The Big Default Lie – Obama Scare Tactics, Blame Game

Editor’s Note – With all the scare tactics being employed by the administration over the continuing resolution (CR) deadlock and the looming debt ceiling issue, it is apparent that the truth is in rare supply. Political ‘optics’ are clearly the driving force and its just abominable.

The White House continues to blame the Republican membership in the House, especially the Tea Party Caucus, and continually lambastes Senator Ted Cruz, but who really is at fault for the so-called shut down and impasse? What is for certain is that the those who constantly employ scare tactics and the blame game are the ones who are indeed to blame. Guilt transference for political game is the artifice of the coward and scoundrel.

Now the big talk is about America’s status on the global economic stage and what the true meaning of default really is; who cares if the Chinese are concerned. They see a political ploy as well and will use any leverage to make us look bad, so isn’t President Obama and Harry Reid actually shouting fire in a crowded theater? Read the facts below, stay informed and stop allowing America’s low-informed folks from being manipulated for political game.

Again, it is their stock in trade to scare and blame, because they know who is really to blame! It is time to hold the President, Harry Reid and John McCain responsible for their lies and personal attacks on our elected representatives in the House and Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, et al.

Obama’s Big Lie-There Won’t Be Default Unless HE Ignores Constitution (We’re Already Over Debt Limit)

From Yidwiththelid

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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. US Constitution, Amendment 14 Section 4

 The President is doing his best to frighten Americans and our creditors by claiming if the GOP does not capitulate to his demands and “cleanly” raise the debt ceiling we will default on our debt, damaging forever the full faith and credit of the United States. Simply put, that is a lie!

debt-ceiling

In fact we are already over the debt limit and the sky hasn’t fallen. The present debt limit is $16.999 trillion. According to Treasury Direct, the Dept. of Treasury’s website the US has already surpassed the debt limit by over $47 trillion.

If the October 17th deadline is passed without an increase in the debt ceiling it simply means the government can’t borrow money and has to “live” on the tax revenue it takes in each month (about $250 billion). Interest on the federal debt runs about $20 billion each month leaving money left to run parts of the government.

Screen Shot 2013-10-09 at 8.22.07 AMForbes’ Jeffery Dorman describes one way for the remaining dollars to be spent

The federal government estimates it will collect almost $3 trillion in revenue for the fiscal year that runs from October 1, 2013 until September 30, 2014. Below I demonstrate one possible way the federal government could institute some priorities and spend only the amount it receives in revenue.

To begin with, the interest on the national debt must be paid. I will budget $240 billion for that. The White House is guessing a little lower, but interest rates have been rising, so I will play it safe. Next, social security payments should run about $860 billion. Place that as the second priority and we already have spent $1.1 trillion of the $3 trillion we have.

Holding Medicare spending to about its fiscal year 2013 total and making some small cuts to Medicaid and other health spending would keep health care spending by the government to $860 billion. This does not include additional spending for the Affordable Care Act, but we need to prioritize and I am making it a lower priority than the health spending we have already been incurring. Also, there is no need for extra spending for the Affordable Care Act before January 1 since the coverage does not start until then. So as long as the debt ceiling is raised before then, there is no problem.

Veteran’s benefits will cost another $140 billion if we leave it unchanged. Department of Justice programs and general government functions add another $83 billion if their spending levels are held roughly constant. We can save some money by cutting science funding to $10 billion and international affairs spending to $13 billion which is enough to operate the State Department and embassies, but not pay foreign aid. This takes total spending to $2.2 trillion.

If the debt ceiling deadline is missed the federal government will have to prioritize spending. And despite the scary verbiage, there will not be a default unless Obama himself decides to ignore the constitutional direction that interest on our debt comes first.

Obviously nobody believes deficit spending should be brought down to zero immediately that would be irresponsible and will eventually damage the economy. On the same hand if the debt assuming that a debt ceiling freeze is not a permanent fix and lasts just a short while, the government can operate and our debt can be serviced without a blow to the US economy.

The damage will come when, just as he did with the sequester and the shutdown, Obama acts like a spoiled angry child and prioritizes government spending in a way that will cause the most “hurt” to the American people.

UPDATE Moody’s Agrees

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

McCarthy – Funding Government Constitutionally 101

Editor’s Note – In the Constitution, the power of the purse is the purview of the House of Representatives. Why? Because this is the people’s house, where the purse is controlled by the people, not a reigning monarch at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. nor a despot who has taken over the Senate as a one man wrecking crew.

As usual, Andy McCarthy tells us how it is supposed to work and how the House must act. Remember, the House passed a CR that fully funds the entire government at ‘Sequester’ levels, just no Obama Care funds. If the President continues to negotiate by saying he will not negotiate – then he is solely responsible if the government must shut down – we hope it does! But Harry Reid ADDED funds back into the CR – totally illegal as we see in McCarthy’s clarity of thought on what is constitutional in regard to spending:THE PEOPLE'S BUDGET(1)

“All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”…

The Senate can tinker within the spending limits set by the House, but it must live within those limits. The continuing resolution to fund the government, which is the legislation at issue in the current controversy, is no exception. The Senate is not permitted to originate spending, as Majority Leader Harry Reid did on Friday, with the indulgence of Senate Republicans — who voted against his appropriation of Obamacare funds but did not challenge the validity of it.

In addition, always remember, Congress cannot bind the hands of a future Congress – therefore, Obama Care, labeled as a “mandatory liability” is no such thing, and not funding it is the will of the people! Mr. Obama and team use a lot of rhetoric about the people, but the castigate them none-the-less by disparaging those the people elected.

How to Constitutionally Fund the Government 

It’s the House’s prerogative to supply funds, or not, for Obamacare. 

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

Republican leaders are right: There was a flaw in Ted Cruz’s plan to defund Obamacare: He took Republican leaders seriously.

Senator Cruz, along with Senator Mike Lee and House conservatives, devised a strategy to forestall the unpopular socialized-medicine scheme that Democrats unilaterally rammed through Congress in 2010. They would starve it of funds, not unlike the way Democrats and Republicans have slashed funds for fence construction along the Mexican border, even though the fence has been the law of the land for seven years. The Obamacare defunding strategy, though, depended on Republican fidelity to a ballyhooed campaign promise to reform Washington’s wayward legislative process by reimposing constitutional order — an order that gives the House of Representatives primacy over the spending of taxpayer dollars.

In the stretch run of what became the historic 2010 midterm elections, the Republican establishment issued its “Pledge to America.” If you flip past the many pin-up glossies of John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy, you occasionally find some text in the Pledge. Text such as this: “We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored.”

Members of the Republican House leadership, from left to right, Michigan Rep. Candice Miller, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam, Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy and House Minority Leader John Boehner, introduce the party's new "America Speaking Out" campaign at the Newseum May 25, 2010, in Washington. / GETTY IMAGES
Members of the Republican House leadership, from left to right, Michigan Rep. Candice Miller, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam, Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy and House Minority Leader John Boehner, introduce the party’s new “America Speaking Out” campaign at the Newseum May 25, 2010, in Washington. / GETTY IMAGES

Constitutional devotion was fashionable in 2010 — more fashion than substance, some of us suspected at the time. The GOP had been cast into the cold by angry voters in 2006 and 2008. The party had controlled the White House and both congressional chambers through most of the first six Bush years. As self-styled “compassionate conservatives,” Republicans bloated government, nearly doubling the debt the nation had previously taken over two centuries to accumulate. Fed up, conservatives stayed home in droves. The result was the Pelosi/Reid Congress and, later, the Obama administration.

