As We Creep Towards The Debt Ceiling, Will The Trillion Dollar Coin Return?

A constitutional throwback to 2013.

At some point in October, the federal government will reach the so-called "debt ceiling."  Back in 2013, the federal government faced a similar deadline. Several law professors urged the Obama Administration to mint a trillion dollar coin, which would--in theory at least--allow the government to continue borrowing money. Will the Biden Administration endorse this proposal if the ceiling is not lifted?

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

The level of stupidity and unseriousness has risen to the point where it's possible, and it would be in character, I think.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Congratulations, Prof. Blackman. You have become a solid favorite among the obsolete, bigoted, autistic, birther-class element of this blog's audience. That group seemingly can get enough of the Sage of South Texas.

[LongTimeListenerFirstTimeCaller]

Rev cuntland..ever the brown shirt parasite mascarading as a 'better'..

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you still claim to enforce a civility standard, Prof. Volokh? Or, instead, are you ready to acknowledge that you repeatedly impose viewpoint-driven censorship (flattering conservatives) at this blogs?

Your silence conveys your hypocrisy.

[Tempe Jeff]

Your mendacious propaganda is sad evidence of becoming, an example of Mr. Potter.
"A warped, twisted, bitter old man."
Blaming others of your own bigotry. Perhaps, therapy may help you. Perhaps not.

[bernard11]

If you are looking for stupidity and unseriousness look no further than Republican threats not to raise the ceiling.

It's idiotic, destructive, dishonest.

[M L]

Is it, though?

At what level of deficit spending or nat'l debt would you say that the increased spending side idiotic, destructive, and dishonest? How many billions or trillions to bank bailouts everything else before you say it's too much spending?

Like, let's say they wanted to do a few quadrillion. Or debt to 500% of GDP. Your thoughts?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Congress already voted to spend the money . . much of it on things coveted by the clingerverse.

Other than that, though . . . great comment, clinger!

[bernard11]

My thoughts are that the appropriate time to talk about debt levels is when the budget and appropriations are passed. That shouldn't be hard.

It's idiotic and destructive to do all that and then suddenly announce, "We didn't mean it. Too bad for you, creditors.Too bad for you, financial markets."

All this debt ceiling nonsense does is threaten the credit of the country. It's political foolishness.

IOW, my point is not that we can just borrow as much as we want, it's that the time to decide how much to borrow is when we are deciding how much to spend.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'm not surprised that you consider a reluctance to allow the government to just dive deeper and deeper into debt on an accelerating basis "idiotic" and "destructive".

[bernard11]

And I'm not surprised you miss my point entirely, not to mention you have no understanding of what's going on.

[Krychek_2]

People want government providing them with lots of services (including health care). They apparently think the money fairy just deposits large amounts of cash at the Treasury to pay for it. I blame Reagan, who was really the first president to tell us we could have big government without having to pay for it.

For the level of government people want, taxes are going to have to go up. Period, full stop. Otherwise there will come a tipping point at which we've maxed out our credit cards, at which point taxes will go up AND services will go down. It's just plain irresponsible to pretend otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a natural consequence of "progressive" taxation. Indeed, it's the primary purpose of it: By arranging for most people to be paying only a tiny fraction of "their" share of the cost of the government, (About $30K per citizen at this point.) most voters have no motive to care if government spending is cost-effective.

As long as it sends something their way, even just good feelings, it doesn't matter how much it cost, because almost all of the cost of government is being borne by a small fraction of the population at this point. Over 40% of federal tax revenues come from just 1% of the population. Two thirds of it come from the top 5%.

Under those circumstances, spending discipline is a total political loser.

[Brett Bellmore]

The corollary of this is that, under a system of 'progressive' taxation, it is in the government's interest to drive income inequality as high as possible. The exact same amount of income ends up yielding much more revenue if earned by the wealthy, than if earned by the middle class or poor.

So, institute a 'progressive' tax system, push up income inequality, and politicians are in hog heaven: They can buy votes without concern about whether the spending makes any financial sense, and most of the income is earned by people who are in a position to give them kickbacks. While the number of poor who will actually be grateful for handouts is maximized.

[Ben_]

My suggestion -- offered as a thought experiment -- is that the US should levy a tax on Norway. Norway is a rich country and they can afford it.

The US has a big military and nuclear weapons, so if Norway declines to pay, they can be forced to pay.

We can have a combined vote of all the citizens of both countries on whether Norway should pay. The US has more people than Norway and the US would get all the benefits, so the tax vote would probably win.

And the taxers always tell us that it's ok to steal from others if you call it a tax and there's a vote. So no ethical problem (according to their corrupt idea of ethics).

We get money. Others pay. Why not? Tax Norway.

[Krychek_2]

A modest proposal.

[Ben_]

Totally in line with the tax person A entirely for the gain of person B ethos that The Good People(TM) like to support.

If Norway doesn't agree to it we can call them "greedy". They just want poor people in the US to go hungry, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah...

[Krychek_2]

Not really. There's a huge difference between me telling my child to do chores, and me telling my neighbor's child to do chores.

[Ben_]

We are your neighbor's children. I think you made the opposite point you intended.

[Krychek_2]

Only if you don't believe in international borders, in which case there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Can't have it both ways; you either believe in international borders or you don't.

[Ben_]

No, we're literally your neighbor's children. Literally. You don't own us any more than you own the people of Norway.

[Krychek_2]

But Congress sets tax policy for both of us because we both live in the US. How does that apply to Norway? It's not a matter of me owning you; it's a matter of Congress setting policy and then raising the funds to pay for it.

[Ben_]

And it's not clear why you want to treat the people of Norway better than you want to treat the people of the US. Why would you choose to impose on us when there's free money available from taxing Norway?

[Ben_]

The US Congress is irrelevant to this.

We're letting Norway vote on this directly, along with the US. The policy is a joint policy of taxing Norway, voted on directly by everyone in the US and Norway.

