The New Republic

If the 14th Amendment is a viable option, what is the incentive for the White House to use it until August 2? Regardless of the legal merits, it would create a real systemic shock to the markets if Obama decided to rely on it (at least until the markets realized that the government was still paying the bills) and would create a lot of political anger. If he uses it preemptively, much of that anger would be directed at him for behaving in a dictatorial fashion to get what he wants without waiting for Congress to sort it out. And, if he explicitly threatens it now, all discussion of raising the debt limit in Congress falls apart as Republicans switch gears to blaming Obama for being a dictator and Democrats scramble to respond. As it stands, Congressional Republicans are getting all the heat for being uncompromising and unreasonable and Obama can still act like he believes in our government and the democratic process. If Congress still can't get their act together at midnight Monday, that's when Obama can tell everyone first thing Tuesday morning that he is relying on the 14th Amendment and will not dishonor or delay any authorized debt payments.

- wildboy

July 29, 2011 at 1:35pm

If this is in fact his calculation, he could punt this time, then take the heat next time after getting re-elected. If he doesn't get re-elected, then let President Romney and the Republicans take the heat. You can't say they don't have it coming. I'm not saying this is Obama's calculation, but it's a plausible line of reasoning.

- Dausuul

July 29, 2011 at 1:37pm

Look, the debt ceiling is obsolete since, in our era, debt can only be the consequence of congressional budget and tax decisions already made. That the debt ceiling can be reached in the middle of the budget cycle is in a sense an historical accident. No one ever previously thought to use the debt ceiling as a policy weapon, hence no one ever worried about adopting a budget the funding for which would cease to be available in the middle of the budget cycle. The solution, therefore, is simply for the president in the future to refuse to sign any budget that does not include a funding mechanism, sufficient taxes and debt authorization to pay for the appropriated and mandatory expenditures. Otherwise, we now know, the budget is a lit stick of dynamite and any president would be nuts to put himself in this position now that the potential is clear. Sure, a presidential veto shuts down the government, but that's what an unfunded budget threatens anyway with the added disaster of disruption of credit markets. That means there is absolutely no reason for a president ever again to sign an unfunded budget. With that in mind, all we really have to do is get into the next budget cycle which is only two months away. Any excuse will do, as the whole legal issue will be effectively moot likely before it can even be decided, if there is indeed a challenge. 14th amendment. Trillion dollar coins. Writing checks and having the Fed honor them. "Enforcing the law" by resolving the conflict between the pre-existing debt ceiling and the budget resolved in favor of the latter. Doesn't matter. Unless the president, or a future president, is a total dope, this is a one-time-only event. Even Bush, the Idiot-in-Chief, could figure this one out.

- roidubouloi

July 29, 2011 at 1:54pm

"...That means there is absolutely no reason for a president ever again to sign an unfunded budget." An excellent point.

- GSpinks

July 29, 2011 at 2:01pm

"...That means there is absolutely no reason for a president ever again to sign an unfunded budget." An excellent point.

- GSpinks

July 29, 2011 at 2:01pm

this post underscores that O's cardinal error was embracing the debt ceiling-deadlined negotiation as "a unique opportunity to do something big." He is complicit in the hostage-taking -- took himself and the country hostage.

- adsprung

July 29, 2011 at 2:05pm

The nation's first black president relying on the 14th amendment as a defense to impeachment. And he's tall and skinny, almost gangly in appearance. From Illinois. A lawyer. And many in the south don't consider his presidency as legitimate and are even willing to risk the survival of the union. Did somebody make this up?

- rayward

July 29, 2011 at 2:06pm

Well, his publically stated assessment of his incentive structure doesn't. But I am always skeptical of what he says vs. what he thinks- he may fully well plan on keeping this in his back pocket, and the broken promise would be spun as a necessary response to a real crisis, which he didn't anticipate the GOP would be irresposnible enough to make necessary. Second, I think even if the thinking matches up with the speechifying, I don't think it's necessary true that his ACTUAL incentive structure actually fits this way.

