Should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment and bypass Congress?

[WhoWee]

Do you mean debt ceiling increases equal to spending cuts, or eliminating the debt entirely?

I think like a business owner. If my working capital requirements are $20Trillion over time and my current credit limit is maxed out at $14.3Trillion - I'm going to consult my long term plan to determine actual need - not ask for $16Trillion and come up 20% short. At the same time, as a business owner, I hope to increase revenues (and profits) to be less dependent on the credit line. As a business owner, my goal is to pay the credit line down to under 30% of the limit and maintain those balances. As a business owner, I also know my credit rating will improve if I control my reliance on credit and manage my balances and payments.

Accordingly, if the debt ceiling is approved to increase according to the current trajectory to $20Trillion - not allowed to exceed those levels - the real costs will be on the table.
The challenge is to curb the trajectory and increase of $5.7Trillion over the same period and establish a goal of cutting the same amount over the same period of time. It doesn't pay the debt down, but it would slow the growth of the debt.

There is a second element as well. Most discussions of spending to GDP target an ideal of 15% to 20% during good to normal economic times, but the trend is to 25% and has been marketed as necessary during recession. The compromise MIGHT be to allow the percentage of spending to GDP to vary given the economic trends. During recession, revenues drop which causes the percentage to rise - it's expected. During an economic boom time, revenues rise - but spending doesn't need to increase at the same rate - it's expected to drop.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think like a business owner. If my working capital requirements are $20Trillion over time and my current credit limit is maxed out at $14.3Trillion - I'm going to consult my long term plan to determine actual need - not ask for $16Trillion and come up 20% short. At the same time, as a business owner, I hope to increase revenues (and profits) to be less dependent on the credit line. As a business owner, my goal is to pay the credit line down to under 30% of the limit and maintain those balances. As a business owner, I also know my credit rating will improve if I control my reliance on credit and manage my balances and payments.

Accordingly, if the debt ceiling is approved to increase according to the current trajectory to $20Trillion - not allowed to exceed those levels - the real costs will be on the table.
The challenge is to curb the trajectory and increase of $5.7Trillion over the same period and establish a goal of cutting the same amount over the same period of time. It doesn't pay the debt down, but it would slow the growth of the debt.

There is a second element as well. Most discussions of spending to GDP target an ideal of 15% to 20% during good to normal economic times, but the trend is to 25% and has been marketed as necessary during recession. The compromise MIGHT be to allow the percentage of spending to GDP to vary given the economic trends. During recession, revenues drop which causes the percentage to rise - it's expected. During an economic boom time, revenues rise - but spending doesn't need to increase at the same rate - it's expected to drop.

On a first pass, I don't see that we have any disagreements. However I still believe in carefully targeted revenue increases in addition to expanding the tax base where appropriate.

We have had the lowest tax rates in decades and we can see how well it works.

 

[russ_watters]

We have had the lowest tax rates in decades and we can see how well it works.

A week later and it's still misinformation, Ivan:

Ignoring the rest of the junk in your post, I'm going to ask what you mean by this and source it. This claim seems outright delusional claim when compared with a cursory glance at historical data -- i.e. the highest bracket of marginal income tax rate was at its maximum in 1944-1945 (94%), and the minimum occurred in 1988-1990 (28%), and has been in the 35%-40% range ever since.

(source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)

 

[Astronuc]

Emergency Team Of 8th-Grade Civics Teachers Dispatched To Washington
http://www.theonion.com/articles/emergency-team-of-8thgrade-civics-teachers-dispatc,21023/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A week later and it's still misinformation, Ivan:

I did mean the top marginal rate. My mistake. For three years they were lower.

The claim generally made must include the capital gains tax.

We can still see all the good it has done. Right? A big winner? We are at NEAR historic low tax rates and have been for decades. We have jobs, the debt is low, and we have a thriving economy, right? Or does that part matter?

There is no evidence that low taxes have done ANY good in the long term. Since we started lowing taxes under Reagan, the debt-to-GDP ratio has skyrocketed.