It's going to work out great because we have a lot more people than them, so we're going to win the vote and they're going to pay. The "congress" of all the people in both countries will decide by majority vote that taxing Norway to the benefit of the US is the right choice.

[Krychek_2]

I don't want to treat the people of Norway better. I want Norwegians and Americans to both have adequately funded government, with Norwegians paying for theirs and Americans paying for ours. Unless you are advocating to abolish international boundaries completely -- are you? -- then international boundaries mean something.

Not only are you not comparing apples to apples, you're not even comparing apples to any other fruit.

You benefit from not having an underclass, because in the absence of a safety net, they are not going to starve to death for your convenience. Their problems spill over onto you whether you want them to or not. And not to denigrate your own hard work, which I'm sure you did, but there's a certain amount of luck that you were born where you were to the family you were rather than to a crack whore in South Chicago. So maybe you could pay some of it forward.

[Ben_]

There are zero examples of places without an "underclass" at any level of taxation, at any time in history.

But this is about the super-duper ethical idea of stealing from (rich) people for giveaways to others. It's just as ethical for the US to do it to Norway as it is for you and your leftist friends to do it to the people of the next town. All we need to do is call it a tax and vote.

Because it's so super-duper ethical, and because Norway is so rich, why should we burden ourselves or people nearby when we can loot Norway? You still haven't said. Seems heartless.

The borders and the distance to Norway seem to make it an even easier decision.

People in Norway are even luckier than people in the US. Norway has huge oil reserves that their local environmentalist religious zealots haven't put off limits. Why don't you want them to "pay it forward"?

Anyway, that's the point of the thought experiment. Stealing is so cool and ethical, but you don't want to steal from Norway. And all the reasons the money is (supposedly) needed become irrelevant when it's Norway paying. Guess they didn't matter that much.

[Krychek_2]

Ben, anyone who thinks taxation is theft is disqualified from being taken seriously. Libertarianism is a religion for petulant teenagers, not serious thinkers. And I've already explained it to you: Norway is not part of the United States.

[Ben_]

Hence nothing ethically wrong with the US taxing Norway. If Norway doesn’t like it, they’re greedy petulant teenagers.

[Ben_]

And it’s only like stealing because your motives are the same as a theif's and you’re doing the same things a thief would do. Besides that, it’s nothing like stealing.

To be clear, taxation to fund public services is not like stealing at all.

Taxation for direct cash giveaways is exactly like stealing with an intermediary doing the actual dirty work.

That’s why the thought experiment example is taxing Norway for the benefit of the US. It’s precisely analogous. Norway gets nothing just like your taxation victims get nothing.

At least most thieves don’t pretend that they’re The Good Guys.

[Krychek_2]

Ben, you just keep making that argument, everyone else will keep pointing and laughing.

[Ben_]

Because you can’t formulate an intelligent response and are reduced to animalistic grunts and guffaws.

[Nuke the cane]

Why not Mexico--they already paid for the wall.

[Ben_]

Norway is rich. Stealing from people is (supposedly) ethical when you call it a tax and let them vote. It's even more ethical when you say they're rich because they have more than they need to survive. Then they're the "greedy" ones.

[bernard11]

This is fucking idiotic.

[Ben_]

Maybe you just don’t get it. You don’t seem extremely able. Partisanship causes mental laziness.

[bernard11]

I get it.

You're a moron.

And if partisanship caused mental laziness you'd be the mentally laziest person on Earth. But you're probably not lazy, just incompetent.

[Ben_]

I'm not partisan.

I think you just don't understand, even though it's a very simple and straightforward idea.

[Krychek_2]

It's a simple and straightforward idea that's idiotic because Norway isn't part of the United States.

[Ben_]

Even more reason to tax them. Why tax locals when you can tax someone distant? Loot is loot. The "need" for the money is satisfied. They can afford it. What’s the problem?

[M L]

Yes. Everything from regulations to "lockdowns" to monetary policy is designed to centralize money, business, income and power more and more in the hands of fewer and fewer.

[Krychek_2]

I don't entirely disagree with you, and maybe raising taxes to where they accurately reflect government spending would actually drive down the demand for services.

But on the pure politics of it, the Democrats are the party of eat your vegetables and the Republicans are the party of do as you damn well please. That immediately puts the Democrats at a disadvantage. But it doesn't mean they're wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

OTOH, Democrats get a big political advantage from being the party of giving stuff away. Which advantage is enabled by 'progressive' taxation.

[Krychek_2]

I'm not sure the extent to which Democrats actually derive a political benefit from it. There are an awful lot of Trump supporters on SSI, welfare and food stamps, especially in places like Appalachia and the rural South. Democrats carry the cities but they were going to anyway. I don't understand the disconnect of depending for your survival on government benefits and then voting for the party that wants to cut them off, but that disconnect is there for a lot of people.

I think I've told this story before. I have a sister with multiple disabilities who is on SSI. She votes Republican because she's a racist who hates immigrants. Then she calls me and cries because her benefits are being cut and she doesn't know how she's going to make it. Or did, until I started telling her she's getting what she voted for and that elections have consequences.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I don’t understand the disconnect of depending for your survival on government benefits and then voting for the party that wants to cut them off, but that disconnect is there for a lot of people."

At a basic level here's the problem. Democrats don't want to keep benefits constant. They want to expand them to more people to more stuff. But to a first approximation, it's still the same overall pool of resources. So, if you depend on government benefits as they stand, odds are "expanding" benefits to more and more people, or more new programs will end up cutting your benefits and options in the long run.

Think of it this way. You depend on Medicaid for your health insurance. You're disabled, blind, whatnot. You know the doctor options are limited for Medicaid. It doesn't really reimburse the full costs, and it's partially charity for doctors to take you on, so there's only a limited number of doctors who do it. Then expand the number of people on Medicaid by putting in a vast new pool of healthy adults, but the number of actual doctors stays the same. Your options shrink drastically as the wait times increase.

At a core level, this is what's understood.

