Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
The Daily Debt-Ceiling Drama
Maybe we should just call it DDD from now on, and save everyone a couple seconds of reading time. In any case, it's the story that just won't go away, especially since not much else is happening in the world of politics.
Yesterday, the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) filed a lawsuit against Joe Biden and Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen. Here is NAGE's argument in its own words:
The Debt Limit Statute is unconstitutional because it puts the President in a quandary to exercise discretion to continue borrowing to pay for the programs which Congress has heretofore duly authorized and for which Congress has appropriated funds or to stop borrowing and to determine which of these programs the President, and not the Congress, will suspend, curtail, or cancel altogether...
Unless and until the Debt Limit Statute is amended or revised to allow Congress to determine the priority of payments among specific programs once the limit is reached, members of Plaintiff NAGE will suffer irreparable injury from layoffs, furloughs, and loss of employment that are taken without any legitimate authority by the President
The first part says the debt limit, as currently constituted, is unconstitutional. And the second part lays out NAGE's standing to ask a court to intervene.
This certainly adds an interesting new wrinkle to the whole situation, doesn't it? It is entirely plausible that the whole game of debt-ceiling chicken could be delayed for weeks or months while this is worked out. That is to say, if a judge agrees to hear the case, that judge could well declare that the debt ceiling is in abeyance until there is a resolution. And if the case goes up the chain to the court of appeals, and then the Supreme Court? Could take a while. Note that venue-shopping is a game that everyone can play, and NAGE has chosen the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for this case. That court currently has 11 judges, nine of which are Democratic appointees, and zero of which are Trump appointees. Appeals from that District go to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which currently has four Democratic appointees and two open seats waiting for Biden judges.
So, what is NAGE's goal here? One possibility is that the organization is interested in helping the White House out, and creating a potential court-driven solution to the current mess. A second possibility is that they are trying to save their own necks. We'll address that more fully in short order, though for now we'll say that both of these could very well be correct.
When it comes to end-runs around Congress—specifically, the Republican-controlled House, and the Senate with its filibuster—the two options that keep coming up are the $1 trillion coin and invoking the Fourteenth Amendment. These have gotten lots of coverage, including from us (primarily because we think that doing something very bold would be smart politics). That said, quite a few outlets have given the impression that these are the only end-run-type options, and that's simply not the case.
Before we get to alternate approaches (and we will address three of them), let's address why the White House might not be enthused about the high-profile chess moves. The $1 trillion coin(s) would almost certainly be legal, and would be very, very bold. There would even be an opportunity for some primo messaging, by putting, say, Harriet Tubman's face on one side of the coin and, say, Eleanor Roosevelt's on the other. Or maybe Jane Roe's. However, Biden is not exactly known for his flashy, aggressive maneuvering. He is also likely leery of setting a new precedent, and putting this arrow in the next Republican president's quiver ("President DeSantis announces construction of Disneyland alternative; to be funded with $1 trillion coin featuring face of Rep. Matt Gaetz"). Also, even if it was well understood that the expansion of the currency supply was to be temporary, the move would almost certainly roil the markets, and you never know what happens at that point.
As to the Fourteenth Amendment, let us once again reiterate the relevant passage:
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.
There are some pretty good legal arguments for invoking this portion of the Constitution, but also some pretty good arguments against. As reader J.L. in Chicago pointed out recently, the amendment refers to "debt," not necessarily to spending (on the other hand, if veterans pensions' are a "debt," per the language of the Amendment, then surely so too are entitlements like Social Security and Medicare). Beyond that, as J.L. also pointed out, is that sub-clause "authorized by law." One could argue that when Congress passed the budget, it authorized the spending therein, but one could also argue that when Congress adopted the debt ceiling bill in 1917, it created a mechanism by which that authorization could be withdrawn. The point here is that it would be a messy legal fight that would end up before the Supreme Court, and that Biden could well lose, which would be very bad for him. Oh, and this maneuver would probably also roil the economic sector.
And so, let's move on to three alternatives that are less bold, and so presumably less sexy, but are rather more plausible. We'll list them from most likely to least likely:
- Juggling Act: Keep in mind that when the debt-ceiling limit is hit, the federal government
will not become unable to pay all of its obligations, just some of them. Since a default is unthinkable, undoubtedly
Yellen would keep servicing the nation's debts. Then, she and Biden would have to get together and decide what else to
keep paying. Social Security? Yes. Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's
salaries? Maybe not. It's not entirely clear that the executive branch has the power to pick and choose like this, but
there's really nothing that explicitly says it can't. And it wouldn't run afoul of the debt ceiling, since that law says only the
government can't borrow more money without permission, not that it can't spend the money it's still bringing in.