 

[OmCheeto]

We have had the lowest tax rates in decades and we can see how well it works.

A week later and it's still misinformation, Ivan:

Sure seems like tax rates are lower to me. But I'm old. Top marginal rates when I was born were 91%. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html" --> 1959)

Perhaps the rates were lower when you were born?

But anyways, in the olden days, it looks as though people knew how to pay their bills, and get out of debt.

hmmm... Maybe a full blown depression is required to get peoples heads out of their Pablum bowls.

Where's Chuckie when you need him? Let's just blow it all up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsTzWBSDRas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sure seems like tax rates are lower to me. But I'm old. Top marginal rates when I was born were 91%. [SIZE="1

No, Russ is right. That little bump you see in 1988 makes all the difference.

And it is clear how well it has worked.

 

[WhoWee]

I did mean the top marginal rate. My mistake. For three years they were lower.

The claim generally made must include the capital gains tax.

We can still see all the good it has done. Right? A big winner? We are at NEAR historic lows and have been for decades, we have jobs, the debt is low, we have a thriving economy, right? Or does that part matter?

There is no evidence that low taxes have done ANY good in the long term. Since we started lowing taxes under Reagan, the debt-to-GDP ratio has skyrocketed.

It's never that simple - is it? Investment tax credits were used to make acquisitions instead of buying new equipment. Jimmy Carter and Congress tried to help people buy houses and instead unleashed Wall Street traders onto unsophisticated savings and loan executives. After that bailout - Congress doubles down for an even bigger bubble - that still isn't rectified. Bill Clinton tried to grow the economy with NAFTA - and it opened the floodgates for jobs to leave the US. Clinton also made it possible for futures trading to expand and morph into an unregulated derivative market that (still) threatens world financial markets 3 years after the bailout. We need to consider the growth of Government in the background from 1947 until current. George Bush reacted to 9/11 with a huge expansion of government and war spending - that still continues (even if all of the troops are retracted private contractors remain). President Obama gave an apology tour and encouraged people to stanfd up for themselves in the ME - and now we're in another war in Libya and the future political structure of Egypt is unknown. President Obama recently submitted a budget that was presented as responsible and necessary - yet it would have added an additional $10Trillion to the national debt - fortunately it was voted down 97-0.

There are always unintended consequences with major legislation. Does anyone think their 401K will gain in value if capital gains taxes are increased - or will it trigger a sell-off? Actually, WHEN interest rates rise - it may trigger a sell-off - chase the money back into CD's where it should have stayed for many small investors that were chased into the market by low interest rates.

 

[mheslep]

Emergency Team Of 8th-Grade Civics Teachers Dispatched To Washington
http://www.theonion.com/articles/emergency-team-of-8thgrade-civics-teachers-dispatc,21023/

 

[mege]

I did mean the top marginal rate. My mistake. For three years they were lower.

The claim generally made must include the capital gains tax.

We can still see all the good it has done. Right? A big winner? We are at NEAR historic low tax rates and have been for decades. We have jobs, the debt is low, and we have a thriving economy, right? Or does that part matter?

There is no evidence that low taxes have done ANY good in the long term. Since we started lowing taxes under Reagan, the debt-to-GDP ratio has skyrocketed.

The federal income has remained steady at that 18-20% of GDP since about WW2. Even when the top marginal rate fluxuates - the total government income has remained pretty consistent. So when the income has remained the same (despite tax changes) - what is the other variable which should be accounted for that is adding to our debt?

 

[russ_watters]

And it is clear how well it has worked.

If you blame the low rates for the current recession, do you also give them credit for getting us out of the 1970s doldrums and enabling the prosperity of the 1990s?

 

[BobG]

Sure seems like tax rates are lower to me. But I'm old. Top marginal rates when I was born were 91%. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html" --> 1959)

Perhaps the rates were lower when you were born?