[Martinned]

So, if you depend on government benefits as they stand, odds are “expanding” benefits to more and more people, or more new programs will end up cutting your benefits and options in the long run.

And so your suggestion is that it's somehow better to vote for the people who want to cut your benefits immediately?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"And so your suggestion is that it’s somehow better to vote for the people who want to cut your benefits immediately"

Despite what you may believe, in practice that doesn't happen. Even when the GOP controls all three branches. Nor have there been any serious proposals to do what you say, on any type of reasonable scale.

[Krychek_2]

I'm not sure that's true either. A lot of Democrats, including me, understand that people are better off doing for themselves if they can; we just recognize the reality that there are a whole lot of PINS (persons in need of supervision) and others who can't make it on their own who are always going to need help. And things like free public education and childcare make it easier for people to move from the dole to employment, and actually benefit in the long term.

So it's not so much that we want a bigger welfare system as being smarter about what we have. In some cases, that means moving resources from one thing to another. Even in Denmark and Sweden, there are incentives in place for people to work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"a whole lot of PINS (persons in need of supervision) and others who can’t make it on their own who are always going to need help"

Wow... That's not patronizing. If you want a reason why these "people" vote GOP, it's exactly that attitude from liberals. "Persons in need of supervision". Wow...

These are free people. They should be allowed to make their own choices, good or bad, as they see fit. That's how they see it. Sometimes they slip up. And when they do, sometimes, a little help is needed. But to say that they are "persons in need of supervision?" That some far-away liberal is going to tell them what they need to do? That the far away liberal is going to make policies to force them into the "right choices." That just irritates the hell out of them.

That's why they vote GOP. If you want, I can give you an example of it in reverse, and we can gauge your response.

[Krychek_2]

I'm not talking about people not being free to make their own decisions. I'm talking about (1) people who really can't survive on their own; and (2) people who leave messes for other people to clean up. Call it patronizing if you like, but do you dispute that such people exist?

[BadLib]

What sort of "supervision" do you suggest, and when should it be "provided", for a 25 year old woman with five kids by five different unidentified fathers who are nowhere to be seen, who has no high school degree or GED, and whose kids are statistically very likely to be fodder for our prison system for decades?

At what point do the "supervisors" tie her down and tie her tubes? I'm pretty sure that is more likely to result in a smaller "mess" for "other people" to clean up than giving her more aid while she cranks out three more "little angels".

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krycheck,

The language and arguments you are using are virtually identical to those used by racists to support their oppression of African Americans. This is why it is offensive.

In regards to your points.
(1) people who really can’t survive on their own;
-This represents a very small subset of people. Typically children are the largest group here (who can't vote). Followed by people who are so incredibly physically or mentally disabled that they can't move or feed themselves. Those so mentally disabled can't vote, leaving just those so physically disabled that they can't move or feed themselves.

(2) people who leave "messes" for other people to clean up.
- The primary class here are criminals and convicts.

Point being, outside of a minor subset of those too physically disabled to move, your so called "PINS" can't vote. But I'm sure you have a much broader class of people you'd apply it to.

[Krychek_2]

BadLib, and Armchair Lawyer, you missed the joke.

"In need of supervision" is of the same kind as "I am in need of a nap" or "that house could really use a coat of paint." It doesn't mean that either of those needs are actually going to be met, and it certainly doesn't mean that those solutions are going to be imposed by force from above. Are there people who make complete catastrophes of their lives and who could use supervision? Of course. Are they actually going to get it? Most of the time, probably not. Don't confuse a quip with an actual policy suggestion.

In a free society, people are free to make choices that sometimes leave messes for other people to clean up. That's life. And my original point about taxing and spending is that Democrats recognize that reality and want to budget for it. That's all.

[Brett Bellmore]

People tend not to view SS and Medicaid as giveaways, since you have to contribute during your working life, and, frankly, the 'return' on your contributions usually sucks relative to a 401-K. I understand, of course, that you're not actually getting your own money back, it's a Ponzi scam, not an investment program. But "You took my money, now give me what you said you were taking it for!" is an understandable position.

Yes, there are an awful lot of Trump supporters on the dole, in the sense that you couldn't fit them all in a Holiday Inn, and still have room for a Shriners convention. Percentage wise? Not really. The lower-income run about 2-1 Democrats, they know who they're being paid to vote for.

[David Nieporent]

People tend not to view SS and Medicaid as giveaways, since you have to contribute during your working life,

You're confusing Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare, like SS, carries the fig leaf of you paying into a specific program. Medicaid is just straight welfare.

[Brett Bellmore]

At my age, I should probably bone up on that sort of thing.

[Krychek_2]

Percentagewise, Brett, you might be right about Chicago and Los Angeles, but take a look at Mississippi and Alabama and then get back to me.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Fun exit poll statistics.

Do You Work Full-Time For Pay?
(3,926 Respondents) Voted (D) Voted (R)
Yes 47% 51%
No 57% 42%

[Krychek_2]

And where and when was that poll taken? Do you have a citation?

[Toranth]

Looks like Edison Polling on behalf of ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, doing nationwide exit polling in 2020, as shown by 30 seconds on an internet search engine.

[Krychek_2]

I'm not the guy who made the claim so it's not my burden to do an internet search to find out if he's right.

But this poll doesn't prove what he's claiming it proves anyway. Not working full time for pay includes retirees who are living off their previous earnings. It doesn't break it down by geographic area. Further the 47/51 breakdown for "yes" is within, or close to, the statistical margin of error. Try again.

[Brett Bellmore]

All the while I was in college, I voted, and since I was only working summers, I would have had to answer "no" every single time I voted.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh Krycheck....

Seriously, like Toranth said. 30 seconds of googling. Copy, paste, search.
The number of respondents was a dead give away. That you can't be bothered to actually look....

And I claimed nothing. Just put up a fun statistic.

[Toranth]

K_2: You were challenging his data, and asking questions about it - questions you could have easily answered yourself. If you disagreed with him, you need to present an argument against it. And no, "I am deliberately ignorant" is not an argument.