What this would amount to, then, is a partial government shutdown. And one that Biden could pin squarely on the Republicans: "I'm doing everything I can to keep as much of the government running as possible, and as soon as Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell allow me to get the rest up and running, I'll do it." NAGE has presumably guessed that this is a probable solution, and so this might well be part (or all) of the motivation for their lawsuit. - Derogation: If Biden wants to argue that the 1917 debt ceiling bill is no longer valid,
the law he should probably point to us not the Fourteenth Amendment but the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Recall that when the debt ceiling was imposed, the president took the lead in the budget process. But after Richard
Nixon started abusing that privilege, Congress asserted itself as the primary manager of the budget (the president's
annual budget is now basically just a suggestion or a template). There is an excellent case to be made that the 1974
bill implicitly repealed the 1917 bill (the fancy term for this is "derogation"), and that instead of the debt ceiling
being something separate from the annual budget, the debt ceiling has been set by the annual budget since 1974.
- Consol Bonds: This is veering back into "exotic solutions" territory, but it's viable. The
legislation that creates the debt ceiling says that the Treasury cannot increase the amount of principal the
government is obligated to pay without Congress' approval. It does not, however, say that the government cannot acquire
new spending obligations. And that's pretty much the loophole that
consol bonds
are designed to exploit. The buyers of consol bonds give money to the government, and in exchange those buyers are
entitled to interest payments for as long as the bond is in existence. However, the bonds can only be redeemed at
the option of the government. In other words, they are perpetual, and so do not add to the principal of the national
debt as that term is defined by law (consol bonds are considered equity—effectively ownership of part of the
federal government—and not debt).
Since the buyers of consol bonds can never be certain when they will get their money back (1 year? 5 years? 50 years?), they generally have to be paid a handsome rate of return in order to invest. So, if this was being used as a long-term solution, it could get expensive. However, if it's used as a temporary stop-gap, that won't be too much of a problem. And there is no question that it's legal; the U.S. regularly issued consol bonds from 1877 to 1930.
It is good news for McCarthy that he got a debt-ceiling bill passed, and that he has the backing of McConnell and most Senate Republicans. But given that Biden has plenty of options for not giving in, but not defaulting either, we think he still very clearly has the upper hand here. (Z)
What Is McConnell Doing?
Before we leave the debt ceiling behind (for today), let us take a look at one more question that has some politics-watchers scratching their heads: Why is Mitch McConnell backing Kevin McCarthy's play here? You can point out that they are both Republicans, and indeed that is what we wrote yesterday. However, they often fail to see eye-to-eye, and McConnell is considerably less willing to drive the U.S. economy over a cliff than McCarthy and his Freedom Caucus overlords are.
Politico has an article on this, and the answer is... pretty much what you expect. McConnell is a chameleon, perhaps even more so that his colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), albeit with much more sophistication and subtlety. And the Minority Leader has noticed that his Party has moved sharply rightward, and so too has the conference he leads (triggering, you will recall, a leadership challenge last year). McConnell also realizes that he's got to be able to work with McCarthy, and supporting the Speaker on a matter of such significance will win a lot of buddy-buddy capital for the Kentuckian.
That said, McConnell's support really amounts to not undercutting McCarthy, and that's about it. The Minority Leader is not taking much of a role in negotiations, leaving that the McCarthy and Biden. McConnell is also savvy enough to know that, whatever happens, there is absolutely no way that the President will allow the U.S. to default on its debts. So, the Turtle can make a show of supporting McCarthy and the far-right elements of the GOP without actually incurring much in the way of risk. Taking advantage of opportunities like this is how McConnell became the longest-serving leader of Senate Republicans in U.S. history. (Z)
Disney Returns Fire, Yet Again, In Its Pissing Match with Ron DeSantis
There are certain entities you just don't mess with. For example, former Indian Army Chief of Staff Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw once observed that: "If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he is a Gurkha." So, we'd say the Gurkhas are probably best left alone, if you know what's good for you. Same thing with Mossad, the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations. If you trust Jim Croce's judgment, then Big Jim Walker is also on the list. And definitely, you don't mess with the Mouse.
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) clearly did not learn this lesson, because he just won't drop his war against Disney. After he got outmaneuvered on the Reedy Creek Improvement District matter, the Governor used his ability to command the state legislature to do his bidding in order to get legislation passed that attempts to reverse Disney's actions. They've filed suit, arguing that he's abusing his power in retaliatory fashion. They've got pretty good evidence for this, since in the book he just published, DeSantis brags about how awesome he is because he's using his powers to punish Disney. This may play well with some anti-woke voters, but it's not likely to play well with a judge or a jury.
Yesterday, Disney amended its filing against DeSantis, adding more verbiage about how this is a targeted campaign of harassment and vengeance. In other words, the company is pulling out all the stops. One can scarcely imagine a more foolish, more clumsy abuse of power than we are seeing here. Given that DeSantis is clearly unable to back down, his only hope here would seem to be that the lawsuit drags out until such point that it's no longer his responsibility. That would be a pretty long-running suit, however, particularly since we may well be entering into summary judgment territory here. (Z)
Wall Street Has Soured on DeSantis
Wall Street would desperately like a presidential candidate upon whom it can lavish money and other support in 2024. That candidate is probably not Joe Biden, as he is a fan of higher corporate taxes and more regulation. And it's probably not Donald Trump, since he's an unpredictable and destabilizing force who may well be in prison by this time next year. So, the business types looked to Ron DeSantis as their great, white hope. And they dumped a bunch of cash into his super PAC, at least for a while.
Now, however? Not so much. The business wing is no longer enthused about the Governor, with one of the folks who spoke to Politico describing him as a "really weak option." Their biggest concern is that they are all about return on investment, and since he looks more and more like someone who can't get the Republican nomination (much less win the White House), there isn't much return to be had there. He could bounce back, obviously, but until he shows signs of a big turnaround, he's going to have to rely mostly on the funds his PAC has already banked.
The business types are also concerned about the Disney situation. The linked article doesn't delve into why they're concerned, but it really doesn't have to, because it's fairly obvious. First, DeSantis has made it plain as day that if he has to choose between "business" and "fighting the culture wars," he will choose the latter, business be damned. That is not where tycoons like their politicians' priorities to be.
The second issue is that DeSantis' handling of Disney is really, really troubling. Remember, all that the Mouse did was push back a little on the "Don't Say Gay" bill. The Governor could easily have ignored that, but instead he went to war. And every time Disney countermoves (and makes very clear the Governor is being outfoxed or, at least, outmoused), he just doubles down. Does this approach sound familiar? It's a carbon copy of the playbook run by Richard Nixon. And we know how that worked out.
By contrast, excepting "stop the steal," even Donald Trump had the ability to recognize a losing battle and to move on to some new conflict/distraction. If a person has even less self-control, and less emotional maturity than The Donald? That's very frightening indeed, especially for a business community that values stability above nearly all else. (Z)
Rabbit Food or Junk Food?
Axios has an interesting item about Joe Biden's dietary habits. He's quite famous, of course, for his love of ice cream. And, as it turns out, it's not just ice cream, it's pretty much all carbs. Given his druthers, he'd apparently dine almost exclusively on pizza, pasta, peanut butter sandwiches, quesadillas and desserts. And while the President doesn't drink liquor, he does consume more than his fair share of orange Gatorade.
Meanwhile, despite it being something of a cliché, First Lady Jill Biden is constantly after her husband to choose more healthy options. She pretty much does whatever she can to get fish and vegetables before him at mealtime. For example, when First Sister (is that a title?) Valerie Biden Owens came to the White House, the First Lady had the chefs whip up salmon in a pastry shell with a medley of vegetables. "Damn, she makes me eat this healthy stuff all the time," complained the President, who then snuck a piece of lemon pound cake with ice cream once his wife was not looking.
We only pass this along for one reason: This kind of information doesn't get out unless someone in the White House wants it to get out. And the clear message here is that the President deals with the same relatively minor health-related challenges that countless other men (and women) deal with every day, nothing more, nothing less. Putting that out there is a not-too-shabby way of subtly trying to undermine the apparent perception (which we wrote about yesterday) that he's less healthy than the Big-Mac-guzzling Donald Trump. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers