Sun Coverage
- Obama and Boehner make appeals to public for rival debt-limit plans (7-25-2011)
- Obama: Halt ‘3-ring-circus’ of debt-limit debate (7-25-2011)
- Obama to address nation tonight to discuss competing debt-ceiling plans (7-25-2011)
- Harry Reid says debt ceiling negotiations ‘rocky’ (7-23-2011)
- Sun politics coverage
With six days to go until the country defaults on its debt, some Democrats in Congress think it’s time for President Barack Obama to think about the nuclear option — declaring the debt limit unconstitutional and raising it through 2012 via executive order.
“I would say to the president, that if ... what lands on his desk (is) a short-term lift of the debt ceiling, he should put it on his desk next to an executive order that he will have drawn up,” Assistant House Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn said today. “And with the same pen that he vetoes that short-term debt ceiling extension, he should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment to this issue.
“I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets,” continued Clyburn, who later today appeared to be discussing 14th Amendment strategy with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
The pressure to ready the ultimate backup comes in the midst of deadlock. On one side is Republican House Speaker John Boehner, who is pushing a proposal to raise the debt limit by about $1 trillion, covering the country for six months; on the other side is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is pushing a $2.4 trillion hike of the debt ceiling to take the country’s borrowing authority through 2012. Reid’s plan also envisions $2.7 trillion in cuts, while Boehner’s has $1.2 trillion in cuts. Neither raises taxes.
But both plans are being tweaked after Congress’ nonpartisan budget authority ran the numbers by economists and found both plans came up short. Boehner’s cuts $850 billion, thereby breaking his own rule that every dollar of the debt ceiling be matched or outpaced by cuts; Reid’s cuts $2.2 trillion.
Faulty accounting or not though, each party leader is dead set against the other’s plan.
Boehner charges that Reid’s cuts in mandatory spending — which rely heavily on placing a $450 billion cap on military spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2012 — are gimmicky accounting. But the accounting does fall within congressional rules for measuring savings, letting Reid claim $1 trillion more in cuts under his plan than Boehner’s — plus the interest saved from not having to borrow that cash.
Reid, meanwhile, charges that Boehner’s two-step plan leaves too much to be determined later. Any increase of the debt limit — or any cut — beyond the first trillion is subject to the review of a bipartisan Joint Commission that will meet to draw up a budget of future cuts by the end of the year.
But if they end up as deadlocked as the rest of Congress is now, there’s no recourse, which led credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s to warn Congress that if that’s the best it can do, the country should brace itself for a credit downgrade.
Credit rating agencies have said they want to see evidence that any debt-limit deal will “make a difference over the medium-term in slowing, if not reversing, the rising trajectory of government debt,” S&P’s chief David Beers said on CNBC today.
A presidential executive order would get Washington, businesses, the stock market and the American people past the threat of default before 2013, which may calm the markets.
But without cuts, that option doesn’t address the rating agencies’ concern that the U.S. do something to change course.
“We’re getting down to decision time. We don’t know what the other side is going to do. They’ve walked away from everything including their own leader’s proposals,” said Rep. John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Obama has taken a position on this already, but circumstances have changed ... we just want to let him know that his caucus is prepared to stand behind him.”
The 14th Amendment issue flared and fizzled this month, when Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Maryland that “there have been some suggestions that a president could use that language to basically ignore this debt ceiling rule, which is a statutory rule. It’s not a constitutional rule.
“I have talked to my lawyers,” Obama continued. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”
What lawmakers are referring to is Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, the first part of which reads:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurrent for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
Debt obligation may seem a strange topic to consider under the amendment that establishes natural-born citizenship, but they appear together because the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, when Civil War debts were a pressing issue. (Yes, it’s also the same amendment that came up during the birthers’ campaign that sought Obama’s birth certificate. And the same lawmakers who wanted to abolish it because of the U.S. birthright issue would likely be the first to throw darts at Obama if he uses it to single-handedly raise the debt limit through the next election.)
If Obama wants to issue an executive order, he’s working in murky legal waters. Executive orders are used to make rule changes or to modify existing laws of Congress. House Democrats urging him to prepare such an executive order say the 14th Amendment gives the president that authority.
But Senate Democratic leaders don’t seem wholly convinced.
Reid, who is still knee-deep in the process of trying to hammer out a congressional solution, isn’t talking about handing the package over to Obama.
“We’re going to stick with (our bill) until somebody comes up with a better idea,” Reid said.
Is the executive order a better idea? Well, Reid would say only that he knows Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin has been speaking with Vice President Joe Biden about the issue, but wouldn’t speak to the merits of the idea: “I’m not going to be giving them advice on a legal issue,” Reid said.
Harkin will though.
“If there are legal experts out there who say they don’t know if he has the authority to do it, that’s the wrong question. Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits him from doing it?” Harkin said.
“I think the president’s going to have to do this. I don’t see any compromise. I think we’ve gone down every avenue that we can. I don’t see anything happening,” Harkin continued, adding that while he supports Reid’s proposal, “that’s not going to go anywhere. And if they start pitching off parts of it to get Republican votes, then they’re going to lose Democrats. And it’ll never get through the House anyway.”
Reid, who is still having daily discussions with the his Senate Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell, and whose office is still in touch with Boehner’s, doesn’t seem ready to throw in the towel.
“Magic things can happen here in Congress in a very short period of time in the right circumstances,” Reid continued. “But (Boehner’s plan) is a flawed piece of legislation, and is not a solution to the problems we have here ... Nobody believes that the Boehner bill is anything more than a big wet kiss to the right wing.”
But his bill, he says, is the opposite. “There’s only one bill in Congress that is a true compromise,” Reid said. “We’re running out of time and we need to get serious about finding a compromise.”
I think President Obama's approval rating will go up significantly if he finds a solution, ignoring the pompous windbags in Congress. I find it sickening that these Congress critters have wasted so much time and taxpayer money on these phony discussions with all the bullying and posturing. Two reasonable people could have resolved the issues in a few hours. It wouldn't surprise me if a deal was reached weeks ago, and all this is for publicity and theater. Ridiculous.
It would be funny to see Obama, a man who has disdain for the Constitution, to actually invoke one of its rules for his benefit.
It would also take away his biggest excuse for everything: Blame Bush.... Killing his chances at his already declining chances of reelection.
Had he done his Constitutional job in the first place (produce a budget, not spending like a drunk sailor) we would not be in this mess
I agree with Al. Two reasonable people could have resolved these issues in a few hours (maybe a couple of days).
Assuming a ten-year deal, there are only three questions
How much must be cut?
How much additional revenue is needed?
How much will the limit need to be raised to allow this to be achieved over this period?
obama will do the right thing regardless of the jamokes in congress. if our nations' default creates higher interest rates, we'll be able to put a fork in it. obama realizes the dire consequences and having seniors denied social security and medicare throws more gasoline on the fire.
In response to various comments above --
If you think "term limits" are necessary to replace people like Sen. Reid, may I suggest something more palatable to everyone: vote against him. Term limits are utterly unnecessary IF you have faith in the American (or, in this case, Nevadan) voter. Having said that, I wouldn't blame you one iota if you don't have said faith.
Anyone who ever accuses Pres. Obama, or the Democratic party, of fear-mongering, must either (a) get their heads out of their asses, or (b) not feign surprise when anything you say is ignored as totally ridiculous. The Republicans invented it, perfected it, and have an absolute monopoly on it.
When you throw out a slanderous accusation such as the President "has disdain for the Constitution", you must see option (a) or (b) above, or (c) prove that you've actually read the Constitution AND support your obscene accusation. Since neither this President, nor any of the 43 before him, have ever spent a single dime of taxpayer money (that's Congress' job), you will have a difficult time proving you've read the Constitution, so may I suggest option (a) or (b).
The birth certificate "issue" was settled before the election. See option (a).