There ensued a nightmare of full-throttle statism, exemplified above all by Obamacare. That, and not anything the Republicans themselves did, is what opened the door to a GOP comeback. The dynamic force in American politics was the Tea Party. Not an actual political party, the Tea Party is a grass-roots reform movement that calls for a return to limited central government on the original constitutional model — a model that promotes liberty by sharply restricting federal authority, and thus federal spending.

So out went the “compassion” garb, replaced by the GOP’s claim to be the “constitutional conservatives” that the Tea Party craved, the antidote to Obama. Republicans did not just expressly pledge to honor the Constitution as originally understood by the Framers. They promised: “We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.”

As Cruz and Lee are learning, it turns out they were kidding.

A little over a week ago, with the October 1 implementation of Obamacare looming, the House voted not to fund the massive and massively unprepared program. This House bill has been scorned by the GOP establishment and its sympathetic scribes. Echoing Beltway oracle Charles Krauthammer, they tut-tut that Republicans only control “one half of one third of the government”; therefore, the refrain goes, they cannot reasonably expect to impose their policy preferences on an electorate that has placed the White House and Senate under Democratic control.

Yet the Constitution that Republicans claim to venerate does not assign power in proportion to the quantum of governmental departments or congressional seats won in elections. All or part of each enumerated power is assigned to specified components of government by subject matter. And significantly, at least if we are truly honoring the Constitution as originally designed, the Framers did not assign authority arbitrarily. Rather, supremacy over a given power was assigned to the component of government best suited to control its exercise in a free republic.

To take a few examples, decisions about military tactics are reserved to the president — regardless of whether Congress is overwhelmingly in the hands of the opposing party. Consent to the president’s appointment of high public officials is reserved to the Senate alone — it makes no difference whether the House or the presidency is controlled by the opposing party. Legal decisions are the province of the judiciary, and can be dictated by five Democratic justices — even if the rest of the Supreme Court and the rest of the government are solidly Republican.

And spending is the prerogative of the House. Not the Congress, the House.

The Constitution expressly provides (in Article I, Section 7): “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This Origination Clause applies to all spending legislation. As the clause elaborates, when the subject at issue involves spending public money, the Senate “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills”; but it may not instigate spending. The Senate can tinker within the spending limits set by the House, but it must live within those limits. The continuing resolution to fund the government, which is the legislation at issue in the current controversy, is no exception. The Senate is not permitted to originate spending, as Majority Leader Harry Reid did on Friday, with the indulgence of Senate Republicans — who voted against his appropriation of Obamacare funds but did not challenge the validity of it.

The Republican establishment keeps flashing those “one half of one third” tablets Dr. Krauthammer carried down from Mount Sinai. But Republicans fulfilling a pledge to honor the Framers’ Constitution would do better to take their cues from James Madison. “The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government,” he explained in Federalist No. 58 (emphasis added).

Federalist Papers_0One could contend, as “organic Constitution” devotees do, that it makes no difference which congressional chamber initiates spending as long as both must vote to approve it. But besides improperly nullifying an explicit constitutional command, this contention ignores the Framers’ rationale. Putting the House in charge of spending was not an idle choice.

As Madison elaborated, the purpose of the Origination Clause is to put the “power of the purse” firmly in the hands of “the immediate representatives of the people.” Government has no resources of its own; it has only what it confiscates from the citizenry. In a free republic, liberty hinges on the ability of citizens to constrain the demands government can make. The Framers prudently concluded that the best means of constraint was to give the definitive word on taxing and spending to the House: The only legislators directly elected by the people at the time the Constitution was adopted (senators were chosen by their state legislatures until 1913); and, to this day, the only representatives who must face the voters every two years.

As noted above, the legislation at issue in the present controversy is not Obamacare specifically. It is a continuing resolution for funding the entire government. Under the Constitution, any funding in the continuing resolution must not only be approved by the House, it must originate in the House.

