Bill Clinton Backs 14th Amendment Option

[Tx4obama]

Exclusive Bill Clinton Interview: I Would Use Constitutional Option To Raise Debt Ceiling And "Force The Courts To Stop Me"

Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation’s debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me” in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline.

Sharply criticizing Congressional Republicans in an exclusive Monday evening interview with The National Memo, Clinton said, “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for (expenditures) it has appropriated is crazy.”

Lifting the debt ceiling “is necessary to pay for appropriations already made,” he added, “so you can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.”

Having faced down the Republican House leadership during two government shutdowns when he was president -- and having brought the country’s budget from the deep deficits left by Republican presidents to a projected surplus -- Clinton is unimpressed by the GOP’s sudden enthusiasm for balanced budgets. But he never considered invoking the Fourteenth Amendment -- which says “the validity of the US public debt shall not be questioned” – because the Republicans led by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich didn’t threaten to use the debt ceiling as a weapon in their budget struggles with him.

Full article here: http://www.nationalmemo.com/article/exclusive-former-president-bill-clinton-says-he-would-use-constitutional-option-raise-debt

[tavalon]

1. Damn straight! Let's stop the silliness

[eomer]

3. In particular let's stop President Obama's silliness.

Simply raise the debt ceiling and stop using it to create a fake crisis that can be used to cut crucial programs. Obama is pushing for "the biggest deal possible"; to link as many other things as possible to raising the ceiling. Instead he should be using this argument that Bill Clinton does, that the debt ceiling is not a crisis and shouldn't be treated as such. The expenditures have already been authorized and the debt has already been created. So the debt ceiling is a fake crisis. It has to be raised, no matter what. To insist on using it as leverage to cut programs is to adopt the extreme rightwing (not "centrist", ugh) position and create a horrible precedent that will haunt us.

Obama's legacy is going to be all the horrible rightwing precedents he has set and that we will live with after he's gone.

[boppers]

4. Balancing a budget is "extreme"?

Well, I guess I know why the soviet union fell.

[eomer]

5. Using a fake deficit crisis to force austerity cuts during a prolonged recession...

is a use of what Naomi Klein calls the Shock Doctrine and, yes, it is extreme rightwing.

What is needed during this prolonged recession is stimulus spending and then later, when the economy is recovering, is the time to gradually move toward a balance and then into a surplus when the economy is booming again.

[boppers]

6. Just keep spending, we'll make money someday?

The party is over.

It's done.

Put a fork in it.

[eomer]

7. No, stimulus spending during a recession, surplus during a boom.

And, recognize that the deficit is projected to mostly disappear in, what is it, 5 years or so? Just by letting the tax cuts expire, by doing nothing.

The first and most important thing to do is to stimulate the economy, get more people working, and the increased tax revenues will help the balance. Once that is done and the tax cuts expire then it is unlikely we would still have a deficit at a level (% of GDP) that would matter.

[boppers]

8. The boom is gone.

It is no more.

Short of nuking Asia, it's done.

There is no future "boom" to bank against.

[eomer]

9. True if we keep applying rightwing economic policies designed to destroy the working class.

Not true if we come to our senses.

[boppers]

12. What boom are you predicting, then? eom

[eomer]

13. The boom we would have if we could wrest control away from the corporations...

and then implement policies designed to benefit people broadly instead of a powerful few. Policies that would channel the value generated by our productivity back to ourselves, the workers.

Etc. (no time to elaborate right now)

I'm actually not very optimistic but I don't see why we should give up and especially why we should promote the very policies that are destroying our prospects and our children's prospects.

[boppers]

26. Ah, the USSR boom.

Where everybody prospers, especially the "workers".

Wait, how did that work out again?

[kick-ass-bob]

17. Then we should just pack everything in and call it a country.

RIP. :eyes:

This post is extremely shortsighted. I'm sure people in the Great Depression never thought things would get better either.

Business is cyclical, and government should be charged with evening out those cycles. Instead, we are accentuating the downward cycle with this "cost cutting" crap.

[karynnj]

19. I wish I could reccomend your series of responses here

[karynnj]

18. Balancing a budget in a recession is extreme

Consider why our forefathers and all the leaders since then have not enacted a balanced budget amendment. The obvious reason to me is that they saw the need for the federal government - when warranted - could operate at a deficit. The need could be a war, a set of catastrophes or a time, like now, when it is important to be the "spender of last resort".

Another reason is the US infrastructure is crumbling. This affects our competitiveness. For those who travel outside the US, consider how the efficiency of the airports and the transportation affects your view of the country. Last year, I opted to take Amtrack to and from NYC and Boston, which is the best of our train system. I could not help but contrast it with the trip I took in Spain from Malaga to Madrid, which was much much nicer. On the way out, the difference was mostly just a difference in comfort level. It was far slower which would be more an issue for someone wanting to better use scarce time. On the way back, as the train broke down several times - finally needing to be towed into NYC - taking a total of about 7 hours, my thoughts were that this would make someone think that the US was really falling behind.

The Republicans use a bogus argument equating a family with the federal government - ignoring that the government has the ability to print money. But, even using that analogy, the argument for FORCING a balanced budget every year is now how most families operate.

Consider that the family car breaks down. Would the family be required to buy a replacement car with cash already in the bank or their current paycheck? I would assume that the norm is that they get an auto loan. This is the equivalent of the US having a deficit that year and the family debt is increased by the balance they owe on the car. Consider other prudent uses of the family "running a deficit" - imagine the roof on the home they own has deteriorated and they should replace it - rather than let it fail and cause damage to the house. Assume they do not have the savings to pay for this. The likelihood is that they take out a home equity line. Again it adds to the debt and they are likely running a deficit for the year.