- miceelf

July 29, 2011 at 2:06pm

Obama played the cards he had- he laid it all out there for the Republicans. I think he knew all along, as many of us doubted, that the crazies were never going to be able to say yes...EVER. That was a safe bet as it turns out. Now the rest of the universe, except the double steeped tea bags, see the crazies for what they truly are - a destructive force with no sense of nationhood. The only solution now is for the non-crazy republicans to retake their party and put all those nutjobs in contested primaries and spend what it takes to get their party back - or relegate themselves to a future where a third party emerges and they get to watch from the outside with the crazies. In any case the crazies are done for - real Republicans can stay with them or dump them like the white trash they have been shown to be.

- Zachsteph

July 29, 2011 at 2:17pm

@wildboy I like your reasoning of when to use the 14th amendment option, if we have to... the only problem at this point being those quotes out there that Obama talked to his lawyers and that it wasn't an option... better if it had been left open, or at least un-commented upon. As for John C's broader point, while I appreciate there might be a mismatch between benefits for Obama personally and country in general, I'm having trouble seeing this as a reason to hold back. I feel like, time and again, Obama has certainly both spoken, and acted, like someone who was either unwilling or at least uninterested in putting what would be best politically for him, or certainly always the Democratic party first at all costs, preferring instead to 'lead' or to position above and beyond the fray. This would seem to be a classic example of an opportunity to once again do that. For the good of the country, unilaterally raise the ceiling to avoid default, bring on the court challenge and hopefully resolve the issue so that it goes away once and for all. In the short term, Obama would take heat, and yes potentially lose the Presidency. But if he's looking at himself as someone who is doing something for the country, in a post-partisan way, maybe that's worth the gamble. And of course, if you wait around with the 14th amendment option, and just have either the chaos of the default, or the draconian Republicans-take-all budgets instead... well, then Obama won't win re-election anyway, *and* the country and its people will be worse off. (hedge-fund managers aside, of course). [To be clear, I'm not saying I agree with all (or maybe even any) of the times and ways in which Obama has taken the high-center road (that always seems to have a steep rightward grade somehow...). I'm just saying that, with a long history now of maximizing the Democratic/left/his own position anyway... it wouldn't seem out of character to do something now that was less than personally-ideal. Or even from a more-cynical standpoint, having blown all those chances to maximize position beforehand, he's now in a place where the high-risk/high-reward unilateral play presents at least an opportunity to regain control of the situation.. whereas the reasonable-compromise approach has been ceding so much with each iteration that by the time its done there won't be anything left to protect or rally around come election time.

- ivyboy

July 29, 2011 at 2:19pm

Prediction -- nothing passes the Congress, and Sunday night, the President pulls the plug and announces that he's taking unilateral action (under the 14th Amdt or any of the other theories floating around) to borrow money even without a statutory raise to the debt ceiling.

- TARFON

July 29, 2011 at 2:26pm

Why not have some payee who will get shafted by the Treasury's limited ability to raise money to spend (virtually any state would qualify) sue to force the Treasury to sell more bonds in order raise funds in order to pay its obligations? That would invoke the 14th Amendment whether Obama wants to or not.

- sighthnd

July 29, 2011 at 2:31pm

The crazies only number about 25 but that is enough to blow up Boner's bill. Roid is right that we need to get beyond this madness.

- liberalref

July 29, 2011 at 2:39pm

@sighthnd - Because the suit couldn't be filed until actual default occurred, and then it would have to wend its way through the courts. No matter how much everyone tried to expedite the process, it would be days or weeks before it got resolved. By that point, the financial system would already be in ruins.

- Dausuul

July 29, 2011 at 2:49pm

@wildboy and @ivyboy, I also like your reasoning, with one exception: at such point that markets begin to plummet, which could happen anytime prior if some event or development unrelated to the stalemate occurs. (Actually, Obama could use this excuse at any time, saying that the risk of markets' collapsing had reached a fail-safe point where the risk of any random event had become intolerable.)

