PetBoyOwner
Posts: 16
Joined: 5/28/2013 Status: offline
|
The debt ceiling is a construct for people who are bad at math. It is portrayed, mostly by conservatives, as some sort of check against the executive branch spending freely. But the executive branch already can't do that. The executive branch might sign the checks, but they don't get to decide even a single penny of how much is spent. Congress sets spending levels, and it is illegal for the executive branch to spend any more or less than that legally mandated level. The reason you need to be bad at math to think the debt ceiling should be meaningful is simple arithmetic. Congress sets tax policy, and thus sets the income. Congress sets spending policy, and thus sets the expenses. Based on those two statements, the debt level is already set. If Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling, it would be, simplified, legally requiring the executive branch to spend $5, to make $3 in income, but wind up with only $1 in debt. This is why the question of what would happen if we breach the debt ceiling is the subject of so many wild guesses. We're asking about a hypothetical situation in which the President is faced with mutually contradictory Constitutional mandates. I personally think the soundest legal argument is that the 14th Amendment ("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.") makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional - once Congress mandates a spending and taxation policy and creates debt, they cannot then question that debt by setting a ceiling on it. If Congress wants to keep the debt under a certain level, they should avoid incurring it in the first place with different spending and taxation policies.
|