in the Constitution. Alito will declare that the public debt is the already issued and outstanding Treasury notes. He will say the debt limit is just a regulation on the dollar value of notes that can be outstanding at any one time. Thus one cannot question the public debt if the public debt isn’t issued yet.
This argument is baloney because Yellen is telling us she can’t pay the debt service on the issued and outstanding notes without borrowing more money, that is, issuing additional notes—if she can’t do that, the issued and outstanding notes go into default, I.e., are questioned, because she ain’t got no cash. But Alito will ignore that reality and just say the 14th doesn’t apply to prospective debt.
I have advocated (as if anyone listens to me), for consoles aka low principal notes with outrageously high coupon interest rates that will sell at the Fed’s discount window (there ain’t no window there but the Fed governors like to pretend that they are just simple bank tellers), at great multiples of the principal value (because the interest to be paid is fantastically more than is otherwise available to Jamie Dimon, uh, I mean, investors), therefore bringing in loads of cash without materially increasing the debt—the principal value of the nation’s Treasury notes. Such notes are then part of the issued and outstanding public debt and can’t be “questioned.”
Dear Gary, I am part amused, part impressed, part surprised, and part unrestrained.
Your work has raised some questions. Is it a practice of yours to act out cases that you consider important and or any case that interests you? In any event, do you usually keep your legal dramatizations under wraps or show them to others? Did you choose to give Alito a major role because, hey, it's a lot of fun and easy to write his opinions?
Why do I think that there are a lot of loop holes in this case of yours but beg off getting into them without having the proper bona fides? Okay, maybe, it's laziness on my part. It definitely isn't tiredness.
Finally, I admit to enjoying this time we have spent together, Gary. Thank you.
You certainly sparked a lot thinking on my part. The only social media in which I hold forth is here, although I follow Profs. Richardson, Reich, and DeLong, and James Fallows. I haven’t time for more and I’m too cheap to subscribe except here and with Prof. DeLong.
So now Biden has played the negotiation game, but it may have been for show because of that campaign promise to "bring unity;" and he's even cancelled his trip to Australia to meet with Pacific allies concerned about China. It all looks like sweet reasonableness. But perhaps Joe has just enough of the cussed Irishman in him to sucker punch the GOP at the last possible moment while wearing trunks that say They Had Their Chance. The right wing loves the word Constitution, so give them the 14th and do it with a flourish. Make the courts responsible for any negative outcome, and keep whispering loudly about adding more judges.
I trust that President Biden is playing the long game and will not capitulate to domestic terrorists. We don’t know what all has transpired behind closed doors, despite what pundits conjecture. I believe that President Biden will surprise us with yet another State of the Union-style victory. He learned the lesson of not giving in to terrorists from Obama. No diss to 44.
I got his email about 20 minutes after I had written mine (I subscribe) and was smiling at the thought of GMTA. I think I have been reading him enough to have picked up his thought process (not a bad idea).
My late first wife was a teacher - there is a saying in education: "Some people have 20 years of experience, others have 1 year of experience 20 times over....." As Charlie Pierce says, this is your democracy, America - cherish it.....
When you mentioned Wall Street, something came to mind. All the Fat Cats there do NOT want a financial collapse. They like the stable rule of law that helps perpetuate their windfalls.
Maybe Biden will work with those dudes to put pressure on the Magats; after all the Fat Cat Wall Street crowd are their donors.
Thom Hartmann, radio commentator and Substack writer, posits that Wall Street salivates over a default because they can enrich themselves in the ensuing sell offs and chaos. Not sure if that’s absolutely true because it seems counterintuitive. For myself, a weakening of the stock market certainly effects our retirement income, which means less purchasing power.
It's only counterintuitive if you're not aware of how the rich can operate, Kathe. Thom presents an excellent history of the Wall Street scum like Joe Kennedy Sr. who enriched themselves in the Depression from others' distress. Those figures of wealth gain he cited from the Depression and the 2008 crisis are the proof.
Your view of what it does to the rest of us is exactly accurate.
I agree that they should have done this when they had control (it's a reminder that Nancy Pelosi is not perfect, despite so many on our side making claims to the contrary), but I also think the administration will take the action it needs to take, probably invoking the 14th despite all this.
From your lips to Goddess' ear...