- Tgossard

July 29, 2011 at 2:59pm

It's not clear that there will be a default. I tend to think that this scenario (http://www.slate.com/id/2300207/) is a likelier outcome--we pay our interest and rollovers and slash spending in other areas. It isn't clear to me that that isn't the outcome that would be mandated by the 14th amendment. Part of the Tea Party rationale for keeping the ceiling in place is that this would be the outcome. And if, like Tea Pertiers, you can't see any connection between the idea of "spending" in the abstract and the fact that that money is income for many people--including many who rely on it for day to day living expenses and to cover extraordinary costs they couldn't otherwise bear and many who use it to employ others, then you can believe that this outcome has no negative consequences. And you can't understand how it would result in credit rating downgrades and economic calamity no less certain than actual default. (Unlike raising taxes, which, for a Tea Partier, has obvious and immediate disastrous consequences: "job creators" might have to forgo a few minor luxuries.

- ramcat

July 29, 2011 at 3:31pm

Roi. Bush was an idiot, but he had cojones. BHO is his mirror image, at least on domestic matters. Having half the necessary credentials produce disasters of equal magnitudes.

- drofnats1

July 29, 2011 at 3:37pm

George W. Bush helped mightily to marginalize his party. Congress flipped to the Democrats in 2006 and the White House, in 2008. The Republicans won the House back in 2010, but the GOP's agenda is still deeply unpopular with the public. So dro is urging the same course on our side? What a fool. I don't think a more clueless person has ever posted here. Dro should be a neologism for such a mentality. People, could you imagine the situation this country would be in if he were in the Oval Office? This thought is extremely funny, but only because he couldn't get within a million miles of executive power. I doubt he could even win an election for dog-catcher wherever his locale is.

- liberalref

July 29, 2011 at 4:15pm

Lib, W carried his party to victories in 2002 and (to a lesser extent) 2004. The policies he (and they) put in place were huge victories for the right, to the extent that they are, to a large extent, the causes of the financial problems we're dealing with now. Things aren't so simple. In any case, you're relying on the fallacy of false dilemma. No one is suggesting putting Drof (bless his/her soul) in the white house. That doesn't mean that criticism of Obama is illegitimate. The two issues are not dependent on each other.

- Curran1

July 29, 2011 at 5:02pm

Yeah, Obama's a total wuss, a Compromiser-in-Chief that gives away everything and gets nothing back. We need a real liberal in office, who isn't afraid to be COMMANDER-in-Chief. Declare martial law, have these terrorist Tea Partiers executed, arrested and tried for treason. blah, blah, blah.

- GSpinks

July 29, 2011 at 6:11pm

Straw man argument

- Curran1

July 29, 2011 at 7:36pm

07/29/2011 - 2:05pm EDT | adsprung this post underscores that O's cardinal error was embracing the debt ceiling-deadlined negotiation as "a unique opportunity to do something big." He is complicit in the hostage-taking -- took himself and the country hostage. ___________________ This is exactly right. The moment Obama legitimized the hostage-taking by allowing it to be the basis for a negotiation about anything, he screwed the pooch. It seems clear that this is what he intended or he would have made debt-ceiling relief part of the tax cut deal. Hard to imagine what he thought would happen, except that he remains smitten with himself as the one who can transcend partisanship and possibly saw this as his opportunity to demonstrate same. Plus the evidence is that he is himself and is counseled by deficit hawks. He allowed the hostage-taking so that he could be "forced" to cut spending rather than show his true colors. Or he's just politically and tactically incompetent.

- roidubouloi

July 29, 2011 at 11:08pm

I think he is tactically incompetent. It seems clear to me that he does not game things through before he acts.

- roidubouloi

July 29, 2011 at 11:09pm

I really cannot imagine what Obama's endgame is for this. I have know confidence at all that even at this late date he has one.

- roidubouloi

July 29, 2011 at 11:16pm

I know I have no confidence, but I don't always know what my fingers are doing.

- roidubouloi

July 29, 2011 at 11:40pm

roidubouloi makes an excellent point early on (sorry, I'm late to this), that no future President will sign a budget bill that doesn't include a sufficient increase in the debt ceiling. However, that still leaves us vulnerable in the event of a continuing resolution, so it really means the debt ceiling has to go.

- JEFF FREY

July 30, 2011 at 4:20am