David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey have an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal.
Allow me to "Barkerize" it as a stand-alone newsbite.
* * * * * *
Three false arguments pushed hard by the Obama
administration and accepted on faith by the media and much of the political
establishment must be laid to rest if the American people are to understand the
issues at stake in the federal "debt ceiling" debate.
The first is that Congress's failure to raise the debt
ceiling — the amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow at
any given time — will cause a default on the national debt.
* THIS... IS... FALSE...
* THIS... IS... A... LIE...
The second is that federal entitlement programs are
constitutionally protected from spending cuts.
* THIS TOO IS FALSE; THIS TOO IS A LIE.
The third is that the president can raise the debt
ceiling on his own authority.
* HE CAN'T!
To take up the first canard: Contrary to White House
claims, Congress's refusal to permit new borrowing by raising the debt ceiling
limit will not trigger a default on America's outstanding public debt, with
calamitous consequences for our credit rating and the world's financial system.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment provides that "the
validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall
not be questioned"; this prevents Congress from repudiating the federal
government's lawfully incurred debts.
* A LITTLE HISTORY, FOLKS... (READ ON!)
The original concern of this provision was to guarantee
the integrity of federal debts incurred during and immediately after the Civil
War (while the debts of the Confederacy were nullified permanently), and to
ensure that a newly "reconstructed" Congress — to which the Southern
states were readmitted—would not reverse these decisions. However, the
amendment's language was not limited to the Civil War-related debts. In Perry
v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court made clear that the provision
"indicates a broader connotation" protecting the nation's debts as a
whole. This means that a failure to raise the debt ceiling — to prevent new
borrowing — does not and cannot put America's current creditors at risk. So
long as this government exists, and barring a further constitutional amendment,
those creditors must be paid.
* MEANING THEY CAN'T BE SCREWED LIKE OBAMA SCREWED THE
CHRYSLER BOND HOLDERS.
Nor are they at risk in practice, since the federal
government's roughly $200 billion in tax revenue per month is more than
sufficient to service existing debts.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
[T]he federal government's roughly $200 billion in tax
revenue per month is more than sufficient to service existing debts.
(*WIPING MY HANDS*)
If the executive chose to act irresponsibly and
unconstitutionally and failed to make any debt payments when they come due,
debt-holders would be able to go to the Court of Federal Claims and promptly
obtain a money judgment.
* UNLESS OF COURSE THE COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS DECIDES TO
SIMPLY IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION AS DOES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON ISSUE AFTER
ISSUE...
(*SHRUG*)
* OBAMACARE ANYONE...???
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Second, despite White House claims that Congress must
raise the debt ceiling to pay the bills it has incurred, the obligations
protected as "debts" by the 14th Amendment do not include entitlement
programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
* YEP!
These programs are not part of the "public
debt," which consist of loans that are made to the federal government
through bonds and similar financial instruments.
* CORRECTAMUNDO...!!!
Entitlement programs are instead political measures that
are fully subject to the general rule that one Congress cannot, by simple
legislation, prevent a future Congress from making cuts.
(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
* FOLKS... THIS IS STUFF YOU SHOULD HAVE LEARNED IN 7TH
GRADE.
This fundamental and vital distinction is clear from both
the text and the drafting history of the 14th Amendment's Section 4. The
wording of the section was revised before its enactment and ratification to
replace the term federal "obligations" with that of
"debts," a far more narrow (and manageable) category. The distinction
was recognized by the Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), which
involved the power of Congress to modify Social Security benefits. The court
noted that entitlements and "contractual arrangements, including those to
which a sovereign itself is a party, remain subject to subsequent legislation
by the sovereign."
* MEANING THAT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE YOU'RE
"OWED.." THAT YOU'VE "EARNED..." (*SMIRK*) CONGRESS CAN
STRIP IT FROM YOU ANY TIME IT WANTS TO!
Congress can reduce a wide range of payments to various
beneficiaries at any time by amending the statutes that authorize them or
simply by failing to appropriate sufficient funds to pay for them. Nor does
Congress have any legal or constitutional obligation to borrow money to pay for
entitlements.
* YEP...