But anyways, in the olden days, it looks as though people knew how to pay their bills, and get out of debt.

No, not quite - at least not from your graph. The graph for the debt shows debt as a percentage of GDP. In the olden days, we used inflation to make it feel like the debt was going down. You have to go back before the 30's to find a time when the government knew how to pay its bills.

 

[mege]

Stephen Moore: Buffet is wrong on tax inequality.

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently, both James Clyburn and John Larson want the President to do an end run with the 14th Amendment. Eliot Engel has a press conference planned for today - to urge him on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ml?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|81676

IMO - if the Dems block legislation and the President uses the 14th as a result - he will be Impeached.

 

[BobG]

Apparently, both James Clyburn and John Larson want the President to do an end run with the 14th Amendment. Eliot Engel has a press conference planned for today - to urge him on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ml?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|81676

IMO - if the Dems block legislation and the President uses the 14th as a result - he will be Impeached.

So what?

We've had two actual impeachments. The motivation for both was "We don't like you!". And then the House 'found' some technicality to justify it. If the House wanted to impeach Obama, they could surely find some grounds to justify it.

In the end, the grounds are irrelevant. If enough Senators don't like the President, he gets impeached. If too few Senators dislike the President, he doesn't get impeached. Very few Senators will base their vote on whether they think the President committed the act he was accused of. (Pres Johnson clearly fired the Secretary of War, a position that requires Senate approval for hiring; Pres Clinton did lie about Monica Lewinsky by any standard definition of lying.)

In the only instance where the grounds were truly significant enough to warrant impeachment, the President resigned.

Actually, if using the 14th Amendment clause is the concern, the House should consider what the Senate would do with an impeachment before bringing the charges. If the Senate 'acquits' the President, then impeachment effectively establishes the 14th Amendment clause as a valid way for the President to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval.

This is an issue that would be better to take to the US Supreme Court somehow to eliminate the chance any future President could use this option.

 

[turbo]

This whole circus is so disappointing. Congress voted on spending bills, appropriated money, and ran up debt. There should be no debt limit at all. If Congress would stop spending money like it was free, we could reduce deficits, and ultimately reduce debt.

We don't need a military budget larger than the rest of the world combined. We don't need many hundreds of foreign bases (which result in transfer of money from the American taxpayer to the countries that host the bases). We don't need all the carrier groups that we have currently, unless our political leaders expect to start more air-wars. We certainly don't need to subsidize energy companies and big agribusinesses, and we would be 'way better off without ethanol subsidies. People who own older chain-saws, outboards, etc know that you have to pay taxes to subsidize ethanol, pay for the ethanol in poor performance, AND pay for extra repairs to filters, fuel lines, carbs, etc, that were designed for real gasoline. That's a whole lot of wasted money to make some people in the midwest happy.

 

[WhoWee]

So what?

We've had two actual impeachments. The motivation for both was "We don't like you!". And then the House 'found' some technicality to justify it. If the House wanted to impeach Obama, they could surely find some grounds to justify it.

In the end, the grounds are irrelevant. If enough Senators don't like the President, he gets impeached. If too few Senators dislike the President, he doesn't get impeached. Very few Senators will base their vote on whether they think the President committed the act he was accused of. (Pres Johnson clearly fired the Secretary of War, a position that requires Senate approval for hiring; Pres Clinton did lie about Monica Lewinsky by any standard definition of lying.)

In the only instance where the grounds were truly significant enough to warrant impeachment, the President resigned.

Actually, if using the 14th Amendment clause is the concern, the House should consider what the Senate would do with an impeachment before bringing the charges. If the Senate 'acquits' the President, then impeachment effectively establishes the 14th Amendment clause as a valid way for the President to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval.

This is an issue that would be better to take to the US Supreme Court somehow to eliminate the chance any future President could use this option.

If key Democrats first block all House legislation - table with no debate - then defer to the President to act without Congress - they may find themselves under the harsh scrutiny of Impeachment as well.

