c8162c9e
XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, rec.arts.tv, alt.politics.usa
From: bhasselback@gmail.com
On Jan 11, 6:39 am, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Last week's tax hikes, massive as they were, were far from sufficient to
> balance the federal budget. So the federal government continues to borrow
> money and soon will require Congress to authorize an increase in the
> legal limit on debt. As in 2011, Republicans say they plan to use this
> necessity as leverage to force cuts in spending.
>
> Democrats, for their part, are again suggesting two ways of working
> around the debt limit. The proposals are so implausible, we are skeptical
> that they can even be taken at face value.
>
> The first was floated last week by New York's Rep. Jerrold Nadler and is
> described by Politico: "President Barack Obama should order that a couple
> of platinum trillion-dollar coins be made and then have the coins
> deposited in to [sic] the Fed and, voilą, debt ceiling crisis averted."
>
> There's a statute authorizing the minting of platinum commemorative coins
> that is worded vaguely enough that it seems not to preclude coins in
> absurd denominations. The idea for a trillion-dollar instrument seems to
> have originated with a 1998 episode of "The Simpsons," titled "The
> Trouble With Trillions," in which the FBI sends Homer on a mission to
> recover a trillion-dollar bill, issued just after World War II (when a
> trillion was real money!) to fund reconstruction of Europe, but stolen by
> Mr. Burns.
>
> (Incidentally, from Wikipedia we learn that "the original draft of the
> plot was much different. Originally, Homer was to learn that he was a
> Native American, and would try to exploit it to not have to pay taxes.
> The idea had been going well for a few days, but the staff did not
> actually know whether Native Americans had to pay taxes." This plot, too,
> seems to be playing out in real life. The Boston Herald reports that
> Elizabeth Warren, who early in her academic career advertised herself as
> 1/32nd Cherokee, "won't be taking advantage of a chance to officially
> list herself as the Bay State's first Native American U.S. senator.")
>
> The coin idea was thrown around during the last debt-limit debate too. As
> NPR noted at the time, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman was dismissive:
> "It appears to be legally possible . . . to mint a $2 trillion platinum
> coin, which is ridiculous, but the whole debate is ridiculous, right?"
> Yet now Krugman is pushing the idea. But his arguments for it are so
> preposterous that we'd be sure he was putting us on if he'd ever shown
> any sign of having a sense of humor:
>
> One [objection] is that it would be undignified. Here's how
> to think about that: we have a situation in which a terrorist
> may be about to walk into a crowded room and threaten to blow
> up a bomb he's holding. It turns out, however, that the Secret
> Service has figured out a way to disarm this maniac--a way that
> for some reason will require that the Secretary of the Treasury
> briefly wear a clown suit. (My fictional plotting skills have
> let me down, but there has to be some way to work this in). And
> the response of the nervous Nellies is, "My god, we can't dress
> the secretary up as a clown!" Even when it will make him a hero
> who saves the day?
>
> As thought experiments go, this one is a real head-scratcher. For one
> thing, when it comes to preventing actual terrorism, Krugman thinks (or
> thought in 2009, writing about the Bush administration) that
> extraordinary measures not only are uncalled for but are "crimes." For
> another, the fictional scenario Krugman uses as an analogy is, if
> anything, even more fanciful than the idea of the trillion-dollar coin.
> Unlike Krugman, we have a fine imagination, but it fails us in trying to
> imagine a circumstance in which it is even remotely plausible to imagine
> a Treasury secretary stopping terrorism by wearing a clown suit. So in
> attempting to argue that the idea is worth taking seriously, Krugman only
> reinforces its absurdity.
>
> The other idea comes from the top House Democrat, as the Puffington Host
> reports:
>
> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urged the
> president on Sunday to . . . simply bypass the upcoming
> debate over raising the debt ceiling by deeming the entire
> cap unconstitutional.
>
> Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Pelosi offered her
> strongest endorsement to-date of the 14th Amendment option,
> which holds that Congress doesn't have the power to use the
> debt ceiling as a hostage-taking device because the validity
> of the debt "shall not be questioned."
>
> PuffHo quotes Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, as saying:
> "This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the
> president the power to ignore the debt ceiling--period," Not only is
> Carney right, Pelosi's argument is frivolous.
>
> The relevant section of the 14th Amendment is Section 4:
>
> 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. But neither the United States nor any
> State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in
> aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States,
> or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but
> all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal
> and void.
>
> The purpose was to ensure that Union debts from the Civil War would be
> paid, while creditors who lent money to the Confederacy would get
> stiffed. But the wording of the amendment makes clear its broader
> applicability.
>
> The 14th Amendment clearly does not authorize the executive branch to
> incur more debt without congressional approval. How could Pelosi possibly
> imagine it does? She seems to be construing "public debt" broadly to
> refer not only to payments due bondholders, but all money Congress has
> ordered to be spent.
>
> That flies in the face of Flemming v. Nestor (1960), in which the U.S.
> Supreme Court held that Social Security was "a noncontractual benefit,"
> so that Congress has the authority to modify its eligibility
> requirements. If Social Security payments were a public debt, the 14th
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