Also, no, that particular question is not within the 95% CI for no difference, as you would have learned if you had bothered to actually read the methodology.

Also, there are regional and density breakdowns for the respondents as a whole, and unless you have some special data not available to the rest of us, it should be assumed that the respondents for this question are close to those of the entire sample.
If it weren't, it would be statistical malpractice to continue to use the question (at least, without public qualifier). While you may want to make such an accusation against Edison Research, you need some data of your own first.

[Krychek_2]

Toranth, I've already explained why it's meaningless data. Brett, whom I normally disagree with on just about everything, has already explained why this is meaningless data. And, if you're going to cite a study, you do have to give a citation for it, even if I could find it myself, because I don't know for sure that the study I'm looking at is the same one he's looking at.

[Toranth]

According to your new claim, all data is "meaningless data" because there are variances from the averages. That's... not correct.

Really, K_2, your moving goalposts in the face of repeated bad positions is embarrassing. You tried to attack Brett's claim, then tried to attack AL's data supporting it, and now you are attack the entire field of statistics. And all because you could not be bothered to spend a few seconds looking for actual data before throwing out your contrary and incorrect preconceptions.

[Krychek_2]

If you actually think that my argument is that all data is meaningless because of deviations from the average then your reading comprehension level is much too bad to have a meaningful conversation. That's not what I said. It will take the light from what I said millions of years to arrive at that.

[Toranth]

You claimed it was meaningless data because:
1) It didn't include regions (it actually did)
2) It didn't account for retirees (again, it did)
3) It wasn't statistically significant (it was)
4) Brett had an anecdote of being in the minority group (so? this is called variance)

All of things were accounted for in the poll and its results. You've already shown you did not bother to read the very thing you are criticizing, doubling down on your ignorance does not help. If you are denying the results without countervailing data, then yes, you are denying statistics in its entirety.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mississippi and Alabama"

Plenty of black democrats in both states. Even in the rural areas.

[Krychek_2]

You'd never know it from whom they send to Congress. Or their state legislatures.

[Bob from Ohio]

Because both whites and blacks vote as blocks there.

Most places whites split their votes, even in big GOP areas 30% [or more] of whites vote for Dems.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You realize Mississippi and Alabama both have black Congressmen, right?

[Krychek_2]

Yes, and I also realize that Mississippi and Alabama taken as a whole vote overwhelmingly Republican, despite your being able to find blue areas here and there.

[bernard11]

Hell, take a look at farmers.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "OTOH, Democrats get a big political advantage from being the party of giving stuff away"

It's always a treat to see Right-types blithely pass this off as true, as if their side hasn't surpassed the Left in "giving stuff away" these past forty years. This dishonesty/delusion comes from a bizarre form of Magic Thinking, in which massive tax cuts unbalanced by offsetting tax hikes or spending cuts don't count as "giving stuff away".

[Harvey Mosley]

Only someone on the left would call taking less of someone's money "giving stuff away".

[grb]

And only someone on the Right would think money magically becomes free if it's a tax cut. Sorry Harvey, but 2+2 adds up the same regardless which side of the ledger you're tallying from.

At the last set of contested GOP presidential primaries, Republican candidates were besides themselves in a frenzy of promised tax cuts, with Jeb offering six-trillion and Trump getting all the way up to ten at one point. And why not? When you can count on child-level "thinking" like Harvey Mosley's to justify your free-stuff giveaway, go ahead and promise the moon.

After all, if your supporters (like H.M.) ever show the slightest hint of fiscal concern, adult responsibility, or basic knowledge of grade school math, you can always lure them back into dull obliviousness with the Ol'Supply Side Con. ( And I'm betting Mosley just the type to believe tax cuts pay for themselves)

[Michael P]

"But on the pure politics of it, the Democrats are the party of eat your vegetables"

You keep writing things like that, but Democrats offer cake to the masses while claiming the rich will eat enough vegetables to make up for it. It wasn't Rand Paul or Devin Nunes flaunting a "tax the rich" dress at the Met Gala.

[bernard11]

Indeed, it’s the primary purpose of it:

Oh stop with the conspiracies.

[jimc5499]

You might want to look at a guy named Franklin D. Roosevelt if you want the real story.

[Ben_]

The idea that it's any one guy or one party is complete partisan bullshit.

For spending to get under control, you'd need Republicans arguing for defense and law enforcement budget cuts, Democrats arguing for welfare cuts and bureaucracy spending cuts, old people arguing for Medicare and Social Security cuts, young people arguing for less aid for college, and nerds arguing for less NASA spending. People would have to agree to (and start pushing for) cuts in the things they'd rather see increase.

Until you see that, it's just partisans and self-dealers fooling themselves into thinking they'll gain while others lose.

[grb]

Ben_ : "The idea that it’s any one guy or one party is complete partisan bullshit"

On the other hand, the idea this issue is beyond the reach of conceivable solution is another (very particular) form of partisan bullshit. It relies on people's memory being so short as to banish the presidencies of GHW Bush & Bill Clinton into a forgotten distant past. The first reason we ran surpluses under the latter was a particularly robust economic expansion, but Reagan's was almost as good & he buried the country under debt. The real difference were measures in two anti-deficit bills from the two presidents above. They included :

1. An moderate increase in the upper-class tax rates
2. A small increase in the middle-class tax rates.
3. Structural spending restraints that required offsets of taxes or cuts.

As for partisan blame, please recall it was the Republican who sabotaged all those hard-won gains immediately after Clinton.

[bernard11]

Let's be clearer.

Clinton pushed through a tax increase that had Republicans howling stupidly and inaccurately about economic disaster.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump pushed through a tax decrease that had Democrats howling stupidly and inaccurately about economic disaster.

[Ben_]

But we were already all killed by the end of Net Neutrality, so no disaster happened.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : "Trump pushed through a tax decrease that had Democrats howling stupidly and inaccurately about economic disaster"

Uh huh. Care to provide a citation, Bob? All I remember was Democrats saying the cuts would explode of deficit, while the Republicans claimed they'd be paid for by magic elfin pixie dust & the farts of purple unicorns - excuse me - I meant to say Supply Economics (I always get those things confused).

Needless to say, the Dems were proved right. Amazingly enuff, the elves, unicorns, and supply-side magic failed to come thru for the GOP yet again.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The reality-based world has an obvious, well-known liberal-libertarian bias.

[bernard11]

Right.

The notion that Republicans have any credibility on these issues is laughable.

"We'll pay for the tax cuts with magic supply-side fairy dust."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is not time to laugh yet.

When the filibuster is gone, the Senate's sway is influenced by two or three new states, seven has become the new five on the Supreme Court, enlargement of the House diminishes the structural amplification of clinger votes at the Electoral College . . . that will be the time for great beer and much laughter.

[grb]

bernard11 : "Clinton pushed through a tax increase that had Republicans howling stupidly and inaccurately about economic disaster"

And that's not the half of it. I remember one of my Right-wing walking-undead ditto-zombie friends explaining how Clinton's deficit reduction package wasn't about debt at all. Apparently Rush Limbaugh had told him the bill was actually about "controlling people" (which my poor friend couldn't explain further when I asked for elucidation).

Yeah. Right-types were just as gullible even back then. I probably should have foreseen the devolution & degradation of the GOP into today's party of sleazy huckster conmen by that alone.

[Ben_]

Tell Obama that.

[grb]

Would that be the same Obama who faced a projected 1.3 trillion dollar deficit on his very first day of office - and then reduced the yearly deficit with almost clockwork regularity throughout his two terms?

Probably not. I bet you refer to a fantasy "Obama" that exists only in your mind.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Obama in Ben's mind is socialist Muslim and communist Kenyan with no credentials and a deep hatred for America.

That's why guys like Ben have no real future in America.

[Ben_]

Compared to imaginary numbers, other imaginary numbers are lower. Give him a medal!

[grb]

Ben_ : "Compared to imaginary numbers..... (gibberish)"

Just to be clear, Ben : Obama faced a 1.3 trillion dollar projected deficit on his first day in office and that number was confirmed later after the last sou was counted.

Likewise, the deficit's yearly reduction throughout Obama's presidency with near perfect regularity is simple fact, documented in the final accounting.

Thus, you come to the distinction between Obama and (say) George W. Bush and Trump:

1. GWB took the situation he inherited from Clinton and made it much worse.
2. Obama took the situation he inherited from GWB and made it much better.
3. Trump took the situation he inherited from Obama and made it much worse.

Of course the same holds true for Carter-Reagan, or Reagan/GHWB-Clinton. Over the last forty years, Republicans always make the deficit worse; Democrats always make it better. (To be fair, Joe Biden is clearly breaking this pattern.....)

[Ben_]

Partisan bullshit. You don’t want to solve anything, just point fingers.

[grb]

Absolutely. Budgetary facts - indeed math itself - has a well-known liberal bias.......

[Don Nico]

"the yearly deficit with almost clockwork regularity throughout his two terms?"
You seem to prefer to forget the last two years of his presidency 2016 and the nearly ballistic 2017 budget

[Brett Bellmore]

"The first reason we ran surpluses under the latter was a particularly robust economic expansion, "

I guess that's one way of describing a stock market bubble that happened to coincide with Democrats and Republicans being at each other's throats to the point that they couldn't immediately agree on how to spend the loot.

But we ran a surplus precisely zero times during the Clinton administration. Every year we actually ran a deficit. What we had is what government accountants call a "primary" surplus, which is what you get when you're spending less than you bring in if you ignore the interest on existing debt.

[grb]

(Sigh) Two Points for Brett :

(1) You've tried this silly "at each other’s throats to the point that they couldn’t immediately agree on how to spend the loot" drivel on us before - almost word for word. I'd love to know which one of your handlers fed you such a reeking pile of horseshit. Suffice it to say (a) the parties have never been so at odds they couldn't figure a way to spend money, and (b) there was real political attention & capital spent on the issue of deficits during that era. The country had just survived the Reagan explosion of debt and weren't as jaded back then. You know that, so why bother with such tripe ?!?

(2) When I say Clinton ran surpluses, I mean by the same accounting standards that applied to Reagan, Bush1&2, Obama, Trump & Biden, Clinton ran surpluses. You're certainty welcome to create a Clinton-Standard that (a) applies to him alone, and (b) spares you the discomfiture of acknowledging Clinton's accomplishment. If it's a necessary psychological imperative for you, please go ahead and do so.

[Voize of Reazon]

When the media reports that Clinton ran a surplus, they often quote a figure of $236 billion for fiscal year 2000. You may find that number misleading, but not because it ignores interest on debt, if it did the reported surplus would have been $469 billion.
The usual controversy over that figure involves the treatment of Social Security taxes. 236 is the surplus including the balances of the so-called "off budget" items (Social Security and the Post Office) that added $150 billion to the total in 2000. It is the balance-sheet counterpart to the question of whether gross debt or debt owed to the public is the better measure of the government's fiscal state.

[Michael P]

Both sides, huh?

The federal government has a defense mandate, and no welfare mandate, but even before Covid spent more than three times as much on welfare as on defense (which includes foreign aid for defense purposes). We should cut defense spending, but it cannot provide as much room to cut as other federal programs.

[Ben_]

"The federal government has a defense mandate, and no welfare mandate, but even before Covid spent more than three times as much on welfare as on defense"

So what? People don't care. You're talking to yourself and saying stuff that happens to benefit your own side. You will never get the other side to listen that way. And without them, no spending discipline.

So no spending discipline. Because [words that sound good to one side] ...

[Don Nico]

When we see how the practical economics degenerates into the discussion of which party stands to gain, which voters are getting freebies, etc, one can deduce immediately that no fix is going to happen anytime soon.