If the game of choice is "hardball" - the Dems better cover their behinds - IMO. Making speeches declaring any House legislation "dead on arrival" - while not passing anything themselves or debating House measures is really not their job - is it?

 

[russ_watters]

Bob, you're mixing up impeachment and trial. The house impeaches, while the senate tries. Ie, clinton was impeached, but not convicted. So the relevant question to me is not whether he could be impeached (definitely) or convicted (probably not), but rather whether an impeached president, possibly in the middle of a trial, can win reelection.

And RE the senate: the senate is not the USSC: Its actions have no bearing on constitutionality. There's a trap in there for Dems too: if they acquit the president despite a strong legal consensus, they will have to answer to their voters.

 

[BobG]

If key Democrats first block all House legislation - table with no debate - then defer to the President to act without Congress - they may find themselves under the harsh scrutiny of Impeachment as well.

If the game of choice is "hardball" - the Dems better cover their behinds - IMO. Making speeches declaring any House legislation "dead on arrival" - while not passing anything themselves or debating House measures is really not their job - is it?

Senators aren't impeached. They can only be removed by expulsion.

Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion. A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress— impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PL[:#0

The expulsion of a Democratic Senator would be voted on by the entire Senate, including other Democratic Senators (they're still Senators until they've been removed by expulsion, so they still get to vote). I don't think the odds are very high of getting a two thirds majority.

The House can get ticked off at the Senate and stomp their feet, but that's about it.

 

[WhoWee]

Senators aren't impeached. They can only be removed by expulsion.


http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PL[:#0

The expulsion of a Democratic Senator would be voted on by the entire Senate, including other Democratic Senators (they're still Senators until they've been removed by expulsion, so they still get to vote). I don't think the odds are very high of getting a two thirds majority.

The House can get ticked off at the Senate and stomp their feet, but that's about it.

Actually, the House can start the Impeachment proceedings - the Senate doesn't have to follow through.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

 

[BobG]

Actually, the House can start the Impeachment proceedings - the Senate doesn't have to follow through.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

From your link:

The first official impeached in this country was Senator William Blount of Tennessee for a plot to help the British seize Louisiana and Florida from Spain in 1797. The Senate dismissed the charges on Jan. 14, 1799, determining that it had no jurisdiction over its own members. The Senate and the House do, however, have the right to discipline their members, and the Senate expelled Blount the day after his impeachment.

Yes, the House impeached a Senator, but that had as much relevance as if you and I got together and impeached a Senator. Obviously, the Senator in this case had to go, but impeachment was the wrong procedure to do that. Expulsion by the Senate was the right procedure.

 

[WhoWee]

From your link:

Yes, the House impeached a Senator, but that had as much relevance as if you and I got together and impeached a Senator. Obviously, the Senator in this case had to go, but impeachment was the wrong procedure to do that. Expulsion by the Senate was the right procedure.

The House has sent legislation to the Senate for debate - the Senate has moved to table the first piece and has promised to do the same on the next. Given the severity of the problem, how can the House be expected to ignore such blatant abuse of power by the Senate leader?

The President called for compromise - a debate of the House legislation on the Senate floor would be a good start - might even restore some confidence in our form of Government?

 

[Proton Soup]

This whole circus is so disappointing. Congress voted on spending bills, appropriated money, and ran up debt. There should be no debt limit at all. If Congress would stop spending money like it was free, we could reduce deficits, and ultimately reduce debt.

We don't need a military budget larger than the rest of the world combined. We don't need many hundreds of foreign bases (which result in transfer of money from the American taxpayer to the countries that host the bases). We don't need all the carrier groups that we have currently, unless our political leaders expect to start more air-wars. We certainly don't need to subsidize energy companies and big agribusinesses, and we would be 'way better off without ethanol subsidies. People who own older chain-saws, outboards, etc know that you have to pay taxes to subsidize ethanol, pay for the ethanol in poor performance, AND pay for extra repairs to filters, fuel lines, carbs, etc, that were designed for real gasoline. That's a whole lot of wasted money to make some people in the midwest happy.

you're absolutely right, we don't need all the carrier groups. we need to demand that the EU, as our NATO partners, shoulder some of the burden and fund and build their own carrier groups. please write your congressmen and demand that they exert pressure on the EU to build its own carrier groups.

