In the ongoing debate over raising the debt ceiling, one option has not had much prominence: whether the Obama administration could ignore it altogether, and just spend the money it owes anyway. Would that be legal?
Matthew Zeitlin at The New Republic spoke with a few political scientists, budget wonks and constitutional scholars who argue that it would be. An excerpt:
Garrett Epps, a legal journalist and professor at University of Baltimore School of Law, has made an even broader argument in a pair of articles for The Atlantic's website. In an interview, Epps told me that there was a strong argument that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because it exceeds the legislative branch's power of the purse. The argument goes like this: Because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations. The debt ceiling, then, is legislative "double-counting,"? because the executive branch is obligated to spend the money Congress appropriates, without having to go back and ask again for permission.
Of course, ignoring the debt ceiling could have some severe political consequences, especially since most Americans do not seem to realize that doing so primarily requires making good on payments already promised, as opposed to committing to new spending. That may explain why most Americans still are against raising the ceiling.
E-mail This Print Share Close Linkedin Digg Facebook Mixx My Space Permalink debt ceiling, fiscal policy, national debt Related Posts From Economix German Billionaires for a â??Rich Taxâ??Preventing Future Debt Crises in EuropeMore Answers on Europeâ??s Debt CrisisEuropeâ??s Debt Crisis: Your Questions AnsweredBring Your Questions on the European Debt Crisis Previous Post Who Doesnâ??t Pay Federal Income Taxes (Legally) NYTD.CRNR.userContent.getUserContent(25,'default'); Search This Blog Search Previous Post Who Doesnâ??t Pay Federal Income Taxes (Legally) Follow This Blog Twitter RSS Featured Economix Posts Who Doesnâ??t Pay Federal Income Taxes (Legally) //
That so many taxpayers pay no federal income tax is a direct result of Republican policies, an economist writes â?? but the more troubling issue is how many of the well-off pay no tax.
Born to Lose: Health Inequality at Birth //
Low birth weight, long recognized as an indicator of vulnerability to health problems, is also an indicator of poor economic prospects, an economist writes.
The Human-Capital Approach to Occupational Choice //
Modest increases in the amounts that primary-care doctors are paid would go a long way toward closing the gap between them and specialists, an economist writes.
Preferring Boys to Girls //
China isnâ??t the only country where parents have a distinct preference for baby boys rather than girls â?? so is the United States, according to Gallup poll data from the last 70 years.
Fiscal Contraction Hurts Economic Expansion //
Finding a way to reduce health care costs and tax reform are more likely to solve Americaâ??s deficit problems than cutting spending, an economist writes.
Are Taxes High or Low? A Further Look //
While some assert that a drastic lowering of tax rates could pay for itself by unleashing growth, taxes are already lower for most Americans than they have been since the 1960s, an economist writes.
In the ongoing debate over raising the debt ceiling, one option has not had much prominence: whether the Obama administration could ignore it altogether, and just spend the money it owes anyway. Would that be legal?
Matthew Zeitlin at The New Republic spoke with a few political scientists, budget wonks and constitutional scholars who argue that it would be. An excerpt:
Garrett Epps, a legal journalist and professor at University of Baltimore School of Law, has made an even broader argument in a pair of articles for The Atlantic's website. In an interview, Epps told me that there was a strong argument that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because it exceeds the legislative branch's power of the purse. The argument goes like this: Because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations. The debt ceiling, then, is legislative "double-counting,"? because the executive branch is obligated to spend the money Congress appropriates, without having to go back and ask again for permission.
Of course, ignoring the debt ceiling could have some severe political consequences, especially since most Americans do not seem to realize that doing so primarily requires making good on payments already promised, as opposed to committing to new spending. That may explain why most Americans still are against raising the ceiling.
That so many taxpayers pay no federal income tax is a direct result of Republican policies, an economist writes â?? but the more troubling issue is how many of the well-off pay no tax.
Low birth weight, long recognized as an indicator of vulnerability to health problems, is also an indicator of poor economic prospects, an economist writes.
Modest increases in the amounts that primary-care doctors are paid would go a long way toward closing the gap between them and specialists, an economist writes.
China isnâ??t the only country where parents have a distinct preference for baby boys rather than girls â?? so is the United States, according to Gallup poll data from the last 70 years.
Finding a way to reduce health care costs and tax reform are more likely to solve Americaâ??s deficit problems than cutting spending, an economist writes.
While some assert that a drastic lowering of tax rates could pay for itself by unleashing growth, taxes are already lower for most Americans than they have been since the 1960s, an economist writes.
A conversation with Diane Coyle, a British economist and the author of "The Economics of Enough."?
Second verse, same as the first: The quarter when the economy was supposed to stage its comeback is looking just as bad as its disappointing predecessor.
Swaying regulators against tighter capital standards may not prove easy for the banking industry, an economist writes.
More small businesses plan to reduce their work forces in the next three months than plan to increase them, according to a new report.
Catherine Rampell is an economics reporter for The New York Times.
David Leonhardt writes the Economic Scene column, which appears in The Times on Wednesdays.
Motoko Rich is an economics reporter for The New York Times.
Steven Greenhouse writes about labor and workplace issues for The New York Times.
Liz Alderman writes about European economics, finance and business from Paris.
Jack Ewing writes about European economics and business from Frankfurt.
Economists offer readers insights about the dismal science.
Economics doesn't have to be complicated. It is the study of our lives "â? our jobs, our homes, our families and the little decisions we face every day. Here at Economix, Catherine Rampell, David Leonhardt and other contributors will analyze the news and use economics as a framework for thinking about the world. We welcome feedback, at economix@nytimes.com.
An accounting of the governmentâ??s rescue package.
Three economists explain what worked and what didn't.
A map of unemployment rates across the United States, now through January.
Faces, numbers and stories from behind the downturn.
A series about the surge in consumer debt and the lenders who made it possible.
A series exploring the origins of the financial crisis, from Washington to Wall Street.
Read Full Article »