The fact is that there are not enough "rich" to tax to afford the give aways that are increasingly proposed by progressives without a considerable increase in the tax on the working class. Until that proposition is clear to the working class the present spiral into debt will continue.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think we're rich enough to tax to afford it WITH an increase in taxes on the working class. The July deficit was $302B. $564B in spending, and $262B in revenues. We borrowed over half of the spending!

Last year? $63B deficit for July. That's how much the deficit has exploded under this administration.

Prior to the 2007 economic crisis, annual deficits were running around $300B. Prior to Covid they were running $500B-$1T. Last year the deficit was OVER THREE FREAKING TRILLION DOLLARS.

And this year we're probably going to equal that, assuming no new spending programs manage to get passed. Wanna bet there won't be any? I don't.

I used to compare our financial system to somebody who jumped off the Empire state building, and as they passed the 20th floor they said, "So far, so good!".

Last year we strapped on a rocket backpack and switched into a straight down power dive.

[bernard11]

The yield on the 10-year Treasury was 1.37% a little about an hour and a half ago.

Lot of money to be made selling futures, Brett.

[Martinned]

Or they could just get the Fed to cancel some of the Federal government's debt. As of the end of March, the Fed owned about $5 trillion worth.

At a minimum, they shouldn't listen to economic illiterates who somehow think borrowing is inherently a bad thing when the government does it, but who seem incapable of understanding that that's inconsistent with how businesses work.

(Although, for the record, asking people to compare the government to a business is only a good idea if the person is super-illiterate. In most other circumstances, that analogy is a terrible idea.)

[ReaderY]

Robert Shiller estimated late in the last century that the average Fortune 500 company lasts about 20 years. Businesses take a lot of risks. It’s in their owner’s interests to do so. They live in an extremely artificial, protected environment which cushions against failure - cushions so absurdly strong that when businesses fail, their leaders don’t even lose their lives!

The world of nations, is, of course, different. Their isn’t any artificial environment that protects nations against the costs of failure the way businesses are protected. National failure in tbe last century or so has usually resulted in millions of people dieing and leaderships being wiped out wntirely. There are no equivalents of bankruptcy courts for nations. Disputes get settled with bullets, or atomic weapons.

So if we run government like a business, taking the risks a business routinely accepts, instead of the way the “illiterate” people want, shouldn’t we expect similar results — complete failure about every 20 years on average - but with the far more severe consequences of a nation rather than a business failing, the entire leadership wiped out and millions or tens of millions of people dieing?

[ReaderY]

This is not to say that borrowing money is or isn’t a bad thing in this situation. It’s just that what works for business doesn’t necessarily work for government. The very different risk structures require very different analysis frameworks.

[Martinned]

I'm confused. Given that the government can literally print its own money, it is much better placed to accept risks than any business could ever be. If anything, the social optimum would be for it to take on a lot more risk than any business ever would.

(And indeed, it makes sense for the government to provide its citizens with insurance against things like hurricanes, earthquakes, and pandemics that are essentially uninsurable in the private market.)

I'm not sure how you get from risks to bullets. (Or even to national bankruptcy. The US Federal government can't go bankrupt, because it can never run out of money.)

[Brett Bellmore]

It can run out of money people are willing to take.

[Don Nico]

Aye, there is the rub.

[bernard11]

It can. But we are not close. Of course, if we decide to default on our debts for no reason (except GOP petulance) that might change.

Right now, there are lots of people in the world who are happy to let the US government hold their money simply for safekeeping.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dems can raise the ceiling via the pending reconciliation bill without any GOP votes.

[bernard11]

And a good thing it is.

I've heard McConnell spout the usual pieties about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't know how close you are until it happens, that's the hell of it.

[bernard11]

The market will give you a pretty good clue, Brett.

Interest rates actually tell you something. The fact is the US is right now able to borrow at around zero real interest rates. That tells you that lots and lots of people, including many with billions at stake, don't agree with you. They are happy to simply let the Treasury hold their money for safekeeping - zero return.

Of course you know better. Unsurprising that you think so. Back it up by selling futures. You'll make a fortune. If you're right.

[Josh R]

Printing money means inflation. It would not surprise me if we had to inflate our way out of debt sometime in the future.

[bernard11]

And how long do rich, powerful countries last?

I don't think your analogy is a very good one.

[Ben_]

It’s more-or-less guaranteed that the Fed will just make the debt disappear at some point. There’s never going to be any spending discipline until the crash happens. Taxes aren’t going to double either.

The Federal Government’s ability to borrow will end. It could take 20 more years though. Longer if they’re smart enough to start selling off the Federally-owned land to pay bills — 27% of US territory.

[Don Nico]

China will buy it. for 50 cents on the dollar

[Ben_]

Bogeyman alert.

(Ben_ is not a fan of phony drama or the invocation of bogeymen.)

[Don Nico]

That is no drama.
China will be glad to buy plenty, It already owns $1T of US debt.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...they shouldn’t listen to economic illiterates who somehow think borrowing is inherently a bad thing when the government does it..."

It's a bad thing unless there's evidence that it's desirable to burden future producers at the expense of current producers.

[bernard11]

Oh bullshit.

Government spending can yield returns whose value to future generations exceeds the cost to them of the debt.

[Ben_]

… in an ideal world.

Not what ends up happening though.

[bernard11]

IOW, you are guided purely by ideology.

Tell me, do bridges and highways provide economic returns? Air transportation? The Internet? Scientific research? Universities? K-12 education? Environmental improvements? etc.

I mean, if you come into the discussion unwaveringly convinced that all government spending is wasted then just say so and then shut up.

[Ben_]

So we can cut everything else to zero then?

[Ben_]

More to the point, we can cut everything to zero unless the spending is proven to have a defined, positive cost benefit using a study that has proven accurate over time.

No hand-waving, no invocations of utopia, no phony cost estimates, no opportunity for any overruns, no leaving out future costs. Anything without a positive benefit is cut to zero. Agree?