 

[mheslep]

I asked a friend who is a retired Navy fast attack sub officer (from the Reagan era) why on Earth do we still need 58 nuclear submarines, which BTW are retired well before there designed life to keep the current production line rolling. He said we should have 100. I declined to offer to pay my share for them.

 

[mege]

I asked a friend who is a retired Navy fast attack sub officer (from the Reagan era) why on Earth do we still need 58 nuclear submarines, which BTW are retired well before there designed life to keep the current production line rolling. He said we should have 100. I declined to offer to pay my share for them.

Reducing the US military would require a global paradigm shift - friendly nations (European mostly) would need to have larger standing armies. Also, there would have to be no potential threat from another country. Call is fear mongering all you want - but NK, Iran and potentially China are all civilized threats that could potentially harm the US or it's allies. The military deterance is the only thing, imo, stopping NK and Iran especially.

 

[mheslep]

Reducing the US military would require a global paradigm shift - friendly nations (European mostly) would need to have larger standing armies. Also, there would have to be no potential threat from another country. Call is fear mongering all you want - but NK, Iran and potentially China are all civilized threats that could potentially harm the US or it's allies. The military deterance is the only thing, imo, stopping NK and Iran especially.

Let's assume everything you is say here is true (and I don't necessarily). That does not force the conclusion that the One True US Defense Budget to provide for all this security is ~$700B/year, or anything like it.

 

[turbo]

Let's assume everything you is say here is true (and I don't necessarily). That does not force the conclusion that the One True US Defense Budget to provide for all this security is ~$700B/year, or anything like it.

And let's not pretend that the US Defense Budget is anywhere as "small" as stated. There is a whole bunch of black (off budget) expenses that we will never ever know about until they are declassified (long after the perpetrators are dead, IMO) and America's finances are being dragged down by a lot of this crap.

We are paying for black ops, black bases, and a whole lot of other stuff (including surveillance, analysis, and data-mining, etc) that will never show up on any budget.

 

[WhoWee]

If Congress fails to act, should Obama follow the advice of Bill Clinton?

To get us back on track Ivan - yes and absolutely! While Ex-President Clinton survived his perjury-based Impeachment - President Obama might win in the Senate - only to lose in 2012? On that basis - I must support him.

 

[WhoWee]

And let's not pretend that the US Defense Budget is anywhere as "small" as stated. There is a whole bunch of black (off budget) expenses that we will never ever know about until they are declassified (long after the perpetrators are dead, IMO) and America's finances are being dragged down by a lot of this crap.

We are paying for black ops, black bases, and a whole lot of other stuff (including surveillance, analysis, and data-mining, etc) that will never show up on any budget.

There's plenty of "private contracts" that can be traced - no need to sound conspiratorial?

 

[turbo]

There's plenty of "private contracts" that can be traced - no need to sound conspiratorial?

There are a lot of expenses that cannot be traced because they are off-budget and will remain so. Can you tell me how much money we will have to to spend to fund the NSA this year? No? I didn't think so.

 

[talk2glenn]

I asked a friend who is a retired Navy fast attack sub officer (from the Reagan era) why on Earth do we still need 58 nuclear submarines, which BTW are retired well before there designed life to keep the current production line rolling. He said we should have 100. I declined to offer to pay my share for them.

According to the JCS, optimal force structure given the naval strategic objective is 55 fast attack subs. The Navy currently has 53, with 3 under construction and 20 planned. This is down from a 76-sub requirement in 1999.

To my knowledge, a total of 11 LA-class attack boats have been retired short of their 30-year lifespans. The reason was the cost of mandatory maintenance and refueling, not production line maintenance. This maintenance must be conducted about 20 years after launch.

