Anyone else listening to this? It’s on live as I type.
I missed the opening remarks, but what I’ve heard so far, with relation to the 14th Amendment, isn’t entirely persuasive.
It seems the president just doesn’t want to let the Republicans off the hook (to the extent that they are ON the hook, which is debatable since the Tea Partiers don’t care). In other words, he doesn’t want the power to fix it himself.
But on the other hand, do WE want the president to have that power — something that is debatable until he tries to assert it, and we see whether it holds up before the Supremes, and in world markets?
The power to appropriate funds belongs to the Congress. Is it really a good idea to cut them out of the loop, just because so many of the present members are grossly irresponsible?
Must give us pause. Especially the limited and Constitutional government types among us…
Related Posts
I don’t think his “say you’re buying a house” analogy worked, with relation to T-bills…
He quoted Albright’s “indispensable nation” line (without attribution).
As y’all know, I love it when presidents say things like that. Recognizing our exceptionalism and all…
“I have faults. Michelle will tell you.”
I bet she will.
I hate that meme. He’s used it too often. Makes her sound like a shrew….
“I’m sure the Chinese don’t mind that I’m not there right now…” Interesting comment, from a diplomatic perspective…
Listening but not learning anything new. In press conferences, he tones down the partisanship and then has his flunkies later go around claiming we are on the brink of collapse that only Democrats can rescue us from. I say let them own it all. The Obamacare debacle is starting to see some cracks in the party faithful. Even Jon Stewart took off one of his normal kid gloves to interview HHS Sebelius as she crashed and burned on the Daily Show last night.
Hostage taking, ransom taking… it’s called democracy, Mr. President. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are just as culpable for avoiding negotiations and playing politics.
Speaking of Nancy Pelosi — I haven’t heard much, if anything, from her during this. She still out there? Did she pass out from the Republicans taking up all the oxygen with their internal differences?
She’s going to save the day, as usual. The House will pass the Senate’s clean CR and a clean raising of the debt ceiling because Rep. Nancy Pelosi — the real deal, not the cardboard cutout — will make the discharge petition happen so that the House will vote without the Speaker’s permission. Pelosi 2016!
“We don’t get to pick and choose depends on which party likes what” in response to a question about piecemeal funding of individual budget bills to fund NIH. National Parks. etc. But I guess it is okay to pick and choose which pieces of Obamacare to implement or delay.
Actually, Mr. President, we DO get to pick and choose which programs to fund — or at least, the Congress does, and you get to sign or veto it.
This was in reference to his odd response as to why he doesn’t support some of those measures Republicans are trying to pass to fund this or that agency. You know, the ones popular with their base.
Yes, the president is right that it is wrong to fund some vital programs and not others. But make the argument that it’s irresponsible, grossly so. But you (the two political branches taken as a whole) DO get to choose…
Of course the president is right on that point. The GOPs logic on that point just doesn’t fly. Here’s what we can do. Each party can pick something they want to fund. The Republicans can fund the parks; the Democrats Obamacare. Then we can go down the list until the entire government is funded.
Or we could just past a clean CR.
Paying the nation’s bills is not the same as appropriating.
Congress appropriates, then a minority (that includes Duncan, Gowdy and Mulvaney) decides not to allow the President to pay the bills they have run up. DeMint and Scott are all in with this tactic as well.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Because it is a continual chicken-and-egg game played by both sides. First we have to raise the debt ceiling because “we already appropriated the funds”. Then when the debt ceiling is raised and Republicans say “Okay, NOW can we talk about cutting spending to reduce the deficits that contribute to the debt?” the response is, “Oh no, you guys want to kill old people and harm children. We have to spend even more.”
“I’m not budgin’ when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States…”
Is it just me, or is he droppin’ his Gs a lot more than usual?
He does that when he wants to appear more human. See also, Michelle, faults
When the president abruptly ends a press availability and leaves the podium, as he just did, does someone hold up a sign telling the reporters to “All shout different things at the same time, so you sound like a bunch of babbling loonies to the folks at home”…?
The WashPost video feed is still on, showing some media types outside the White House breaking down equipment and batting the breeze.
One of the guys on the screen was just saying, “Is this your water? Is this your water? Is this your water? Well, go f__k yourself.”
I guess it’s OK to use that, since it was on TV and all, right?
Meanwhile, a Marine guard stands motionless at the door in the background — perfectly dutiful, as though he knew he was on camera. Even though no one else seems to realize it…
The marine just opened the door for a couple of civilians. Every movement like clockwork, perfectly correct, as though he were on parade.
He’s alone now. And still as perfect as though he knew he had an audience. You can watch him here.
The President (as Executive) must pay the bills. The bond interest, principal repayments and pension obligations have priority, according to the Constitution. Right now interest on bonds runs about 10% of federal revenues.
Failure to raise the debt ceiling will NOT result in a default on our obligations, unless the President chooses to break the law and not pay the bond interest and pension payments.
Failure to raise the debt ceiling WILL immediately result in a balanced budget. And the Democrats in congress and the White House are scared that the American public will figure that out.
OK, but wait…
Yes, the president has to pay the bills. But he can only pay bills using money appropriated by the Congress, right? Is there a constitutional lawyer in the house?
I’m not following you at all on the “Failure to raise the debt ceiling WILL immediately result in a balanced budget” thing.
The president is right, is he not, that he ALONE can’t pick and choose what to fund and what not to fund. He has to obey the dictates of Congress.
You seem to be proposing that, in order to run under a balanced budget, the president can just choose to pay some bills and not others, just because the debt limit wasn’t raised.
I don’t think he can do that. I think the Congress has to pass a balanced budget for the president to operate under one.
Am I right? I mean, this is a money thing, so I don’t claim to be expert…
OK, I will try to be clearer. Constitutionally, the President (or the SecTreas) must pay the debt obligations of the government first. Principal & Interest payments on the debt, and pensions are all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, section 4.
Only after the debts and pensions are paid, can new money be spent. New money would be stuff like funding current federal employee payrolls and new federal projects.
In the absence of Congress raising the debt ceiling, the president would legally only be able to continue to pay the debts as they come due, or roll them over, and to pay the interest on the debt. New spending would be impaired to the point of not adding to the (ceiling limited) debt.
Imagine a family’s situation at home. You have certain bills that might take priority over other spending items. First you pay the mortgage, then the car payment, then you buy food, clothes, whatnot. If you have extra money in the budget, you might pay down the CC balance, or go out to the movies, or on a vacation.
Now imagine that we are all living in a house together. We have a big mortgage a fat car payment, and an ENORMOUS balance on our family credit card. We have enough income to easily cover the mortgage and car payment. These are secured debt, since the bank could ostensibly come and foreclose on the house and reposess the car. So we pay these on time every month.
Now we take a bit of our income and use it to pay this month’s expenses for necessities. Food, doctor copays, clothes, etc. We also make the minimum payment on our credit card.
If we have any money left over after the secured debt and living expenses, we have some disposable income. We could either go to Disneyworld, or we could go to the movies, or we could pay down the MasterCard balance. If the M/C is “maxed out” and we don’t have enough cash to pay for the trip, we don’t go to Disney. If we don’t have enough cash to go to the movies, and the card’s maxed out, we don’t go to the movies.
Basically, Obama is calling up the bank (Congress) and asking them to raise the credit limit on the MasterCard. Congress is balking.
It doesn’t mean we won’t pay the mortgage on the house.
It doesn’t mean we won’t pay the car note.
It doesn’t mean we will starve.
It doesn’t mean we’ll go naked.
It doesn’t mean we won’t go to the doctor.
It doesn’t mean we won’t pay the minimum balance due on the credit card.
We just might have to stay home instead of going to DisneyWorld or the movies.
^^^ What he said.
It really IS that simple Silence. The debt limit was instituted for a reason, wasn’t it? It was put in place to prevent excessive borrowing to pay for deficit spending. The fundamental question is how do you lower the deficits to the point where a surplus can be applied to the debt to keep it below the ceiling. You can cut spending, raise taxes, or both. If you choose none of the above, then you have to convince a majority of our representatives that we need to raise our credit limit even further to cover spending we cannot pay for today.
Want to get some breathing room on the ceiling? Cut foreign payments first. Then cut farm subsidies. Close some overseas military bases.. like the billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq. Delay building some weapon systems for a few years.
And here’s why it’s hard to reduce spending. You have to have agreement.
The congressman from Blythewood, the Honorable Mr. Ross, proposes the following:
However, the obstinate Mr. Warthen, representing West Columbia, objects, saying:
In other words — it’s the easiest thing for an individual to balance the federal budget. Doug can do it; I can do it. (At least, it wasn’t hard the last time I tried one of those programs that lets you do it yourself.)
But a budget doesn’t reflect the priorities of an individual. It is arrived at by a bunch of people who represent many very different sets of priorities.
That’s why it’s hard.
Yeah, but at least you’re talking to each other. That’s more than the people in the fever-swamp on the Potomac are doing right now.
Absolutely true.
Believe it or not, I think Doug and I could sit down and work out the budget. It probably wouldn’t take us all that long.
But then, neither of us would be carrying water for a party. And neither of us would be worried about a primary challenge.
We’d just do it.
Also, following up on what Bryan said…
Yes, they’re supposed to be talking to each other. Under the system envisioned by the Framers, all different views are to be represented, but then they’re supposed to interact through a deliberative process.
And deliberation is what has broken down.
Doug believes that term limits are the solution. I disagree. But here’s something that would be close to a silver bullet: a nice Supreme Court decision ruling that districts obviously drawn to protect incumbents, and even more obviously drawn to protect a particular party’s “ownership” of the district, are unconstitutional.
Not sure how that could happen, though. Unfortunately, the Framers considered parties so unthinkable that they didn’t fully take the problem into account in the Constitution.
And then, Hamilton and Madison went right out and started parties, and invented the American style of polarization…
OK, you had me up until the mortgage thing.
I get that the president has to meet the debt obligations.
But I don’t see how funding programs duly authorized by Congress, which the president is obligated to run from day to day, equates to going to Disney World.
Paying the bills for programs authorized by Congress is like paying your taxes. You’re required by law to do it. Unlike going to Disney World.
Taxes are owed from the past. Plenty of government spending is for down the road and could be cut – by executive order or by Congress over the next couple months. There are BILLIONS that could be eliminated tomorrow except for individual Congressmen who have to keep lobbyists happy. The money hasn’t been spent yet, just allocated.
It’s not the President’s job to figure out which appropriation — of the ones Congress ordered him to execute — he should execute and which he should ignore. It’s Silence’s job.
Nice! I missed you, Michael!
“Is there a constitutional lawyer in the house?” -Brad W.
Certainly, there are Republican constitutional lawyers in the House (of Representatives).
There is no reason constitutional lawyers should have a monopoly on interpretation of our U.S. Constitution, however, as amply illustrated by the frequency of 5:4 Supreme Court decisions among lawyers associates who ARE CONSTITUTIONAL lawyers approved by the ABA to sit in our highest court.
Please, remember the lesson taught to the ignorant, unwashed masses by the model that empowers the associate justices. If you want to argue that is not sufficient (we know you do)
please feel at liberty to take the matter up with Trey Gowdy from SC.
If you expect your readership to kowtow to the superior opinion of lawyers because you do,
you might first wish to overcome the fact that there is no agreement among them. Go from there and we will be keenly interested. Just saying…
Huh?
Juan hates lawyers so much that he disputes that they even might know more about the law…
The president breaks the law either way. I say it’s time to bring back the trillion dollar coin idea.
Didn’t listen. Did anyone ask him a question about how it saved money to close the Vietnam Memorial and the WWII memorial?
Did anyone ask a question about the total fail-boat that is the ACA?
Nope… they leave the heavy lifting to Jon Stewart. Anyway, the President selects reporters from a list already prepared by press secretary Jay Carney. You know that if you want to make the list going forward, you can’t ask any tough questions.
It’s funny how much Obama has become like George Bush. Where is all the freakin’ change he promised? It’s all politics and partisanship.
Doug, you’re not thinking like a reporter.
If you don’t get to answer the questions that are most relevant, there’s no point in being on the list.
An opportunity like this to question the president is rare. You don’t waste it on banalities. You ask the questions that you believe really need to be asked. The ones you can’t get answered from the horse’s mouth most days.
Such as the one that was asked about why the president doesn’t OK the bills the House GOP keeps offering to fund certain parts of the government. You don’t think that was a hard one? The president did, because he didn’t answer it very well.
I guess the president could do like Reagan, and call on the women wearing red dresses.
Like, come to think of it, the pretty young woman standing around afterwards on that inadvertent video feed after the presser…
But no question about the ACA rollout? It’s tied into the debt ceiling/shutdown impasse, because it’s what the GOP really wants to change, and it’s been a total mess. Seems like it would have merited a question. Something like:
Hey, Prez, the GOP wants to delay your individual mandate a year. Would you consider that since it’s freaking impossible to actually buy health insurance on a broken website?
They all basically asked the same question.
Nor did anyone ask about corporate welfare, the bloated defense budget, the border “Wall” or a host of other issues wrapped up in the budget. Somehow folks can’t seem to grasp the point here. Laws are passed by congress and signed into law. The law specifies a funding level consisting of all the various parts that have been authorized by many years of congresses. It’s an all or nothing proposition at the start of the fiscal year. No individual part of the budget is more deserving of consideration at this particular time than any other part. So it was quite appropriate that the enormously effective ACA was not brought up during the press conference. Just as would not have been appropriate to talk about than the utter failure of corporate welfare.
Now Boehner is speaking on this same feed…
… and, he’s done…
Basically, all I heard was, in essence … we want to talk, but the president won’t talk, unless we surrender unconditionally, and it’s unfair for him to set that condition.
Lindsey Graham suggests sending Obama and Boehner to Gitmo to hash it out.
Here’s another way that Obama can buy us a bit of time. The Treasury Department allegedly holds 147.2 million (holds up pinky to corner of mouth) Troy ounces of gold in a vault at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Since our currency is no longer convertible to gold, as we have fully gone off the gold standard, we gain nothing by holding this gold, and incur storage costs.
Gold closed today on the New York market at about $1319/oz. Carry the one, and the Treasury stake is worth about about $194 billion in dollars. Obama & Lew could begin liquidating the bullion reserve and use it to push the debt ceiling day of reckoning back a few days.
In fact, the POTUS and SecTreas are legally obligated to do everything in their power to make the interest payments, principal payments on the debt, and pay pension payments. Therefore, if the day of reckoning arrives without congressional approval to lift the ceiling, they should immediately begin selling gold into the spot market to raise funds.
To carry my earlier family analogy a little further…. It’d be like going and selling your unwanted jewelry or pawning grandma’s good sterling…
Releasing that much gold into the market would surely cause the price to drop, wouldn’t it?
I say we run a national lottery with the winner getting $10 billion dollars in gold tax free. I’m feeling lucky.
If people knew that you were selling, it would drop the price of gold. You would have to trickle it into the market over a number of days.
I would suggest getting a kit with a prepaid envelope from a reputable gold buyer and sending it in via the USPS or FedEx, as seen on TV. They’ll send your payment within 24 hours, which is good because we kind of need the cash pretty quick.
Pro Tip: If you are mailing $194,000,000,000 in gold, spring for the insurance.