The Treasury
won't mint a platinum coin to get around the debt limit. BTW, Mike Castle is mentioned. Remember him? He lost to Christine "Not the Senator of Delaware" O'Donnell in 2010. Even sanity has been mixed with confusion here -- see how money is a "delusion"
here.
12 comments:
I guess Obama's going to shame the Republicans into behaving responsibly. Good luck with that.
Not sure if the coin and that were the only two options. Both are about as stupid to hope for.
Got any ideas about what some other option might be? I guess there's always double daring them to default the country. Or maybe double dog dare.
I guess we are left with determining if enough House Republicans will act sanely push comes to shove w/o it turning on Obama shaming them. For instance, enough will get pressure from deep pocketed backers that not defaulting is in their best interest. I am not sure we are left with Obama shaming them.
Counting on sane Republicans seems like a long shot but it looks like the only shot the president is giving us.
We just need a fraction of the Republicans here and we can rely on basic self-interest helping, which is a somewhat safe bet when it comes to pols, even Republicans.
The coin was taken away by the Treasury & I never saw it that sane myself. Push comes to shove, Congress does control the purse & if they won't be sane, the President can do just so much. He has shown himself as pragmatic sort so IF the Congress defaults, it remains to be see what he'd do.
Pretty hard to convince me that Treasury doesn't do what the president wants it to (c.f. Timothy Geithner). My own preference was always for the 14th Amendment. However, apparently it's all out of our hands so if there's nothing else better on TV I might watch CNN to see how its all being spun.
The article noted the Fed won't accept the coin & the Fed is a tad more independent, no? The coin was a gimmick and wouldn't solve anything long term. As to the "14A," I like it too, but some provision that splits liberal law professors, one that the USSC never clearly defined other than a brief four justice comment in Perry v. U.S., isn't a solution. It's a label. What does the "14A" mean? Should mean Congress acts. If the President is going to say preemptively he is going to let it off the hook, why should Rs do anything? If Congress doesn't act & it goes on for some period of time, then the ball is in the President's court. I don't know what he'd do then. He has been known to change his mind.
I agree that the precedent on paragraph 4 is not really precedent although it gives weight to the argument for using the amendment here. The history, though, is extremely effective. The paragraph was added to prevent southern house and senate members from the newly reunited states from attempting to invalidate Union army pensions. I can understand people counseling against using the amendment for political reasons (ongoing litigation; possible impeachment, etc.) but I really have a problem with what appears to be lack of courage on Tribe's and Obama's part. Of course they may be simply using the lack of legality claim as cover for their politically tactical decision.
A bit more than army pensions are at issue here & I guess we will have to disagree a bit there. As to 'lack of courage,' stuff like this:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/republican-debt-limit-bind-entitlements.php
leaves me for the time being thinking the move is a sound tactical move. I don't see it as a lack of courage.
Army pensions, social security payments, medicare payments and the like seem to have a lot more in common than they do differences. Ok, we'll agree to disagree.
I should add that I did read your referenced TPM piece and don't believe it changes the dynamics. It simply points out the opportunity for political maneuvering using the debt limit; the very dynamic Obama says his "refusal" to negotiate is supposed to avoid.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!