Avoiding Armageddon

The negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, which threaten to roil markets around the globe should House Republicans and President Obama not come to an agreement, could be rendered moot by the president with a stroke of his pen.

John Dimsdale Here's how the argument goes: When Congress passes spending bills, it knows there isn't enough cash to pay for it all. By approving those obligations anyway, Congress is implicitly committing the government to borrow the money to meet them. By later imposing a limit on borrowing -- which is what the debt ceiling is -- Congress is illegally counteracting its own laws.

Norman Ornstein: Let's face it, the reality is having a separate vote on the debt ceiling makes no sense.

Norman Ornstein follows Congress and the executive branch for the American Enterprise Institute.

Ornstein: The debt ceiling is a reflection of the debts that you have already incurred. And every time Congress passes a budget, it's obligating itself to future debts.

So when it approves a budget, Congress requires the president to meet those obligations -- by borrowing if necessary. If he continues to borrow, the president would have to ignore the second congressional mandate: to not breach the debt limit.

In the inevitable legal challenge to such a decision, University of Baltimore law school professor Garrett Epps cites a clause in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

Garrett Epps: Section four says the validity of the public debt of the United States, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties in suppression of rebellion, shall not be questioned.

That amendment was adopted just after the Civil War when southern lawmakers were questioning the union army's debts.

Epps: That language would provide a serious basis for going outside the congressional debt ceiling process.

But snubbing the debt ceiling would be a "nuclear option," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. He doubts President Obama will go for it.

"Diversionary tactics"

John "Ohio Tropics" Boehner decries the "tactics" of certain Democrats to use "straw men" such as "the party of 'no'" and, ohmygod, "Rush Limbaugh" to distract Americans from Republicans very real solutions for solving our economic meltdown. Solutions, he seems to forget, that led to the meltdown in the first place. Sorry, that was merely a diversion.

My point is that Boehner is all over "certain Democrats," but he takes great pains to avoid calling out "that one."

In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

[...]

And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh

[...]

This strategy did not develop out of thin air. Democratic pollsters began laying the groundwork for this effort last fall.

[...]

President Obama has said that we must change the way Washington operates in order to address the unprecedented challenges of today. I hope that those inside and close to the administration begin heeding his advice

[...]

If only President Obama, and the majority of Americans who support him, would wake up and smell the Republican solutions.

Brain dead

House Minority leader John Boehner in response to Obama's call for a possible $700 billion stimulus package the President-elect wants sitting on his desk on Jan. 20.

"Democrats can't seem to stop trying to outbid each other — with the taxpayers' money," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "We're in tough economic times. Folks are hurting. But the American people know that more Washington spending isn't the answer."

Wow. Perhaps he'd support printing buttons that read, "Whip Deflation Now," or WDN.