The Hypocrite News
Another attempt to ignore the constitution? Another attempt to rule by fiat? I guess Obama wasn't elected after all. It must have been a coup and our dictator in chief like too many progressives continues to practice:
... The end justifies the means. Regardless of the consequences.
The lefts hypocrisy knows no bounds. Were the roles reversed they'd be beside themselves with vitriol attacking the opposition for doing exactly what they are calling for now, just as Obama, Reid and others voted against raising the debt limit under Bush but now it's okay. They called it a failure of leadership and worse a short time ago. Just as they called for Bushs head over wire taps on foreign phone calls for those suspected of terrorism and now they are conducting domestic spying on American citizens. Just as they called for new gun control legislation at the very same time they were illegally selling guns to illegal and foreign traffickers and unbelievably holding press conferences to blame law abiding federally licensed firearms dealers for what they were forcing them to do against the complaint of the dealers. And the list is almost endless.
Unfortunately they have a ready supply of lemmings willing to follow them off the cliff while chanting Bush did it , Bush did it without even knowing the question. One thing about the opposition on the left, if their lips are moving, you now what they're doing.
Someone explain this to me please: what does "raising the debt ceiling" have to do with "spending cuts" or "taxes" or anything else that might happen in the future? "Raising the debt ceiling" means "paying our bills". We all went out to eat, had a nice meal, maybe even a fancy dessert, and now we have to pay the bill.
Raising the debt ceiling has absolutely zero effect on future expenditures or revenues. Why is anyone talking about those three things as if they all go hand in hand?
This is a serious question. I know why politicians are linking the concepts. But why is the media? Why is a single voter? Why is paying the bill for the meal we already ate even up for discussion? We must pay the bill, no? If not, what's the equivalent of "washing the dishes"?
I'm an educated, knowledgeable and informed guy. But how is paying for the meal we already ate a political issue? How is it controversial? Please, can someone explain?
In the spirit of Kevin Lustig's post I would urge readers to read this week's Time article by Rana Foroohar, "Balanced Budget Blues". It does a fine job of skewering the notion that the nation's debt is anything like your families debt. The article is currently available on line to subscribers or you can read it at the libray or buy this week's Time to share with one of the know nothing conservatives flogging this issue in place of putting people back to work.
kevin...a debt ceiling is like a cap...you have 100 in the bank you spend upto 100. YOU CANT GO OVER BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE IT...You don`t goto the bank and say can you act like i have more, the bank will say show you pay down your debt and you will have more....STOP TRYING TO SPEND BEFORE YOU PAY YOUR BILLS. IT`S CALLED A BUDGET...Raising the debt limit (which will happen) will only gives a man that wants to take care of his family and friends free reign on 2 trillion to buy the election again by saying he will take care of all the porch sitters. AGAIN!
SAD BUT TRUE MY REPUBLICANS, WE ARE IN A BOAT GOING DOWN....BY A MAN THAT KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES.
The Republicans get a failing grade. I wouldn't even put them in charge of taking out the garbage after the whole dismal history of this debacle of a manufactured crisis.
Just enact the Constitution. Speaker Boehner, who I'm sure is a fine man, is totally unable to get the votes. Even after painting his party into a corner. To get his caucus together is pretty much like herding cats around. Do an end around and get it done. The American people would back the President. It would be the noble thing to do.
I heard the Republicans are tired of being called the moderate Republicans, the leftover Bush Republicans, the hard right Republicans, the Tea Party Republicans, and what else type there are.
They are all joining forces and unferling one banner proudly and now collectively shall be known as the Comprehensive Republican Assault Party (CRAP).
They're motto? "We are now CRAP!"
"If you want something, vote for CRAP!"
"CRAP will rule!"
Or something like that...
A local version of Republicans in Ohio, addressing on how to fight a local perceived issue regarding the Islamic dire threat, will also be formed called Sharria Has Infected Toledo! And the abbreviation for that is... um..... is.....
colin; you are too subtle for me but keep them comin'. we all need a good laugh at the republicans expense.
