Presidents and Precedents

I’m thinking hard about how we’ve reached this point in history.  And by that I mean an actual Imperial President.

In the past the term was used for a President who was a little full of himself and decided to push Congress or The Court around a little to get what he wanted.  It’s been going on since Nixon for sure.

But I think Obama has turned it into an art form — not defending DOMA in order to get a summary judgments against it, or declaring that the Senate is in recess just so he could make appointments, or suspending/waiving pieces of Obamacare simply to placate contributors and other interest groups.

But now he’s threatening to let the U.S. go into default if he doesn’t get his way.

Let’s be perfectly clear on our terminology — “default” means that you can’t pay service on your debt.  Anyone with a mortgage understands this.  It means you must pay a minimum amount each month or you are seen as welching on your debt.  This minimum amount is at least the interest owed on the outstanding debt, along with necessary principal payments.

If you look at the tax revenue brought in monthly by the IRS, you’ll see that it brings in somewhere around $200B of revenue on average.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.  At worst, the service on the U.S. debt is $25B each month.  So, that $25B could be paid easily against the $200B revenue.

So why is there so much talk of “default?”  How could we default if there’s enough money each month to service our debt?

The answer is absolutely frightening.  We would default because Obama would instruct the Treasury to not pay the debt service. That is, he would spend the $200B as he chooses on other things and thus there would be no revenue left for the debt service.

Yep, you heard me right.  The only way we “default” is if Obama orders it to happen.

There’s one problem — the 14th Amendment requires the government to pay service on our debts.  So what does our President want to do?  He wants to spend the $200B and then borrow the money needed to service existing debt. That’s why he wants the debt ceiling raised.  By spending the $200B as he pleases, he comes to Congress with empty pockets and shouts that he can’t service the debt as required because he can’t borrow.

Of course, Congress naturally replies “well where did the $200B go?  You should have serviced the debt first before you paid for other things.”  And that’s how we’ve arrived at where we are.

Where it gets even scarier is that Obama is looking at the 14th Amendment as compelling him to borrow in order to service the debt.  This would be unprecedented.  The Executive Branch does not have the power to borrow money. That is firmly located in Article I (i.e.: in The House of Representatives) and nowhere else.  So if he goes ahead and tries to borrow money, he forces a Constitutional Crisis of epic proportions.

But it’s nothing new for this President.  He’s scoffed at both statute and Constitution since he entered office.  He acts as if he’s in charge and all must bend to his will.  And to date barely anyone has challenged him much less held him back.

Here’s the part I find curious, though — what Obama and his supporters don’t understand is that one day it’ll be our turn at bat.  It may take 4 years or 8 years or 20 years, but the day will come.  And when it does, we’re going to look back and say “hey, Obama got to do it.”  And we’re going to say it often.

So ask yourself this — would you want a Republican as an Imperial President?  Does it scare you how he might spend recklessly and endlessly on favors for the Right — Tax cuts, school vouchers, maybe even wars?

Then why support an Imperial President now?  You can’t put it back in the box once it escapes.  Believe me when I say that Conservatives are tiring of the Marquis of Queensbury Rules.  We’ll happily take every precedent your team establishes now and go hog wild when we get our chance.

Are you sure that’s what you want?

 

You know, my health insurance was just fine….

… and I’m willing to bet yours was too.  In fact, I bet if you asked most people who had health insurance as recently as a month ago, they’d probably tell you the same thing.

So, let’s put these people aside and look at the remainder of the country — the so-called “uninsured and under-insured.”  Now without re-litigating the entire debate, I will contend that there was a way to solve these folks’ issues without knocking down the whole system.

If you’ve read my stuff or spoken to me personally, you know that I agree that something needs to be done for those who couldn’t get the health insurance they needed.  I’ve also said endlessly that Obamacare is not that solution.  I’m sorry, but there are simpler ways to solve a clogged drain than knocking down your house and building a bigger, less efficient one.

For example, how about simply expanding Medicare’s and Medicaid’s eligibility requirements?  Surely you could have covered most of these people just by doing this.  And why not start a new, smaller, targeted program to cover the remainder?

This is what’s frustrating to those of us who are against this Law.  It’s overkill.  There were simpler ways to help those that needed help that would have let the rest of us keep what we had.

If you’re for this Law, ask yourself what you’re really in favor of — the text of the Law, or the idea behind the Law.  I doubt very much that you favor the former.

Conservatives and Republicans are more reasonable than we get credit for.  There are people suffering in this world, and those in a position to help, should help.  We accept this responsibility.  But this Law doesn’t accomplish its lofty promises.  It won’t help those who need it most, and it hurts those who were in a position to help.  In other words, we all hurt more.

Surely a calm and rational person would see that this Law won’t do what it promises.  Leave emotion out of it and think it over.  Then let’s discuss a solution that will actually work.