Note that these force requirement studies are based on something called available mission days. The Navy has a very accurate assumption regarding the number of mission days one sub can provide, given the available crews. It then has an expectation regarding the number of mission days the President will demand, under the strategic force structure required by Congress. It is far more complicated - and precise - than the laymans "one sub should be enough if I'm only bombing one person at a time" perspective. There is tremendous pass through time. To keep consistent coverage of a given operation, you need maybe 3 subs and 5 crews, for example, depending on mission.

If you want to reduce the number of subs below 55, you have to reduce the number of mission days demanded. What mission that the Navy conducts currently ought to be scrapped? Fleet security? Operations support? Patrol of Chinese and Russian waters? I wouldn't know; I assume all the low-hanging fruit has already been grabbed.

 

[WhoWee]

There are a lot of expenses that cannot be traced because they are off-budget and will remain so. Can you tell me how much money we will have to to spend to fund the NSA this year? No? I didn't think so.

Turbo, I'm trying to agree with you about war spending that goes byond direct troop expenses. As for the NSA - fregardless of location - from Maine to Florida, Alaska, to Hawaii, and California - I sleep soundly at night.

 

[WhoWee]

According to the JCS, optimal force structure given the naval strategic objective is 55 fast attack subs. The Navy currently has 53, with 3 under construction and 20 planned. This is down from a 76-sub requirement in 1999.

To my knowledge, a total of 11 LA-class attack boats have been retired short of their 30-year lifespans. The reason was the cost of mandatory maintenance and refueling, not production line maintenance. This maintenance must be conducted about 20 years after launch.

I'd like to hear from the experts - is it reasonable and/or feasible (economically) to turn any of these assets into powerplants?

 

[mheslep]

According to the JCS, optimal force structure given the naval strategic objective is 55 fast attack subs. The Navy currently has 53, with 3 under construction and 20 planned. This is down from a 76-sub requirement in 1999.

To my knowledge, a total of 11 LA-class attack boats have been retired short of their 30-year lifespans. The reason was the cost of mandatory maintenance and refueling, not production line maintenance. This maintenance must be conducted about 20 years after launch.

Ok, maintain them. Why retire them?

Note that these force requirement studies are based on something called available mission days... If you want to reduce the number of subs below 55, you have to reduce the number of mission days demanded. What mission that the Navy conducts currently ought to be scrapped? Fleet security? Operations support? Patrol of Chinese and Russian waters? I wouldn't know; I assume all the low-hanging fruit has already been grabbed.

I accept the multiplier, whatever it is. I want to know what mission load is required to defend this country, not every country, and what part of it must be done by subs, and not, say, great listening airborne platforms like the P3 Orion or the other 2-300 surface ships. Also why not throw in some cheap diesels especially for short range patrols? My Navy sub jockey friend points out that while hovering the German diesels are quieter than US nukes. The Fukishima accident is a good reminder as to why: nukes can never turn off those reactor pumps.

 

[mege]

Let's assume everything you is say here is true (and I don't necessarily). That does not force the conclusion that the One True US Defense Budget to provide for all this security is ~$700B/year, or anything like it.

My greater point is - there's a lot more to it than just 'wasted steel' floating in the oceans.

It's also important to note that our military spending is significantly lower than it was during the peak of the Cold War. So, the US in the last 25 years has already increased spending on non-military projects by replacement.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=14&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2008&3Place=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no - we're around 4-6% of GDP in defense spending the last 2 decades (Basically since Desert Storm), nowhere near the 10% that the US spent in the 50s and 60s. Where did that difference in budget go if the government was pulling in about the same amount of money by % of gdp? (~18-22%). It's easy to point at $600B in Defense allocations for the military conflicts and drop your jaw, but it needs to be put in perspective - our domestic spending (presumably fueled by entitlement programs) has skyrocketed by larger proportions in a shorter amount of time.