The House has declined to provide funding for Obamacare. Critics of Senator Cruz — and some of the most vicious imprecations come from his fellow Republicans — mock the defunding strategy as a divisive delusion. Cruz, they say, well knew that once the House defunding measure got to the Senate, Democrats would simply exploit their majority to provide the Obamacare mega-billions. That, indeed, explains the seeming anomaly that Cruz encouraged the House to pass defunding but tried to block the Senate from voting on it. Under Senate procedure, it is when debate ends and voting is about to commence that amendments are allowed, enabling Senator Reid to tack on the funding restoration.

In a properly functioning constitutional process, however, Reid’s maneuver would have failed. Not only Republicans but senators of both parties, in fidelity to the Constitution, would concede that, while the Senate may ask the House to fund Obamacare as part of the continuing resolution, it is the House’s call.

Positing one of the theories that have the country careening toward economic suicide, old Washington hands counter that the House may not cut off Obamacare funding because it is “mandatory” spending. That is, they argue that under decades-old federal budget legislation — somehow invoked without embarrassment by elected officials who go years without honoring the legislation’s mandate to pass a budget — Congress has no discretion to withhold entitlement spending (such as Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare). The spending, they say, is required by the authorizing legislation itself; it does not require any separate appropriation and can be reversed only by a separate, repealing act of Congress — passed by both houses and signed by the president. In essence, they claim that by passing Obamacare three years ago, the House has already originated the funding in today’s continuing resolution.

This contention fails for several reasons. To begin with, it should be obvious enough that the so-called “Affordable” Care Act that authorized Obamacare is not self-executing. Washington can call it “mandatory,” but if new spending approval were unnecessary, we would not be at a stalemate now. As the Heritage Foundation points out, supposedly mandatory spending is routinely withheld in the appropriations process, and key elements of Obamacare (such as the insurance exchanges, as Hans von Spakovsky explains) are not even deemed mandatory. More to the point, as I have argued and as Heritage documentsPresident Obama himself has defunded purportedly “mandatory” elements of Obamacare — in the absence of any legislative authority whatsoever. In the Beltway’s upside-down world, the House of Representatives is apparently the only part of government prohibited from cutting spending.

There are, moreover, higher principles involved here — particularly if Republicans are in favor of restoring constitutional order, as they proclaim. There is nothing in the Constitution about “mandatory” spending — a progressive contrivance to insulate the welfare state from adult decisions about living within one’s means. As argued here before, social-welfare policy is a matter for the states. Its management is among what Madison described as “the powers reserved to the several States [that] extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Health-care regulation is plainly not among the “external objects,” such as foreign relations and national defense, that the federal government was created to manage. Furthermore, federal entitlement programs are rationalized by a contorted construction of the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause — one the Framers would not have recognized.

Nevertheless, in the current controversy, conservatives are not calling for the dismantling of the welfare state or even the repeal of Obamacare. Everyone recognizes that the latter would require an act of Congress. We are talking about the narrow Republican commitment to restore originalist constitutional principles to the legislative process. The legislation at issue is a continuing resolution for funding the government, not expunging Obamacare. Refusing to include Obamacare in that funding would not remove Obamacare’s statutory validity. It is black-letter law that a prior Congress cannot bind the present Congress, and a statute cannot supersede the Constitution. Prior law’s designation of Obamacare spending as “mandatory” cannot compel the current Congress to fund it as part of continuing-resolution legislation, nor does it alter the Constitution’s command that all spending in that continuing resolution must originate in the House.

Many will say this is a quaint way of looking at things, that in modern practice it is commonplace for the Senate to gut House bills, replace them wholesale with different Senate spending priorities (or even spending provisions helpfully drafted by the executive branch), and then send them back to the House for approval — or hammer differences out in a conference committee. True, but it is precisely because legislative practices and proposals violate the Constitution with notorious regularity that the Republican establishment — back when it was pleading for conservative votes — pledged (oh, let’s quote them again) “to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored.”

