I think a wonderful compromise to the Government shutdown and debt ceiling controversies is

[Samantha]

repealing the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, sometimes referred to as the statutory debt limit.

Here is a short history of this legislation:

"Before the debt ceiling was created, the President had free reign on the country's finances. In 1917, the debt ceiling was created during World War I to hold the President fiscally responsible. Over time, the debt ceiling has been raised whenever the United States comes close to hitting the limit. By hitting the limit and missing an interest payment to bondholders, the United States would be in default, lowering its credit rating and increasing the cost of its debt."

at http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt-ceiling.asp

As we can clearly see now, the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, can sometimes for unusual, unexpected circumstances conflict with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which requires:

Section 4.

"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."

at http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

A substantial portion of the debt was accumulated as a result of our retaliation for the attack launched on our Country on September 11, 2001. This Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states the validity of the public debt ... incurred for payment of ... bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned. I think it is safe to assume that the validity of the debt for responding to this Country being attacked would be within the intended scope of what the amendment states is unquestionably valid debt which should not be questioned. True, that is not what constitutes all of the debt but without that expense, our debt would not be as large.

But here is another important point. The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 is a Federal law. The 14th Amendment is a part of our Constitution, the highest law in the land. When there is a conflict in executing the intent of the 14th Amendment and adhering to the debt ceiling Federal Law, the Constitution I believe would have to prevail.

In order to eradicate the inevitable occasional conflict between these two referenced laws, it appears to me the solution to that problem is to repeal the debt ceiling legislation.

Importantly, the debt ceiling law was passed to keep the President of the United States "fiscally responsible" during wartime. Inasmuch as George W. Bush* kept 10.5 trillion dollars in debt off the general ledger and out of public sight during his two terms, he single-handedly proved by this action that this law is ineffective for the purpose for which it was intended! Repeal it now.

Another added benefit to doing so would be to eliminate the potential of the debt ceiling legislation being hijacked for nefarious political reasons which might possibly have the capability of producing great harm to our system of government.

This is my suggestion for reaching a middle ground of compromise between the House Republicans and the President of the United States on the two pending crises which threaten our government now. I do not see how any self-respecting politician could expect to publicly vote against a bill of this nature and still maintain any credibility but that is probably a naive expectation. However, repealing the debt ceiling is a compromise that would save face on both sides of the aisle, and that might be a welcomed opportunity by politicians of all political persuasions at this point.

Comments?

Sam

[dkf]

1. That's not what this guy says...

Up until about one hundred years ago, Congress approved every individual new bond issue, but early in the 20th century Congress began to expedite the process by simply creating a debt limit and allowing the Treasury Department to borrow as it sees fit any amount below that.

http://business.time.com/2013/10/05/three-not-so-crazy-ways-out-of-the-debt-ceiling-crisis/#comments

[Samantha]

2. Okay, I skimmed the article but I don't see where there is a discrepancy

It is late at night, and I am tired, so perhaps I missed it. However, this article does explain why the exclusion of payment for rebellions was included in the 14th Amendment. Up until about one hundred years ago, you said, would take us until about 1913, and the excerpt I submitted said the debt limit law was written in 1917. So I am not sure exactly what point I was supposed to see.

I did see the line about a professor saying the debt limit law was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the 14th amendment. But I recommended just repealing it for that reason, he thinks it can be ignored because of its inconsistency with the Constitution. If that were to happen, don't you think the Republicans would surely file Impeachment proceedings against President Obama. They would use any straw they could grasp for that opportunity....

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[dkf]

3. Sorry, this is what I am referring to:

"Before the debt ceiling was created, the President had free reign on the country's finances."

Not so...congress had to vote on each debt issue.

[Samantha]

4. I see, that statement (your point) is correct

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sam

[2naSalit]

5. I think that you have

a valid argument and point of compromise. The problem I see is that the TP faction has no intention to play be the rules regardless of how reasonable... they have been paid to destroy everything because their benefactors have decided that since they cannot have it all, nobody can have anything. There's no reasoning with the psychopaths holding the purse strings. that would be and IS the problem in a nutshell.

The best thing is to declare those who can be identified as enemies of the state and go forth from that point... It's becoming clear that this present danger can only be dealt with in that manner. The conclusion I'm finding I come to again and again.

