About the debt ceiling

[UncleMark]

So it sounds like there's going to be a showdown of some sorts on this, and I got to thinking...

IIUC, the debt ceiling is a legislative thing, no more, no less, just like any other law passed by Congress (and if I'm wrong on this, then what follows won't have any foundation). And also IIUC, it's binding on Treasury -- they are required to stay under it and not spend any money that would put us over the limit.

However, the same body also passes legislation that calls for Treasury to spend above and beyond what would be allowed under the ceiling. So which legislation is Treasury bound by? Seems to me that if the spending bills are enacted subsequent to the last revision of the debt ceiling legislation, then the appropriations bills would "supersede" the debt ceiling legislation, making the debt ceiling moot and/or unenforceable.

Can somewhere tell me where I'm off base here? It's not like this can be some kind of legal ninja breakthrough that no one else has thought of.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So it sounds like there's going to be a showdown of some sorts on this, and I got to thinking...

IIUC, the debt ceiling is a legislative thing, no more, no less, just like any other law passed by Congress (and if I'm wrong on this, then what follows won't have any foundation). And also IIUC, it's binding on Treasury -- they are required to stay under it and not spend any money that would put us over the limit.

However, the same body also passes legislation that calls for Treasury to spend above and beyond what would be allowed under the ceiling. So which legislation is Treasury bound by? Seems to me that if the spending bills are enacted subsequent to the last revision of the debt ceiling legislation, then the appropriations bills would "supersede" the debt ceiling legislation, making the debt ceiling moot and/or unenforceable.

Can somewhere tell me where I'm off base here? It's not like this can be some kind of legal ninja breakthrough that no one else has thought of.

The way I think of it is the spending bills are your grocery list and the debt ceiling is your credit card max. Now the Democrats could expand the debt ceiling to 900 trillion in the reconciliation and end the charade, but the Republicans would of course play that as big spenders. So we will continue playing this stupid game.

 

[UncleMark]

The way I think of it is the spending bills are your grocery list and the debt ceiling is your credit card max. Now the Democrats could expand the debt ceiling to 900 trillion in the reconciliation and end the charade, but the Republicans would of course play that as big spenders. So we will continue playing this stupid game.

Sure. But that's beside the point I'm getting at. The spending bills passed after the debt ceiling bill. Shouldn't the spending bills supersede the debt ceiling bill, rendering it moot?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Sure. But that's beside the point I'm getting at. The spending bills passed after the debt ceiling bill. Shouldn't the spending bills supersede the debt ceiling bill, rendering it moot?

I still think the credit card limit is in play, congress has told the fed they can only borrow X. It doesn't matter what the spending bill is, the fed is limited to X until they are authorized for more. The spending bill tells DoD they can buy 10 new helicopters and an f35, but until a bill is passed saying the fed can borrow that money they cannot be bought. Now I suspect congress could combine both in the same bill but that eliminates the political drama.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

So it sounds like there's going to be a showdown of some sorts on this, and I got to thinking...

IIUC, the debt ceiling is a legislative thing, no more, no less, just like any other law passed by Congress (and if I'm wrong on this, then what follows won't have any foundation). And also IIUC, it's binding on Treasury -- they are required to stay under it and not spend any money that would put us over the limit.

However, the same body also passes legislation that calls for Treasury to spend above and beyond what would be allowed under the ceiling. So which legislation is Treasury bound by? Seems to me that if the spending bills are enacted subsequent to the last revision of the debt ceiling legislation, then the appropriations bills would "supersede" the debt ceiling legislation, making the debt ceiling moot and/or unenforceable.

Can somewhere tell me where I'm off base here? It's not like this can be some kind of legal ninja breakthrough that no one else has thought of.

 

[UncleMark]

I still think the credit card limit is in play, congress has told the fed they can only borrow X. It doesn't matter what the spending bill is, the fed is limited to X until they are authorized for more. The spending bill tells DoD they can buy 10 new helicopters and an f35, but until a bill is passed saying the fed can borrow that money they cannot be bought. Now I suspect congress could combine both in the same bill but that eliminates the political drama.

Perhaps. My question actually stems from wondering what would happen if Treasury just kept cutting checks and issuing Treasury bills and ignoring the debt ceiling altogether. Assuming that would be challenged, I was wondering if the courts might entertain the argument I proposed.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So it sounds like there's going to be a showdown of some sorts on this, and I got to thinking...

IIUC, the debt ceiling is a legislative thing, no more, no less, just like any other law passed by Congress (and if I'm wrong on this, then what follows won't have any foundation). And also IIUC, it's binding on Treasury -- they are required to stay under it and not spend any money that would put us over the limit.

However, the same body also passes legislation that calls for Treasury to spend above and beyond what would be allowed under the ceiling. So which legislation is Treasury bound by? Seems to me that if the spending bills are enacted subsequent to the last revision of the debt ceiling legislation, then the appropriations bills would "supersede" the debt ceiling legislation, making the debt ceiling moot and/or unenforceable.

Can somewhere tell me where I'm off base here? It's not like this can be some kind of legal ninja breakthrough that no one else has thought of.

The budget tells agencies what to buy, but the debt ceiling limits Treasury's ability to pay the bills. So, even if the debt ceiling is reached, the government can keep buying things and incurring new obligations, but the bills will just pile up unpaid at Treasury until the debt ceiling is increased.

 

[twenty02]

Perhaps. My question actually stems from wondering what would happen if Treasury just kept cutting checks and issuing Treasury bills and ignoring the debt ceiling altogether. Assuming that would be challenged, I was wondering if the courts might entertain the argument I proposed.

Appropriation bills gives different govt agencies authority to go out and buy stuff / incur obligations. Once they buy stuff, bills come in and are paid, citing different appropriations (basically like citing a bank account #). But just like your bank account, if there is no actual money in the account, the Treasury check would bounce.

For Treasury to issue debt to cover these bills in excess of what the debt ceiling statute allows would be obviously illegal. Just like it would be illegal for a govt agency to incur obligations in excess of what they were appropriated.

Two different things entirely

 

[Marvin the Martian]

From 79-95 we were covered by the Gephardt Rule, spending bills automatically raised the debt ceiling. What a rational way to do things, smart, simple, to the point. Which caused Newt not to like it so it was revoked. He wanted to run against Dems voting to increase it. Always put politics before country works as Newt was rewarded.

So now we have to go through this charade. So what happens if the "burn it down" group gets enough votes to return us to October, 1929?

There is a workaround the president can do. He can order the mint to produce a few $1 trillion coins. He can store them in Fort Knox, suddenly the US has more assets and doesn't need to increase debt. No president wants to do that, but it may become our get out of 1929 free card.

 

[UncleMark]

From 79-95 we were covered by the Gephardt Rule, spending bills automatically raised the debt ceiling. What a rational way to do things, smart, simple, to the point. Which caused Newt not to like it so it was revoked. He wanted to run against Dems voting to increase it. Always put politics before country works as Newt was rewarded.

As it stands right now, I'm not sure if Mitch is going to blow shit up or not. He's said that raising the ceiling won't get any Republican support. What I haven't heard him say one way or the other is whether the Pubs will agree to allow it to come to a vote -- i.e. that they won't filibuster it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

As it stands right now, I'm not sure if Mitch is going to blow shit up or not. He's said that raising the ceiling won't get any Republican support. What I haven't heard him say one way or the other is whether the Pubs will agree to allow it to come to a vote -- i.e. that they won't filibuster it.

He wants the Democrats to raise it alone so he can use it as a campaign attack. So he's willing to play chicken with 1929 to play politics. Not defaulting should be bipartisan.

 

[UncleMark]

He wants the Democrats to raise it alone so he can use it as a campaign attack. So he's willing to play chicken with 1929 to play politics. Not defaulting should be bipartisan.

If he lets it come to a vote then I'm fine. He's going to do what he does. If he blocks a vote and causes a crisis, I don't see any upside for him politically. It will be obvious to all that any fallout will be the Republicans' fault.

 

[billyhillui]

So it sounds like there's going to be a showdown of some sorts on this, and I got to thinking...

IIUC, the debt ceiling is a legislative thing, no more, no less, just like any other law passed by Congress (and if I'm wrong on this, then what follows won't have any foundation). And also IIUC, it's binding on Treasury -- they are required to stay under it and not spend any money that would put us over the limit.

However, the same body also passes legislation that calls for Treasury to spend above and beyond what would be allowed under the ceiling. So which legislation is Treasury bound by? Seems to me that if the spending bills are enacted subsequent to the last revision of the debt ceiling legislation, then the appropriations bills would "supersede" the debt ceiling legislation, making the debt ceiling moot and/or unenforceable.

Can somewhere tell me where I'm off base here? It's not like this can be some kind of legal ninja breakthrough that no one else has thought of.

Did you say I got to thinking or drinking? The $3.5 trillion will never pass, either chamber. Manchin won't even vote for it. A day or two before the deadline, a 'continuing resolution' will pass. Then within two weeks, a deal will be done. Same as under Trump.

 

[billyhillui]

He wants the Democrats to raise it alone so he can use it as a campaign attack. So he's willing to play chicken with 1929 to play politics. Not defaulting should be bipartisan.

 

[Bill4411]

Isn't the current debt what was passed during the Trump administration not for what it being proposed? It would appear Mitch is voting against himself.

 

[UncleMark]

Isn't the current debt what was passed during the Trump administration not for what it being proposed? It would appear Mitch is voting against himself.

That's how it works. Mitch spends it and then makes the Dems pay for it.

 

[billyhillui]

That's how it works. Mitch spends it and then makes the Dems pay for it.

Turtle is the Pelosi of the Senate.

'He gets things done'
Trump is a product of Turtle, & Turtle will banish Trump soon, as Trump works to do the same to himself.