The American people do not want Obamacare, and the representatives closest to them have voted not to spend the people’s money on it. According to the Constitution, that should be the end of the matter.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

Selling ObamaCare – 'Campaign 2013' Kicks Off

Editor’s Note – Here comes Campaign 2013. No, not an actual election campaign, but one just the same. The topics: Egypt, Health Care, the Federal Budget, the Debt Ceiling, Corporate Taxes, and other “Cornerstone” issues. Of course, it all comes as we come close to the brink as usual.

Its time to go back out on the campaign trail, first to New York and Pennsylvania, then much more, all after six rounds of golf on Martha’s Vineyard with a who’s who list of cronies as Egypt was melting down. Instead of leading, and working with both parties in both branches of Congress, he is forcing the hand of his opponents and preaching to the people how Congress wont work with him. When will the rest of America see that the ’emperor has no clothes’?300px-Barack_Obama_playing_golf2

Part of this tour will involve much rhetoric involving ObamaCare and the attempt by some in Congress to cut off the spending on it. But if it was such a great plan, why is their such a need to sell it again to the masses? Easy, America didoes not want it, and never did.

He will accuse them of wanting to shut down the government but we all know it really is more his style – brinkmanship. But now, the administration is going to be spending hundreds of millions to sell a law already on the books – wait, the law that keeps getting delayed unilaterally by the President, illegally, and the law that has missed 50% of its deadlines already.

$700 Million?, write a song to win a prize for selling ObamaCare, and more, its like a day time TV game show now:

It will make you stronger. It will give you peace of mind and make you feel like a winner. Health insurance is what the whole country has been talking about, so don’t be left out.

Sound like a sales pitch? Get ready for a lot more. As President Barack Obama’s health care law moves from theory to reality in the coming months, its success may hinge on whether the best minds in advertising can reach one of the hardest-to-find parts of the population: people without health coverage.

The campaign won’t come cheap: The total amount to be spent nationally on publicity, marketing and advertising will be at least $684 million, according to data compiled The Associated Press from federal and state sources. (Read the rest here.)

But wait, there is more fun to anticipate. It just can’t stop releasing putrid, rank odors as it rolls out. Look what our friends at Judicial Watch have uncovered – potential corruption in ObamaCare? Cronies getting tons of money to ‘facilitate’, even ACORN:

Obamacare: Multi-Million Dollar Corruption Central

By Judicial Watch

In a frightening glimpse of the potential for corruption in Obamacare, the government is giving dozens of leftist organizations $67 million to help people “navigate” health insurance exchanges that haven’t even been fully established.

The “navigators” receiving the taxpayer dollars will help people shop for and enroll in plans that will eventually be available on the new federal government market places. The so-called navigators will perform their duties in a “culturally competent manner,” according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency doling out the cash.

Obamacare-PigThe money will be divided between 105 mostly leftist groups (surprise, surprise) that will help the uninsured sign up for coverage and understand their options. Here are a few examples of the community organizations receiving navigator grants from the government; an Arizona nonprofit called “Campesinos Sin Fronteras” that provides services to farm workers and low-income Hispanics; a south Florida legal group that will provide navigators in “racially, ethnically, linguistically, culturally and socioeconomically diverse” communities; three Planned Parenthood branches—in Iowa, Montana and New Hampshire—got a combined $655,000 to serve as navigators.

Here are a few other grant recipients worth mentioning; the Arab Community Center in Michigan is getting nearly $300,000 to reach out to and engage uninsured community members through “multicultural” media. A Black Chamber of Commerce in South Carolina is receiving north of $230,000 to “provide outreach around new coverage options” and a Hispanic aging group in Texas will receive over $646,000 help members that are “socially isolated due to cultural and linguistic differences.”

It’s tough not to see that there is a huge racial component in the administration’s efforts. The government is spending big bucks targeting minorities in a seemingly desperate effort to salvage the president’s hostile takeover of the nation’ healthcare system. There is another factor in all of this; for Obama’s healthcare law to succeed millions of people must purchase insurance through the government’s new markets and it doesn’t appear like that’s going to happen.

