President Obama wants to do away with Congress when it comes to raising the country’s legal debt limit. Instead of getting permission from the people’s elected representatives to borrow and spend more money, he wants to do that all by himself.
It seems typical of the President Obama we know, but just a few years ago, he spoke vehemently against putting America in debt. Here is then-Senator Barack Obama on March 16, 2006:
The fact that we are here today to debate raisingAmerica’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Of course, in Washington, one’s convictions can change with the electoral winds. And so this is the same man who today, as our President, is seeking unlimited authority to raise the country’s debt limit anytime, anywhere, all by himself.
No Congress needed.
This new power is part of the “deal” the President offered to House Republicans on the
fiscal cliff. His “deal” is massive tax hikes, more government spending, and the ability for him to send that government spending skyrocketing through the stratosphere without any vote of Congress. One White House official describes this proposal as “resolv[ing] the debt limit
without drama.”
Congress could dispense with the periodic ritual of raising the debt limit. It could simply give Treasury the authority to borrow such funds as are needed to carry out the deficit consequences of current fiscal policy. This would be the easier course politically, but Congress has wisely chosen not to take it. The nation is far better served when Congress is forced to acknowledge the net effects of its policies as reflected in the necessity of raising the debt limit to maintain that course.
As unpleasant as it may be, congressional debate over increasing the debt limit is an opportunity for Congress to
consider vital course corrections on federal spending, including entitlement spending, which is growing unchecked.
Just a few short years ago, Obama said, “This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy”and that “interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans—a debt tax thatWashington doesn’t want to talk about.”
More recently, when he was running for President, Obama condemned George W. Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt over eight years, calling it
“irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Now—in the past four years—Obama’s Administration has already added almost $6 trillion to the debt. That means he is on track to
triple Bush’s debt increase over eight years. But without congressional limits, who can say?
In 2006, Obama concluded:
Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead,Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
31 U.S.C. Section 5112(k)
ReplyDelete"(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time."
-------
Under this statute, it would be perfectly legal for Secretary of Treasury to mint a $1 trillion platinum coin, deposit it in a vault at a federal reserve bank, and write checks on it while Congress decides about the debt ceiling.
I think what Obama was asking for is legal, because he was allowing Congress to disapprove any presidential request for an increase in debt ceiling by super majority vote. That would almost guarantee that Congress would not be able to block a debt ceiling increase, but that is a practical -- not constitutional -- matter. Please quote from the constitution what makes the idea unconstitutional. Actually, Mitch McConnell was the first guy to suggest the idea.
I hope they don't do this "chicken" game over the debt ceiling again. We all know they must raise it, but while they are dithering, it could upset the markets and maybe get us another downgrade.
--David
I completely disagree with you. This is just more of Obama usurping power and if it continues will emasculate congress, which is not what was intended by the Founders.
ReplyDeleteWe are going over the cliff, get ready for the ride.
You need to go back and read the code section. The Secretary is limited to a very few coins and definitely not a $1 trillion platinum coin.
ReplyDeleteThis is an unconstitutional abuse of the power that he has been abusing since he became president. He is a Dictator!
No, you need to read it. It says "any quantity" and "any denomination" at "his discretion." It could not be any clearer.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am still waiting for you to show me where in the constitution the idea is unconstitutional.
--David
Section (a) says: "The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the
ReplyDeletefollowing coins:" No where is there anything above a $50 piece.
Even if the Secretary was authorized, it is an unconstitutional action by the President. If he does what you suggest or raises the limit on his own, he should be impeached and CONVICTED.
The entire section is below:
Here is the info that you are not reading:31 U.S.C. § 5112 : US Code - Section 5112: Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
Search 31 U.S.C. § 5112 : US Code - Section 5112: Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
Search by Keyword or Citation
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the
following coins:
(1) a dollar coin that is 1.043 inches in diameter.
(2) a half dollar coin that is 1.205 inches in diameter and
weighs 11.34 grams.
(3) a quarter dollar coin that is 0.955 inch in diameter and
weighs 5.67 grams.
(4) a dime coin that is 0.705 inch in diameter and weighs 2.268
grams.
(5) a 5-cent coin that is 0.835 inch in diameter and weighs 5
grams.