Joe will go down as another Hoover if he lets the known domestic terrorists screw the country. Dems will kick him to the curb with gusto.
and THEN what?
THAT's the sickening part.
The debt ceiling is unconstitutional, and Biden should pay the bills.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhockett/2023/05/11/six-legal-reasons-the-federal-budget-is-its-own-debt-ceilingand-floor/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack&sh=57b3216632e8
This is, unfortunately, the best piece of yours I've read to date. Your logic is irrefutable and, unless a lot of Democrats wake up and start channeling their inner Dick Daleys, 2024 is going to be very ugly.
Thanks for a reminder of my dad's favorite comment on assumptions.
I'd also like to find out what they were smoking because we're gonna need some.
Biden has been much better than expected by many of us. Failing to be what he never was -- would not surprise me. I think of his departed son, Beau, …does he have the 'right stuff'; would he whisper in his father's ear; could he intervene? Kamala?
'Wishing Upon a Star': how is that for an argument?
With permission, TC, I shall repeat myself:
“I am Nervous? Sure. But even saying you’re not going to negotiate is itself participating in a negotiation. You can’t get around it. Let’s keep in mind what we said we won’t negotiate. We will not default. Not going to happen. We never said we won’t negotiate the budget. We said we won’t countenance a default. We will not accept a default even for a few days. We have means in hand to be sure of that (14th A., platinum coins, premium coupon bonds). The budget is a different matter. And if the GQP fools themselves into believing that they traded a budget for debt ceiling, I’m ok with that.
“Timing, of course, is everything and for now I’ll assume that Biden is working the clock. His actions and statements as president to date allow me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
“For now.”
And as for the Democrats’ persistent insistence on following the Marquis of Queensberry Rules when facing a murderous thug, I have neither explanation or excuse.
I sincerely hope you are right.
This sounds like shadow play to me, Gary. If Lawrence Tribe is right, no negotiations; use the 14th as he outlined it; 'they' would have nothing to go to court with. That does not stop these terrorists, but then again, why go to court when you go to the streets of America with your guns?
Fern, speaking as a lawyer with 40 years experience (not intending to pull rank, just testifying to my bona fides), I can assure you without hesitation or fear of contradiction that there can ALWSYS be a lawsuit filed. Unfortunately.
Gary, my comment didn't dismiss the idea that House members would choose the courtroom as an option. What are the odds that such a case would be dropped? With respect to your bona fides, what do you think of Tribe's on the Constitution and the 14th Amendment?
PS There is no fear of me hiding from the high beams of bona fides.
Much respect for Prof. Tribe. However, let’s get practical. When contemplating how politically motivated judges will rule, assume intellectual dishonesty. First off the House GQP will file the suit with that nutball Trumpy District Judge in Texas. So Biden starts with a loss. Then the case is appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which is stuffed with partisan Republican judges. So another loss. Then to SCOTUS, which is stuffed with…well, you know where I’m going.
So what dishonest reasoning will Alito use to find for the House? (It will be Alito who will write the opinion. Roberts is too clever to be the one who throws the US into default. He will probably join Kegan’s dissent, making it a 5-4 decision.) Let’s read Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: “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.” The provision pivots on the definition of “public debt” which is not defined in the Constitution. Alito will declare that the public debt is the already issued and outstanding Treasury notes. He will say the debt limit is just a regulation on the dollar value of notes that can be outstanding at any one time. Thus one cannot question the public debt if the public debt isn’t issued yet.
This argument is baloney because Yellen is telling us she can’t pay the debt service on the issued and outstanding notes without borrowing more money, that is, issuing additional notes—if she can’t do that, the issued and outstanding notes go into default, I.e., are questioned, because she ain’t got no cash. But Alito will ignore that reality and just say the 14th doesn’t apply to prospective debt.
I have advocated (as if anyone listens to me), for consoles aka low principal notes with outrageously high coupon interest rates that will sell at the Fed’s discount window (there ain’t no window there but the Fed governors like to pretend that they are just simple bank tellers), at great multiples of the principal value (because the interest to be paid is fantastically more than is otherwise available to Jamie Dimon, uh, I mean, investors), therefore bringing in loads of cash without materially increasing the debt—the principal value of the nation’s Treasury notes. Such notes are then part of the issued and outstanding public debt and can’t be “questioned.”