That helps explain the frantic, multi-million-dollar outreach effort announced this month. HHS has already launched a 24-hour consumer call center in 150 languages. Additionally, the administration has recruited museums and libraries to help out with signing up people for healthcare and community health centers are sharing $150 million in federal grants to help enroll people. The $67 million navigator initiative is simply the latest investment.

“Navigators will be among the many resources available to help consumers understand their coverage options in the Marketplace,” says Obama HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “A network of volunteers on the ground in every state – health care providers, business leaders, faith leaders, community groups, advocates, and local elected officials – can help spread the word and encourage their neighbors to get enrolled.”

Also, this week HHS announced a contest that awards cash prizes—$30,000 in all—to those who create hip videos promoting Obamacare. The goal behind that brilliant idea is to inform young people about health insurance coverage under the new law. After all, Obamacare promises to make health care “more affordable and accessible for 19 million uninsured young adults across the country,” according to an HHS.

There seems to be no limit to the administration’s costly plan to make this disastrous healthcare law work. Just this week the president’s hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, blasted Obamacare in an editorial that referred to the measure as a “clumsy monstrosity.” The bottom line, according to the editorial: “Let’s delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law.”

'Aiding and Abetting' – The demise of Congress over Debt

By SUA Staff – With the incessant ‘end runs’ around the Congress in his first four years, now it looks like the big one is before us – applying some arcane twisted logic that the 14th Amendment gives the President unfettered spending power. Now, the Majority Leader and other Democrats are ‘aiding and abetting’ that effort.

Though the Constitution reads as follows:

Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Additionally:

Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; (read more here.)

If Obama declares that the 14th Amendment gives him such powers, effectively stripping them away from the House of Representatives, there will be a Constitutional crisis that MUST come before the Supreme Court. If that court does not see fit to stop him, possibly due to imminent retirements of Justices being replaced by liberals appointed by Obama, changing the 5-4 balance right to a 5-4 left or worse, our Congress shall at that time be rendered meaningless.

The Senate has already become meaningless since Harry Reid has already seen fit to ignore its primary purpose – passing a budget. He is in criminal contempt of the Constitution for not passing a budget in over 1,3o0 days, that is a complete abrogation of his oath and that of every Senator seated.

Only now are we finally hearing some elected officials accuse Reid of criminal negligence in the malfeasance of his and many others’ duties they swore to uphold and defend. Many ask if he is committing a felony or a misdemeanor, but either way its criminal:

I have one question about the way Majority Leader Harry Reid has been conducting the Senate. Has he committed a felony or a mere misdemeanor?

Majority Leader Harry’s transgression is that for over 1300 days he has failed to pass a budget. In fact, there is no evidence he has even tried. This is against the law. Federal law clearly requires the Congress to pass a budget every year. I presume the reasoning behind this is that the American people deserve to know what their taxes are paying for, or another way of putting it is, why are the American people being mulcted every year by the Internal Revenue Service to pay for Harry and his gang’s criminal activities? (Read more here.)

That of course means that the people will no longer have a voice in their government and our nation shall effectively become a dictatorship, especially if they somehow find a way to overturn the 22nd Amendment.

Senate Democrats to offer no-limit credit to Obama

By Neil Munro at the Daily Caller

Top Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate have reportedly told the executive branch they won’t object if the president simply declares he has the power to impose even greater financial debts on Americans.

The announcement, leaked Jan. 10 by a Democratic aide to The Washington Post, would effectively give the White House the unprecedented power to borrow and spend as much money as it wishes — unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

If allowed to stand by the court, the decision by Senate Democrats would effectively gut the authority of Congress’ two bodies — the Senate and House of Representatives — to jointly govern borrowing by the executive branch.