(No. No you'd never agree. That's how we know they're just words and you're not serious. Almost no one is.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Tell me, how much of current borrowing do you think is actually going to economically defensible stuff like that, rather than just current expenses? 10%? Maybe less?

[bernard11]

How much do you think?

How much net of defense spending and entitlements?

What kinds of investments do you think earn a return?

Education? Research? Health care? Roads? Dealing with climate change? (yeah, yeah - it's a Chinese hoax, right?)

[bernard11]

Here's a further point, Brett.

The time to discuss this, as in fact is now being done, is when the money is being allocated, or not. The time is not when we are running up against the debt limit, as we will soon. Because the debt limit debate is not about Biden's proposals, it's about whether we default on our obligations, which would be a really monumentally stupid thing to do.

It's frankly incredible that anyone would take that idea seriously.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Government spending can yield returns whose value to future generations exceeds the cost to them of the debt."

Sure. And if you can prove that about a particular spending item, that would be evidence that it’s desirable, in that case, to burden future producers at the expense of current producers.

How is what I said bullshit?

[Bruce Hayden]

In the end, it probably doesn’t matter. Federal Reserve Notes, as well as their accounting ledger entries indicating such, are debts of the United States, as would be that trillion dollar coin. They are all essentially money, which is eminently fungible. Moreover, Congress would probably have to authorize it, and could just as easily (and maybe more honestly) just raise the debt ceiling.

[Martinned]

That's the whole point. The minting of coins and the issuance of bank notes is already authorised, but the latter is capped while the former is not.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

[M L]

Getting around Congress is the whole point of the stunt. Congress has the power of the purse . . . whoops not anymore!

Just a few more things for the permanent unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic state to pick up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The professor who cackled with glee at the prospects of Texas' Senate Bill 8 now surveys the debt ceiling issue and comes up with . . . this?

Sure, you're probably stuck at South Texas for the duration, but try to look at the bright side, Prof. Blackman. You and Prof. Barnett will surely enjoy your own table -- with plenty of room to stretch out, and no interruptions of your conversation by others -- at every Georgetown Law reunion for so long as you live. In fact, your entitlement to exclusive seating will be recognized to be so strong that if you choose to sit at an occupied table, those already present will leave to ensure you and Prof. Barnett get the accommodations you deserve.

(If you perceive my observations are becoming unkind enough to approach your 'civility standard' threshold, Prof. Volokh, please alert me so I can recognize the risk. I am trying to avoid being censored or banned by you again.)

[apedad]

Just remember - you'll find true boundaries only after you break them!

[buckleup]

Artie your bigoted posts have no effect on anyone except your own mental state which appears to be declining.

[IPLawyer]

That's not even remotely true! I laugh at so many of his posts. Sometimes he really nails folks.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why bring my wife into this?

[IPLawyer]

Perhaps you can posit your next character as an AI-chat-bot, to which EV would inevitably find that the bot's 1A rights would supersede anyone else's.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If I decide to switch, expect the new guy to be Frank Galvin.

Or maybe Vincent LaGuardia Jerry Gallo Callo Gambini. That would set the proper tone.

[dwb68]

Feel the BIdenflation flow through you. Strike the economy down with all of your spending and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where were all of you half-educated right-wing bigots and fiscal conservatives during the periods 2011-2018 and 2017-2020?

Other than getting stomped by your betters (the liberal-libertarian mainstream) in the culture war, I mean?

[Bubba Jones]

Deficit spending is the mechanism by which we tax the middle and lower classes.

We seem to have found a way to bury the inflation in wage stagnation instead of price increases. That should prevent or at least delay the riots.

[Cal Cetín]

The national debt is a bad thing, but there's no reason we can't use "gallows humor."

I just thought of that Simpson's episode where Homer kept inserting the trillion dollar bill in the Coke machine.

[bernard11]

The national debt is a bad thing, but there’s no reason we can’t use “gallows humor.”

Absolutely not "a bad thing."

[Cal Cetín]

It would be so wonderful if you were right!

[Cal Cetín]

It would be so wonderful if you were right!

[bernard11]

I am right.

[Cal Cetín]

That's such a relief!

[bernard11]

Glad you are reassured.

You can sleep better now.

[Cal Cetín]

Not a care in the world! I snap my fingers at the gloom-mongers! The national debt is a blessing, not a curse!

[Cal Cetín]

The national debt is a bad thing, but there's no reason we can't use "gallows humor."

I just thought of that Simpson's episode where Homer kept inserting the trillion dollar bill in the Coke machine.

[ah....Clem]

My entire adult life, starting back in the Carter administration, I have heard Republicans complain vociferously about the federal deficit when a Democrat is in the White House only to put a cork in it whenever a Republican is in office.

Was Blackman carping about the deficit any time during the Trump administration when deficits were at a historical high? If so, I didn't notice it.

But like clockwork, the Republican talking points have returned to one of their favorite subjects, at least when they are not in the White House.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ankle-biting and inconsequential whining is about all these clingers have left.

[Don Nico]

Clem,
Every year the debt reaches an all-time high. So your partisan observation is rather trivial, especially as the big boost during the Trump years came in 2020 that was driven by the partial shutdown of the economy due to COVID-19 infections. This year the debt will balloon even further.
The issue before us is not to continue the partisan blame game but to face the reality the the demand for ever increasing expensive programs must be accompanied by a significant increase in taxes on the working class.
The alternative is going to be outright repudiation of debt OR the masked repudiation of debt by a large inflation.

[IPLawyer]

I mean, not that it wasn't obvious before, but there really can't be any doubt that Don Nico is border-line illiterate with a response like this one.

[Don Nico]

Wow, are you an arrogant jerk.
Why don't you explain your insult if you're so brilliant? Tell us what was incorrect.
Go ahead explain how a debt that is 2x the GDP is a good thing.
Explain how you are not just some asshole partisan.