Dear Gary, I am part amused, part impressed, part surprised, and part unrestrained.
Your work has raised some questions. Is it a practice of yours to act out cases that you consider important and or any case that interests you? In any event, do you usually keep your legal dramatizations under wraps or show them to others? Did you choose to give Alito a major role because, hey, it's a lot of fun and easy to write his opinions?
Why do I think that there are a lot of loop holes in this case of yours but beg off getting into them without having the proper bona fides? Okay, maybe, it's laziness on my part. It definitely isn't tiredness.
Finally, I admit to enjoying this time we have spent together, Gary. Thank you.
Shall we do it again?
We've got plenty of time to decide that.
Quia nunc vale,
Fern
You certainly sparked a lot thinking on my part. The only social media in which I hold forth is here, although I follow Profs. Richardson, Reich, and DeLong, and James Fallows. I haven’t time for more and I’m too cheap to subscribe except here and with Prof. DeLong.
Pax tecum.
Gary
Oh. This is more grim. The light above the cocktail trolley will be blue until further notice or portfolios are depleted.
It sounds as though the emergency vehicle is accelerating to your address, in any event.
Yes. Have recovery services next door. Hyperbole is best imbidded on ice. Lighting optional. Remaining is control called for.
Hyperbole on ice; a tempting recipe for out of control. Wordplay with you, Fred, is plenty elevating!
😁
I’m having the same sick feeling... time has already run out ... so, we’re left wondering how bad will it be?
So now Biden has played the negotiation game, but it may have been for show because of that campaign promise to "bring unity;" and he's even cancelled his trip to Australia to meet with Pacific allies concerned about China. It all looks like sweet reasonableness. But perhaps Joe has just enough of the cussed Irishman in him to sucker punch the GOP at the last possible moment while wearing trunks that say They Had Their Chance. The right wing loves the word Constitution, so give them the 14th and do it with a flourish. Make the courts responsible for any negative outcome, and keep whispering loudly about adding more judges.
That would be nice if it turned out to be true.
I trust that President Biden is playing the long game and will not capitulate to domestic terrorists. We don’t know what all has transpired behind closed doors, despite what pundits conjecture. I believe that President Biden will surprise us with yet another State of the Union-style victory. He learned the lesson of not giving in to terrorists from Obama. No diss to 44.
Gads! Paul Krugman's Oped piece today is virtually TC's argument. Two in agreement. Gads.
I got his email about 20 minutes after I had written mine (I subscribe) and was smiling at the thought of GMTA. I think I have been reading him enough to have picked up his thought process (not a bad idea).
everything you say is most of what's been attacking my digestive system over the last few weeks.
But I’m not being sarcastic. Fear is my ally.
This is a very exciting time to be alive.
As t he curse that is neither ancient nor Chinese goes, "May you live in *interesting* times..." And it is indeed a curse.
Yes, the times, they have been interesting for quite some time!
Said as an updated version of an old piece of Chinese sarcasm.
My late first wife was a teacher - there is a saying in education: "Some people have 20 years of experience, others have 1 year of experience 20 times over....." As Charlie Pierce says, this is your democracy, America - cherish it.....
When you mentioned Wall Street, something came to mind. All the Fat Cats there do NOT want a financial collapse. They like the stable rule of law that helps perpetuate their windfalls.
Maybe Biden will work with those dudes to put pressure on the Magats; after all the Fat Cat Wall Street crowd are their donors.
Ugh. What a mess
Thom Hartmann, radio commentator and Substack writer, posits that Wall Street salivates over a default because they can enrich themselves in the ensuing sell offs and chaos. Not sure if that’s absolutely true because it seems counterintuitive. For myself, a weakening of the stock market certainly effects our retirement income, which means less purchasing power.
It's only counterintuitive if you're not aware of how the rich can operate, Kathe. Thom presents an excellent history of the Wall Street scum like Joe Kennedy Sr. who enriched themselves in the Depression from others' distress. Those figures of wealth gain he cited from the Depression and the 2008 crisis are the proof.
Your view of what it does to the rest of us is exactly accurate.
I have an eye doctor who firmly believes in
never " overpromising"....it helps everyone face whatever comes.