“The four Democratic leaders — Senators Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Patty Murray — have privately reached agreement that continued GOP intransigence on the debt ceiling means the White House needs the space to pursue options for raising it that don’t involve Congress,” according to the report in the Post.

“The White House needs to know that Dems will support whatever it decides to do,” read the report.

GOP Senators have decried the self-imposed diminution of the Senate, which was once lauded as “world’s the greatest deliberative body.”

The Democrats’ offer “is not only the height of irresponsibility, but also a guarantee that our national debt crisis will only get worse,” said the Republicans’ Senate leader Mitch McConnell.

“Rather than offering any plan to break the spending habit that’s causing the problem, Democrats are looking at everything from the ridiculous (printing a trillion-dollar coin) to outright abdication of Congressional responsibility,” he said.

“Democrats in Washington are falling all over themselves in an effort to do anything they can to get around the law—and to avoid taking any responsibility for Washington’s out-of-control spending … which is why many of us view the upcoming debt limit debate as a perfect opportunity to face up to Washington’s spending,” he said.

Speaker of the House John Boehner also denounced the unprecedented move.

“Senate Democrats cannot ignore their responsibilities for political convenience — and the American people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit without spending cuts and reforms,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

“Out-of-control Washington spending is costing jobs now, and condemning future generations of Americans to a lower standard of living. Washington Democrats must stop spending money we don’t have,” he said.

Congress’ sole authority over the nation’s debt is enshrined in Section 8 of Article 1 the Constitution, which says “Congress shall have the power to … borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

The Constitution does not give the executive branch any legal authority to borrow money from outsides sources.

The Congress’ power is implemented via the the Public Debts Acts of 1939 and 1941.

Not serious, laughable, doubling down, no leadership – "The Cliff"

Editor’s Note – Here’s what you voted for – nothing – more nothing from the White House. Actually it should be called a joke. The President keeps calling for a balanced approach, but when they negotiate, or in the case of Timothy Geithner, they present a laughable miasmic plan you have to laugh.

How can we take our leader serious if this is how he plans for the next four years. If raising taxes now without cuts, or a promise of cuts in the new year, what is balanced about that? He says he wants one higher tax number, then we see it is doubled. The lies just continue, and he is not even running for office again. How do we trust this kind of leader?

They talk of revenue enhancement (which of course means raising taxes on those dastardly rich people) but they will not offer any believable specifics on cuts – and what they did bring is tiny in comparison to the rise in taxes. It all avoids the third rail of cutting our bloated social programs.

Senator Mitch McConnell, President Obama, Speaker John Boehner

Spending cuts are mandatory now, and that means real cuts, not a reduction in larger spending planned. Be careful of the words the President and his party use – its just so hypocritical, disingenuous, and misleading at best. Here is what the response was to the laughable, non-serious plan of the White House:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner presented President Barack Obama’s opening offer on a fiscal cliff deal to Republicans on Thursday, reportedly eliciting laughter from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who found it absurd.

McConnell told the National Review that he “burst into laughter” as Geithner outlined the plan. The Republican said no offense was meant, and that it was simply a candid reaction to the proposal, which he characterized as one-sided and ridiculous over its calls for large increases in tax revenue, while being light on promises of the large spending cuts or entitlement reforms that many of McConnell’s colleagues have demanded.

If you live as a retired person on dividends, your income that you saved for is about to take a dive. Yes, you are a rich person if you earn over $250,ooo, or live off dividends. Meanwhile the President is still on the campaign trail to sell this tripe – come back Mr. President, time to lead, if you can. Put real numbers on the table, and then lead the way – demanding numbers from the Congress first is leading from behind – as usual.

This Unserious White House

The president makes the GOP a fiscal-cliff offer he knows they will refuse.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL – Online WSJ

The White House this week finally explained just how serious it is about averting a fiscal cliff that could throw the country back into a recession. The answer: not serious at all.