(6) except as provided under subsection (c) of this section, a
one-cent coin that is 0.75 inch in diameter and weighs 3.11
grams.
(7) A fifty dollar gold coin that is 32.7 millimeters in
diameter, weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of
fine gold.
(8) A twenty-five dollar gold coin that is 27.0 millimeters in
diameter, weighs 16.966 grams, and contains one-half troy ounce
of fine gold.
(9) A ten dollar gold coin that is 22.0 millimeters in
diameter, weighs 8.483 grams, and contains one-fourth troy ounce
of fine gold.
(10) A five dollar gold coin that is 16.5 millimeters in
diameter, weighs 3.393 grams, and contains one-tenth troy ounce
of fine gold.
(11) A $50 gold coin that is of an appropriate size and
thickness, as determined by the Secretary, weighs 1 ounce, and
contains 99.99 percent pure gold.
David, you need to bone up on your Constitution! Read Section 8 of Article 1. In that section is specifically grants Congress the power to "coin Money." It does not say that the President has the right.
ReplyDeleteNope, you are missing the key point. There are restrictions on Treasury minting gold and paper money, but the section I quoted relates only to platinum coins. The section of the statute I quoted may be unconstitutional under the Article about "coin Money," but it is still a standing federal law until overturned by the Supreme Court. Until then, the Secretary of Treasury may legally mint platinum coins in any quantity and any denomination at his discretion. What I said is true.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I see no basis in the constitution to call the proposal from McConnell and Obama unconstitutional, and you have not yet provided any.
The whole issue is ridiculous in the first place. A vote to raise the debt ceiling is nothing more than a vote to pay debts already incurred. No other country in the world except the U.S. does this debt ceiling vote, because it is stupid.
--David
I looked at the second you referred to and it does not say anything about Platinum. Look at what I sent you. You quoted 5112 (k) and that is what is printed out. You be wong!@
ReplyDeleteRead Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the right to print money is given to the Congress and NOT the President. You be wong, twice!@
Lastly, the debt ceiling fight is VERY important. Without this, yes artificial, limit, the government would go on spending without anyone really paying attention as we did for so many years. Now it is time to pay attention and the whores in Congress and in the White House want do to away with it because it causes them heartburn. It is far from stupid, it is good governance. If you owed money to your bank, you would have to meet with them if you wanted an increase in your loan, so why should government be any different. You be wong tree times!@ You Out!!
You wrote…
ReplyDelete"I looked at the second you referred to and it does not say anything about Platinum. Look at what I sent you."
You quoted section (a) of the statute. It pertains to gold coins, but not platinum coins. I quoted section (k) of the statute, which pertains to platinum coins, but not gold coins. Get it? The Secretary of Treasury has limits under section (a) which governs minting of gold coins that do not exist under section (k) which governs minting of platinum coins.
You wrote….
"Read Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the right to print money is given to the Congress and NOT the President."
You are the only guy here talking about the president. I said that, in this statute (k), Congress granted the Secretary of Treasury -- at his sole discretion -- the authority to mint platinum coins of any quantity or denomination. What I said is true. Incidentally, prior to 1873, the Treasury had no authority from Congress to mint coins.
You wrote…
"Lastly, the debt ceiling fight is VERY important. Without this, yes artificial, limit, the government would go on spending without anyone really paying attention as we did for so many years."
Let me make this simple. Let's distinguish between PAST borrowing (which is now CURRENT bills to pay), and FUTURE borrowing (which Congress can reduce by budget cuts/taxes). Of course, a STUPID way to reduce future spending would be to not vote to raise the debt ceiling, causing a default on the debt with disastrous consequences for our country. For one thing, it would explode the national debt, as bond rates would go ballistic (Greece +++).
The money supply is increased in order to pay CURRENT debts. A vote against raising the debt ceiling is a vote against increasing money supply in order to pay CURRENT debts. To fit your analogy, it would be like voluntarily declining an opportunity to increase my income (money supply) so that I can pay off my bank loan. That would certainly decrease my future spending (!!!), but I lose my house in the process. Yes, "stupid" would be the right word for that decision.
--David
McConnell proposed to put his own proposal to allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling and then filibustered his own proposal when Harry Reid called his bluff!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/debt-ceiling-mitch-mcconnell_n_2251515.html
--David