[IPLawyer]

I guess you are also not a good lawyer (are you a lawyer? I don't remember) as you seem to be missing the issue that I identified which is that none of your post is responsive to him pointing out that these calls disappear in partisan circumstances. So, you asking me to point out where you are wrong about the debt ceiling is completely besides the point. If anything, your post succinctly makes his point when you state things like: "The issue before us is not to continue the partisan blame game" which isn't even what he was doing.

[Don Nico]

Thank you for a civil reply.
But Clem was playing a partisan blame game:
"My entire adult life, starting back in the Carter administration, I have heard Republicans complain vociferously about the federal deficit when a Democrat is in the White House only to put a cork in it whenever a Republican is in office."
Moreover, plenty of previous comments were of the flavor that it was Republican who ran up the debt.
Who care about the past, when the question is how to move into the future.
The possibility of anything but deficits in the Federal budget for the next 10 years is remote. The impetus for even more spending is strong. And the inclination to raise taxes on the working class is very weak, if it exists at all.
That was my point. I really don't care much who the hypocrites are. I'd like to see far more realism and wilingness to work together from both parties.

[IPLawyer]

Pointing out that Blackman is baseless in his endless partisan appeals isn't the blame game and that's why you totally miss the point.

[Don Nico]

Calls disappearing is part of the usual blame game.
I've seen that in 6 years of work on the Hill.

[Cal Cetín]

IP Freely,

You remind me of the saying: "If you think that you can think about a thing inextricably attached to something else without thinking of the thing which it is attached to, then you have a legal mind.” (Source: the Internet, sometimes attributed to Thomas Reed Powell)

Your response to a comment about the national debt is to say, "that has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, which is the Punch-and-Judy *politics* of the national debt." So I guess you have a fine legal mind.

But perhaps you might try to understand how, in the midst of a discussion of the Punch-and-Judy show over the debt, someone might be tempted to change the subject a little and discuss *the debt itself.*

[Cal Cetín]

If you want to be multicultural, substitute "Kabuki theater" for "Punch and Judy show."

[IPLawyer]

Also, I'd expect someone who so frequently "shit posts" here to have much thicker skin. Get yourself in the game!

[IPLawyer]

Imagine having Blackman as your professor. It must suck. That being said, it'd be my least concern about being at the South Texas College of Law Houston.

[Don Nico]

Imagine having YOU as an IP attorney? what a joke that would be.

[IPLawyer]

My clients don't seem to have a problem. Yet, I never see any of Blackman's students posting here. Unless, are you on? Would explain your inability to ever actually get the point.

[Don Nico]

If your clients are happy, that is what counts.
As for JB's students, how would anyone even know who they are unless they self identify.

[bernard11]

And why would they do that?

[Ben_]

Seems like his students would learn a lot. And if they had a question he'd answer it at length and in detail and maybe follow up the next day with an even more thought-out answer.

[IPLawyer]

Have you been to law school? Professors don't answer questions, they engage in a socratic dialogue with the students in order to help the students answer the questions themselves...

[Ben_]

No. I work at a job where value is produced, not just moved around and quarreled over.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My law school positioned me to collect $600 (or more) for an hour of work. I conclude that school and I have produced substantial value.

And . . . I'm sure your work is very valuable, too, Ben.

[IPLawyer]

So when my client pays their bill, it's "moving money around", but when your client does, it's "producing value". How insightful! What is it that you do?

[Ben_]

Engineering

[swood1000]

What if we (a) refused to increase the debt limit, then (b) reduced spending or increased taxation to cover the revenue needed? Never mind. The second part exposes congress to complaints from constituents.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Democrats should start by suspending all disaster relief to communities that voted for Trump until Republicans vote to address the debt limit . . . and apologize for the delay.

How many clingers would need to drown and starve in the cold before Republicans would decide to become better people?

[bernard11]

What if Congress took the debt into account when they voted on taxes and spending to begin with?

I mean, they could do what you suggest ahead of time, couldn't they?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

We haven't even had a Democrat in the White House a full year and already here comes the Republican deficit hand-wringing. It's like magic.

[grb]

I'd say no one could possibly be fooled by the Right's deficit concern trolling anymore, but then look up&down these comments and what do you see? All the usual suspects have suddenly rediscovered their horror, angst and anguish over federal debt.

You know - all those heartfelt concerns safety packed away in bubble-wrap during Trump's four years.....

[Cal Cetín]

"horror, angst and anguish"

On this issue, I've reached the acceptance stage of grief. Neither party is going to do anything about the debt, so why fret about it? Either debt doesn't matter, which would be great because it's not going away, or it does matter, in which case we're totally screwed but at least I can have the serenity of knowing I can't do anything about it.

Look at what they do, not what they say.

[Don Nico]

That could be cause Mr Biden proposes to rack up the largest deficit in US history.

[bernard11]

Which is exactly what Trump and Bush did.

[Cal Cetín]

The national debt is one issue, at least, on which the parties have achieved a bipartisan consensus - though with a bit of bickering about minor points, the sort of minor bickering you find in any relationship. But when you look behind the rhetoric the parties are fully in bed with each other doing the same thing.

Shouldn't bipartisanship be celebrated? What's a piddling national debt next to the beautiful sight of our two opposed parties collaborating with each other?

[Cal Cetín]

Now, before anyone says "why can't they be bipartisan in *addressing* the national debt," I reply, "dumbass, don't you think they tried that? The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles

[Cal Cetín]

commission made some modest recommendations, but nobody of importance took it seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform

[Brett Bellmore]

The last time we realistically had a chance to do something about the debt was 1995, when Congress was voting on the balanced budget amendment.

But Gingrich deliberately had it brought to the floor in multiple versions, so that everybody who needed to vote for it to satisfy their voters could do so without risk of any one version getting enough votes to be sent to the states for ratification.

The last chance to rein in the debt before we hit the steep part of the slippery slope to a fiscal crash, and, yes, it was a Republican who spiked it. The Republican base might have cared about the debt, the Republican political establishment didn't.

[bernard11]

For the umpteenth time, the Balanced Budget amendment is idiotic. Gingrich deserves credit, not blame, for arranging for it to fail.