Francois - you've said nothing. What we're talking about today has nothing to do with the past ("stop trying to spend before you pay your bills") and everything to do with the future. When you refer to giving "a man that wants to take care of his family and friends free reign on 2 trillion to buy the election again by saying he will take care of all the porch sitters", it sure sounds like you're talking about W, but he's barred from being elected again. I therefore assume you are trying to refer to Obama (and failing miserably, by the way), but as I said earlier, neither this Prez nor any other one, has ever spent a dime of our money. That's 100% Congress. Again, I suggest you read the Constitution.
Mike - what you said is correct, but it doesn't even come close to addressing my question. We HAVE to pay our bills. Why are you talking about future expenditures? We're not trying to borrow so we can pay more! We're borrowing to pay for what we've already spent! You ate the meal. The bill arrived. PAY IT!
Mark - I have the Time at home, and I'll read the article tonite.
I am not sure if I have this correct, but should a person named Colon describe organizations like CRAP and Sharia Has Infected Toledo?
I am here all week......try the veal.
Now for reality..... Obama has proven he is incapable of running a lemonade stand given his penchant for bloviating and lack of action. A leader leads and Obama has clearly shown he can barely follow.
His plan (wink, wink) isn't even liked by Democrats and his carefully worded, cleverly vetted stump speech the other night took jabs at his own Senate Majority Leader Pinky Reid.
You can't make it up. What's worse is that the Republicans are using crayons again.
Kevin...let me understand your (self proclaimed) "educated, knowledgeable and informed guy" Reply...this has nothing to do with the past??? get your head out of the desert sand....The current admin has hit the deficit at a rate of 4 billion a day...BUSH 1 billion a day...Clinton 530 mil... That`s done..history my friend...debt we owe, your kids owe, but not the squatters....we want the spending to stop now! Cut welfare 15 to 20% limit 3 years on welfare, put them to work on the streets cleaning highways... will OBAMA lead by example and offer to take 45k a year and cut back on his benefits? NOPE!! I will pay for that not the lazy uneducated... And I WAS talking about OBAMA and his proven porch sitters that voted him in...He will scare them with the "republicans are evil" and he will promise my hard earned money to them for beng lazy....THAT`S WHY I DON`T WANT HIM WITH A BLANK CHECK BOOK....
hahahahah... the delusions never end.
@Alex2..typical post..start talking trash, call people names, insult a women and her daughter ... CLASS ACT.. BUT EXPECTED..
Nice rep you have there Dems...
I asked Francois what day of the week it was and his answer was "Idaho". Stop telling me you want the spending to stop. I get it, and I don't disagree. But past spending is past. Future spending is future. And future spending has NOTHING TO DO with raising the debt ceiling. Clearly, you don't get it, you don't want to get it, and you never will get it. Keep squawking about whatever Faux News is telling you to squawk about. How does that solve anything?
kevin you ask for an answer i give it you mock it...I can see your jealous hatred for the successful. (seeeee the light get a job...work for a living) I must have hit a nerve with the porch sitter comment...lol
YOU POST "What we're talking about today has nothing to do with the past"
I showed you it does.
YOU POST to mike..Why are you talking about future expenditures? We're not trying to borrow so we can pay more!
Obama wants more to pay for what he has spent and what he wants to spend to get reelected...trust me he will get it and spend it..
I want to know what you are talking about if its not about past or future???
TALKING THE TYPICAL TRASH THE DEMS (you) DO SHOWS ME WHAT I AM DEALING WITH.
44% of voters classify themselves as conservative on fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending and business regulation, while only 12% are fiscal liberals. The liberal 12% are trying like crazy to convince the rest of us to start being fiscal liberals which is not going to happen. The democratic party must start presenting plans to bend the deficit cost curve downward or else they will lose the independent vote. Up to now, liberal democrats have been using name-calling and demagoguery to try and keep the status quo. Republicans won the popular vote for the House in 2010 by a 52 to 45 percent margin. Republicans also carried the 2010 statewide popular vote for state Houses 351 to 184. Fiscal liberals must see the trends and they only have name-calling and demagoguery to try and stop it? Is that the best liberal democrats can do?