Now, you might say, that the family does budget the cost of the payments on the auto loan or the home equity loan. But, this is equivilent to saying the US pays the interest on the debt. I would even make the argument that the true constraint on deficit spending and the debt is when the interest payments become too high and take up too much of the revenue. In the family's case that would mean that they are very constrained by what they have left after subtracting all their "interest payments." It would be bad if the family fell into a pattern of constantly spending money from their equity loan - unless they knew that the current expenses were atypically high and the current income atypically low.

In the case of the US, the size of the debt means more of the revenue is already spent on interest payments. However, just as with the family, this is a time when expenses are atypically high - high unemployment means high payments for that and it should be the role of the government to create jobs - stimulating the economy in the process. It is also a time when revenue is atypically low - because the economy is slow. This is similar to a time period where a family is very likely to run a deficit.

In addition, consider that the economy returning to closer to "normal" will automatically cause revenues to rise and costs to fall. This is why in the Clinton years, the deficits were repeatedly smaller than projected and they became surpluses years before anticipated. Now, what many economists suggest is something like NOT cutting spending or increasing taxing now (except possibly on the wealthiest) because doing so will further slow the economy - actually making the deficit worse - as well as causing pain. This further helps the Republicans as we head into an election with the economy worse than it has to be.

Here, the Republicans are using something that really is NOT a crisis to try to get things passed that they never would have support for otherwise. A balanced budget would starve the government - especially as they accompany it with a near impossible threshold for what needs to be done to raise taxes. The fact is that the tax rates are at a low for several decades already. Then consider their budget (Ryan's) eliminates estate taxes and capital gains and dividend taxes. What you will have is a huge shift of income to the wealthy - as their assets essentially grow untaxed by either taxes on income from capital investment or on taxes as it passes to the next generation. The robber barons of the 1890s would have loved these people.

What I don't get is how they have fooled the peons among the tea party into thinking they benefit.

[boppers]

27. Nice post. I will try to be brief.

1. In a family budget, a family is willing to go into debt to send a child to medical school, or law school. Not so much for a Phd. in Women's Studies. Americans can be convinced of the difference between deficit, and investment.

2. As the AARP Ad notes: "Shrimp Treadmill".

[karynnj]

28. I don't think that there is a single Democrat (or republican) who has not spoken

of eliminating the waste and fraud. Whether the shrimp treadmill actually has value is something that might need to be evaluated. There have been times when serious valuable work has been distorted by taking a piece of it that looks weird and exploiting that. I have not bothered to try to find out anything about the purpose behind that project.

Nothing I said advocates for wasting money - though I completely disagree with your view that getting a PHD in Woman's Studies is not valuable - especially because I know a brilliant woman with that degree who has a good job at a nearby University. It is very likely this profession fits her better than being a lawyer or doctor.

It also seems like you agree that a balanced budget amendment is NOT a good idea and it appears that you do get that the false argument that "Americans all have to live under a balanced budget" is wrong.

[AtomicKitten]

2. I support that too. I'm sick of the GOP's horseshit. Screw 'em. nt

[cutlassmama]

10. +1

[Shrek]

11. Something I wonder about the 14th amendment "option"

Instead of raising the debt ceiling, why not use it for some targeted tax hikes?

The whole idea is avoid default, but there's nothing that says additional debt is the only way to do it. Why not use increased revenue instead?

If the 14th amendment can be used to ignore the debt ceiling then I don't see why it couldn't be used to ignore tax rates for the wealthy.

[ProSense]

14. Republicans are

in a corner, they either blow up the economy or agree to a deal.

They know that taxes are set to go up automatically at the end of 2012, which is after the election.

Republicans knows that submitting to simply raising the debt ceiling and punting on the rest allow the GOP to escape the revenueiraising crunch so they can live to fight for spending cuts another day.

The President insisting on closing the loopholes is the GOP's biggest fear. Democrats have been trying unsuccessfully to do that for years. There may never be a better opportunity.

Republicans have no bargaining chip except the debt ceiling, which they now realize they no longer have (thanks to Mitch McConnell).

[kiranon]

15. Agree with Bill on this one. Stop the nonsense and use the 14th Amendment.

[lumpy]

21. Since this is nonsense and the Pubs are only interested in

bringing Obama down, way down, I'll go along with Clinton on this.

[apnu]

16. Big Dawg has balls, big brass ones. (nt)

[angel823]

20. indeed

many, many things he did I disagree with, but he does have big brass ones. And sometimes that is what you need.

Angel

[spooky3]

22. Clinton's speaking out is BRILLIANT strategy - gives Obama leverage.

It does two things:

1) explains in a way that many Americans can understand (and approve of) why the debt limit MUST be raised (without conditions). This should put more political pressure on the Republicans to give up on most of their demands.

2) makes Obama look like an extremely patient leader who is willing to compromise to try to work together, which is the key perception for many independents, and makes the Republicans look like the petulant children that they are. Obama can behind the scenes continue to push for a more progressive agreement. If he can't get it, and Obama eventually has to invoke this option, it should definitely appear to all but the most rabid right wingers that Obama did everything possible to be reasonable, when he did not have to be, but that the Rethugs were totally unreasonable.

[Qutzupalotl]

24. I think that is the strategy here.

Sound reasonable, APPEAR to put things on the table you disagree with, and when nothing passes both houses — and nothing will — use the 14th Amendment option and get what you wanted in the first place.

[Fearless]

23. So Clinton wasn't the most liberal Dem we've ever had, but at least he had balls.

Could someone help Obama find his please?

[Tx4obama]

25. Kick.

:kick: