Maybe Bachmann is a flake after all
She's running ads in Iowa trumpeting her opposition to raising the debt limit. If the debt limit isn't increased, the United States will default on its debt- a thing which is not only unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, but which would guarantee that the economy will be plunged into a crisis that will make what we've been going through since 2008 look like child's play.
This is not the time to be playing chicken with the financial credibility of the United States and whatever prospect of economic recovery we as a nation might have. One more reason not to support Michele Bachmann at the caucuses in February.
HT: Real Clear Politics
ADDENDUM: Phillip Melanchthon once wrote that it is impossible to state an idea so clearly that it is impossible to misunderstand it. Somehow- I know not how- two aggregators, Stones Cry Out and Pseudopolymath- have completely missed the point of this post (stated, I think, rather clearly in the second paragraph), and come to the conclusion that my problem with Bachmann's position is that if the debt limit isn't raised, spendng will have to be cut.
But spending will have to be cut no matter what. I am entirely in favor of spending being cut- and in fact, cut drastically. My objection to not raising the debt limit is rather 1) that the Constitution forbids the government from dishonoring any legally contracted debt, and that honoring the provisions of the Constitution is a good thing; and 2) that the result in not raising it would be to cause the United States to default on its debt, with consequences to its credit rating and to our financial position in the world from which it would at best take years to recover, and which would deal a blow to our already-reeling economy that would make all the suffering that has gone before very much worse.
These are not subtle points, and the putting of words in the mouths of others seldom sheds much light on their arguments
Comments
The first is that there is no provision of the Constitution requiring you to pay all of your bills. But Section 4 of the 14th Amendment does, however, begin by saying,
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
A liberal might argue that this language was put into the Constitution in order to distinguish between the debts incurred by the Union as opposed to the Confederacy during the Civil War, and he'd be right. But that would not change the fact that its language makes the entire concept of a debt ceiling unconstitutional. If the United States incurs a debt, it is constitutionally obligated to honor it. Period. To argue otherwise is to engage in the same kind of constitutional eisegesis the Left is so fond of.
The second problem- an even bigger one- is that a great deal more is at stake here than whether people's social security checks go out on time. If you didn't pay your bills, your credit rating would suffer. This would be a problem for you, but since you aren't in the habit of living off money you borrow it would be less than utterly catastrophic. You would survive. But the Federal Government will not be anywhere near the place where its budget is balanced for quite a while, and even when it is, the problems of cash flow for an entity the size of the United States Government will make borrowing necessary. Especially at a time of economic crisis, the terms on which such borrowing would be possible would have siginificant consequences. Our preeminent economic position in the world- and in consequence, the health of our economy at a time when it is already the worst it has been since the Great Depression- simply could not survive our defaulting on our debts. And all of us would feel the consequences. We would probably recover from some extent from such a self-inflicted wound, in time. But our economic position in the world would never be the same again.
I absolutely agree with you about the necessity of getting spending under control. I will go a step further and say something no congressional Republican or Democrat would say: ultimately (I'm talking here about the long-term problem) we're going to need both drastic budget cuts and increases in taxes in order to solve the problem. This is especially the case because- whether we like it or not- the polls consistently show that the public is far more open to the idea of tax increases than to cuts in entitlements. Many of the things Paul Ryan and other Republicans in Congress have suggested are good ideas, but they are non-starters as a practical matter. The electorate simply will not tolerate them.
I also agree that the Republicans in Congress need to put pressure on the Administration to restrain spending. My quarrel is only with the method. You don't hold the health of the economy and the economic well-being of the American people hostage even in order to achieve desirable ends. My difficulty with Bachmann's position- and with that of the congressional GOP- is that they are employing reckless and irresponsible tactics to bring about absolutely desirable and in fact necessary goals.
Putting pressure on the Obama administration is one thing. Holding a gun to the head of an already fragile economy is quite another, at least in my book.