Francois - let me see if I can put this in the most simple terms possible, so that there's no further confusion on your part as to what my question is.
Facts - we went out to eat (PAST TENSE) and the waiter just gave us the bill (PRESENT TENSE).
Question - "should we pay the bill?" This is the question I've asked several times.
Not an Answer - "let's not go out to dinner anymore" (FUTURE TENSE). This is the response ("Idaho") you continue to give me.
If you can't answer the question, that's fine, but just say "I can't answer that" instead of changing the subject.
PS, there are only two possible answers. One is YES, pay the bills. The other is NO, don't pay the bills. I would think even you have a 50/50 shot at getting the answer correct.
Kevin, You are not as bright as you want to believe...
I answered but in real time .... YES PAY WHAT OBAMA HAS SPENT....NO DON`T GIVE HIM MORE TO SPEND..
IN YOUR WORDS, what that means...I will (we does not apply) pay the dinner bill because YOU can`t and yes I will have to take YOU again because YOU still are squatting and begging for more handouts from me......
CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER????
(as simple as it gets there KEV)
Kevin,
Poor Francois, he just doesn't understand that unlike the meal example future spending has also already been promised (think of those checks for our military, do they stop after the only the next one is written?) by CONGRESS...with some of the biggest spenders having been REPUBLICANS who want money spent on their stuff. Their stuff is code for spending that benefits country club members while s*rewing over the majority of the public...including Francois who will NEVER be admitted to their inner circle of friends no matter how much he begs.
@Mark, I see the problem..you said "POOR" FRANCOIS..
Do not worry my friend we will pay everyone we will not go broke overnight and everything will work out for our country.
The current scare tactics and blame Bush games are old.
Salary of the US President .............$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents ........$180,000
Salary of House/Senate .................$174,000
Salary of Speaker of the House .........$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ... $193,400
I think we found where the cuts should be made, lets start at the top.
Thank you, Francois, for answering both the question I asked (finally), and the one I didn't (several times).
You've said we WILL raise the ceiling (I agree), but do you agree that it should be? I think you do ("YES PAY WHAT OBAMA HAS SPENT"). I assume you agree that we also should pay for what Bush spent (which hasn't been paid for yet either).
I never asked about what type of expenses (or how much) we should incur going forward. I don't think I ever said anything that would have led anyone to believe I didn't think spending less on things, as well as on less things, going forward was a good idea. That is a completely different subject on which we possibly agree.
Your assumptions about me, and the things you've said about me personally, warrant no comment beyond this: the things you say about me - someone you don't know at all - say more about you and your maturity level than they ever could possibly say about me.
Oh Mikegino, I wish I cared more, because I could have fun with you. But I only care a smidge. Well, enough to point out what kind of irrelevant, racist, homophobic, potentially psychotic tick you are. Not that most of them didn't already know, given some other things you've posted on this site:
"Reid should be shot for treason."
"I'm trying to get my gay friends to see the error of their ways, but its an uphill battle."
"Here's a new slogan to go along with the blanket invitation to Gays, 'Come to Vegas and Get Stabbed to Death.'"
"The Death Panels will be coming in 2014 if Frank Marshall Davis AKA Obama gets reelected."
@teamster.."Lets cut CEOS' multi-million dollar wages, first"
I understand why you say that...because these people will not cut their rate and they are in the unions back pockets.
like i have said to you before, i am for unions that fly right not the unions that hold big business hostage..NFL/NBA asking for more to do the same thing...
People, People, People.......The United States Government is a NONPROFIT Organization!!!!!
One has only to look at the comments here and understand these are the people who vote in primaries to select candidates. It is no wonder at all that the representatives who are elected reflect these constituents and are incapable of working together.