The markets and the media in recent days have been operating on an optimistic belief that the administration simply will not let the country fall off the fiscal cliff. They’d best rethink. On Thursday, the president dispatched Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House Director of Legislative Affairs Rob Nabors to Congress to finally outline the White House’s offer to avert the coming tax hikes and sequester.

It was something out of Wonderland and Oz combined.

According to sources on Capitol Hill, the White House wants Republicans to pony up $960 billion in immediate tax increases, which will come from hiking the top marginal rates and increasing capital gains and dividends taxes. That is just for starters. The administration also wants the GOP to surrender an additional $600 billion in revenue via later tax reforms.

The president’s team specified noamounts or details on spending cuts. Rather, the White House wants more spending: at least $50 billion in new stimulus, an extension of unemployment insurance, a one-year deferral of the sequester, new money to refinance underwater mortgages, a Medicare-doctor fix . . . and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, the White House also wants Congress to give Mr. Obama the authority to increase the debt limit, whenever he wants, as much as he wants.

What do Republicans get in return? Next year, the White House will agree to talk to the GOP about cutting as much as $400 billion from entitlement programs. Maybe. If Democrats get around to it. Which they won’t—because they’ll have everything they’ve wanted.

How to put this tax-and-more-spending offer in perspective? It is far in excess of what the Democrats asked for in last year’s debt-limit standoff—when the political configuration in Washington was exactly the same. It is far more than the president’s own Democratic Senate has ever been able to pass, even with a filibuster-proof majority. It is far more than the president himself campaigned on this year.

But the president’s offer is very much in keeping with his history of insisting that every negotiation consist of the other side giving him everything he wants. That approach has given him the reputation as the modern president least able to forge a consensus.

Don’t forget: The man now engaged with Congress to work out a grand deal is the same one who could not pull over to his side a single Republican vote for his stimulus legislation, who had to ram through ObamaCare with procedural tricks, and whose inept handling of last year’s debt-ceiling talks ultimately led his fellow Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to isolate him from the final negotiations. This is not a history to inspire confidence.

Mr. Obama’s tendency to campaign rather than lead, to speechify rather than negotiate, has already defined this lame-duck session. The president has wasted weeks during which a framework for a deal has been in place.

Within two days of the election, Mr. Boehner had offered an enormous compromise, committing the GOP to provide new tax revenue, through limits on deductions for the wealthy. Mr. Obama campaigned on making “the rich” pay more—and that is exactly what Mr. Boehner agreed to give him.

All that was left for the president to do was accept this peace offering, pair it with necessary spending cuts, and take credit for averting a crisis. Mr. Obama has instead spent the past weeks campaigning for tax-rate hikes. He wants the revenue, but collected only the way he chooses. And on the basis of that ideological insistence alone, the nation is much closer to a crisis.

John Boehner, Barack Obama and Harry Reid at the White House, Nov. 16.

Talks that had been at a standstill may now crumble, thanks to the Geithner-Nabors proposal. The president is boxing in the Republicans—offering them a deal they cannot accept, a deal they can’t even be seen to be treating seriously. Mr. Boehner is legitimately interested in a bargain that will set the country on sounder footing. Yet the most immediate outcome of such an open slap from the White House will be to make even those Republicans who were willing to cut a deal harden their positions. Someone get the White House a copy of “Negotiating Tactics for Dummies.”

Then again, the most frightening aspect of the White House proposal is that it wasn’t an error. Perhaps the proposal was thoroughly calculated. This suggests a president who doesn’t care about the outcome of the cliff negotiations—who thinks that he wins politically no matter what. He’s betting that either the GOP will be far more responsible than he is and do anything to avert a crisis, or that the cliff gives him the tax hikes his partisans are demanding. Win-win, save for the enormous pain to average families across the country.

The Republicans will have to contemplate how to deal with such an unserious offer. But in presenting his demands, the president has now made very clear that there is only one side that is working in good faith.