From Josh Marshall writing at
TPM:
... If Hill Republicans will not allow the government to continue borrowing money beyond the current statutory debt limit, I think there's probably a decent constitutional argument that the president must shut down parts of the government and many government payments before defaulting on the country's debt obligations [It's more than decent. It's unavoidable.] .... [I]f you don't borrow more money you have to shut down vast amounts of federal outlays. And the most logical places to start are with Social Security payments and Medicare reimbursements. Stuff like cutting Social Security checks in half starting the following week.
I think it's fair to say that there's no way to do it [handling maxing out the federal government's ability to borrow] without immediate and huge cuts to entitlements and the military. Discretionary spending just isn't a big enough piece of the pie. So why the adamant refusal to put this in front of the public? It seems quite clear to me that if what was coming in early August was an immediate 50% cut in Social Security payments and/or a similar cut in salaries to members of the military and a lot else that the tenor of this whole conversation would be quite different.
There are many constitutional arguments that are being made. I'm no expert (is Josh Marshall?), but one that seems reasonable to me is that the US cannot meet its obligations without an increase in the debt ceiling, and therefore Congress has the constitutional responsibility to raise it. I think Obama taking this line is preferable to being held hostage every time the ceiling is reached, which is what will happen if Obama caves.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=189776
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly agree with Mike B. This is too important of an issue to allow these legislative terrorists to force him to do what is wrong for the country. Of course, the House is too busy dealing with the issue of light bulbs to worry about something so trivial as the debt ceiling!
ReplyDeleteSocial Security is people who have worked and paid for their money for years.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the place to cut would be some free programs that are not helping people but hurting and enabling a lifestyle that is breaking our countries back.
(Like food stamps for able bodied people who want to stay at home with their children instead of working). (I can list names if you like)
free programs that are not working should be drastically cut.
There are many people having babies on our dime and then getting all kinds of assistance for this and they are all young and have NOT PAID A DIME INTO THE SYSTEM.
Another way is we could cut the pay of all the government officials (representatives and congressmen even the VP and president)in Washington and drop their health care down to what the rest of the nations is.
Many programs that were started for good reasons are huge failures and should be cut back drastically.
I believe in helping the poor in a way that is beneficial to them. NOT ENABLING THEM TO A LIFESTYE WE CAN"T AFFORD.
Maybe we can look at if somebody's child is having a baby out of wedlock the parent is responsible for their bills-or the child is responsible instead of paying for them instead of the TAX DOLLARS WE PAY IN GOING FOR THIS.
This country can no longer afford free loaders. I am as much a bleeding heart as the next person but when you can't afford it one has to stop.
If you are going to cut Social Security then please stop taking it out of my check and allow me to make my own decisions on where to put it.