Third, assertions - most recently made by Nancy Pelosi -
that the president can rely on Section 4 as a pretext for raising the debt
ceiling by himself are manifestly incorrect and constitutionally dangerous.
Section 4 grants no power whatsoever to the president — instead, the 14th
Amendment grants Congress the "power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article."
* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... NANCY PELOSI IS DANGEROUSLY STUPID.
More fundamentally, this argument — which has been
tentatively advanced and then tentatively withdrawn by the White House, both
during the 2011 debt-ceiling battle and in the last several weeks — is contrary
to the language, structure and history of the Constitution.
* AS IF OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS (AND FRANKLY MORE THAN A
HANDFUL OF REPUBLICANS) GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Like the British Parliament before it, Congress controls
the power of the purse — the authority to raise taxes, borrow money and direct
how revenues are spent.
* AT LEAST IN THEORY. HERE'S THE PROBLEM, THOUGH: AMERICA
IS NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN UNDER THE RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. IT'S NOT! SO
WHILE THE AUTHORS OF THIS PIECE ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ON THE FACTS... ON THE
LAW... I WOULDN'T HOLD MY BREATH EXPECTING THE LAW TO PROTECT US FROM OBAMA'S
UNILATERAL ACTIONS.
In particular, Article I, Section 2, grants to Congress
the power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." There
is no similar grant to the president. Any effort by the chief executive to borrow
money without congressional action would be every bit as injurious to our
constitutional system as presidentially ordered taxation.
* AND...???
* SO...???
* WORST CASE (FOR OBAMA) IS THAT THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS
CAN GET ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THROUGH THE HOUSE... AT WHICH POINT HARRY REID
AND THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WITH THE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THE MEDIA AND
ACADEMIA AND PERHAPS EVEN THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WOULD BACK OBAMA UNDER
THE "LOGIC" THAT "DESPERATE TIMES DEMAND DESPERATE
MEASURES."
* FOLKS... I'M ABSOLUTELY 100% SERIOUS WHEN I SAY TO YOU
THAT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE AMERICA IS NO LONGER A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.
True enough, the "debt ceiling" is not a
constitutional requirement. Congress could choose instead (as used to be the
case during most of our history) to vote separately on the issuance of each
federal debt instrument. However... nowhere in the Constitution is the
president authorized to borrow or spend money without congressional action,
except insofar Congress itself may permit.
* AND IF CONGRESS - MEANING THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED
SENATE AS WELL AS THE RINO-CONTROLLED HOUSE - DOESN'T STOP THE PRESIDENT...
WELL... THEN THAT COUNTS AS "PERMISSION" IN THE REAL WORLD. (THINK
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S "DECISION" TO GO TO WAR IN LIBYA...)
Once these false arguments are cleared away, the real
issue in the debt-ceiling debate becomes clear: the proper level of federal
spending. Should Congress fail to increase the debt ceiling as much as the
president wants, the effective result would be major government spending cuts,
with payments on public debt excluded.
* IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! FOLKS... THE RINOs ENSURED THAT
PATRIOTS MISSED THEIR WINTER/SPRING 2011 DEADLINE TO DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND
AND DEFEND IT.
* FOLKS... IT'S OVER...
This is tough medicine and not to be administered
lightly. If Republicans are serious about winning this debate, they must strive
to convince the American people that such spending cuts are necessary, given
President Obama's openly articulated unwillingness to implement any meaningful
spending cuts other than defense and his clear preference for limitless
borrowing.
* JOHN BOEHNER...? CONVINCE ANYONE OF ANYTHING...? MITCH
MCCONNELL...??? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME...!!!
* FOLKS... IT'S OVER...
Whether they can succeed in this task is unclear. But the
public must at least be allowed to ponder these vital issues without being
misled by false claims involving debt default, the nature of federal
obligations, and which branch of government is in charge of the public fisc.
* "THE PUBLIC." (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*) DO THE
AUTHORS MEAN THE SAME "PUBLIC" WHICH JUST RE-ELECTED OBAMA AND
STRENGTHENED DEMOCRAT CONTROL OF THE SENATE AND LESSENED GOP CONTROL OF THE
HOUSE? THAT "PUBLIC?"
No comments:
Post a Comment