Reasonableness on our part is essential, on the part of the opposition, that train left the station before they cashed their campaign checks.

[Samantha]

8. Are you saying one cannot present a logical argument to an illogical person or persons

and make any traction? If so, I have to agree. But I was just trying to identify a a way out that both sides could agree to that would not leave egg on their faces. Their might be other avenues that might work better.

I also think if this goes to the line and the Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, all hell is going to break loose. People are hurting now but that would be catastrophic.

Thanks for posting on my thread. If you come up with any other alternatives for ending this in a benign way, I hope you post them here.

Sam

[2naSalit]

9. If I do

come with more benign ideas, I will certainly post them here!

But because we are dealing with irrational persons, I have my doubts as to whether any reasonable or benign remedies would have much value outside of identifying them, offering them in good faith and claiming that we had, at the very least, tried to work within the context of reasonableness. Beyond that...?

[Southside]

6. The idea alone, makes me proud I'm on this side

Thanks to you and good job

Our side looks to change and improve, their side looks to Go back. I commend your thoughts and efforts toward addressing an issue that should never be an issue. Congress is responsible for the budget. Somehow this became a bargaining chip, that is wrong to so many of us and needs to stop now. Congress should do its job and we should hold them accountable in elections if they do not.

This debt ceiling is supposed to look like a power grab by President Obama, I think he wants nothing to do with it going forward. Unlike Bush who took us into war without a budget plan, Obamacare came with a plan for funding it. It seems like good practice to do that from now on, while we raise the debt to pay off bills already incurred, many of which under Bush.

Thanks for the information on the debt racked up for the war under Bush. Somehow it seems Obama is blamed for the entire debt or responsible for paying it down ASAP through a recession and recovery.

Good job

Also we hated the war, but raised the debt ceiling, there is no way the Tea Party will be forgiven if they fail to raise the debt ceiling. For all the speeches we gave around the debt ceiling to stop the war, we did not hurt our country by doing so. We are Americans first and should love our country more than party, especially the Tea Party.

[Samantha]

7. Thank you for your comments

I was trying to find something that both parties could agree to that would actually benefit the government but not cause embarrassment to either side. I wish there were a way we could gain some momentum toward an idea that would put an end to all this misery. Perhaps we could think of someone who would try to sell this for us, perhaps Bernie Sanders.

Sam

[Southside]

10. If the Tea Party truly takes over

I think you will see more converts to your solution. Especially in the case of war or crisis intervention. I was afraid the Tea Party already had the power to block raising the debt ceiling. There was a poll yesterday and I voted that they would not raise it. Now we see the Tea Party is losing influence, thank goodness.

For now the debt ceiling issue is a bluff(I hope?), but with the Tea Party I don't think it is. They are willing to destroy markets and the senior safety net to secure their goals;no oversight, wall street control of social security, no blacks, that was a joke (but seriously, no blacks). "Just Let it burn and deal with whoever is left standing" is a recurring recommendation in their comment sections (Forgive me for trolling. Is it trolling if you don't post?). In other words they are too crazy to trust with the debt ceiling.

Your preemptive strike to the Tea Party apocalypse is appreciated. Great job and I will stash this idea in my back pocket for the future.

[Samantha]

11. I wish I were in the group that thought the Tea Party crowd is bluffing

I would not be losing so much sleep over this and sitting up late into the night posting here about it!

I was watching Ed Schultz this evening, and he too believes we are headed for default. He thinks this is all about the President, and the Tea Party Republicans want this default to go on the President's bio. He mentioned words like Barack Obama is the only President in our Country's history under which this Nation endured a default.

But the more I think about it, when we study the consequences of that potential default, much of the fall-out would enable the Republicans to get a lot of what they have always wanted. There would not be the resources to totally fund Social Security and perhaps even Medicare and Medicaid. Assistance to the homeless, those who depend on food stamps, perhaps even the Federal subsidies to fund health care -- all of these things are programs the Republicans resent and want to destroy - unemployment assistance, you name it, if it is not something which makes the well-to-do richer, they don't want it.

This whole debacle now ongoing is extremely disturbing. I fear it is only going to get worse.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[Southside]

12. Now you have me worried again, But

The strategic leaders and money guys of the Tea Party are changing their tune on raising the debt ceiling. Matt Kibbe freedomworks and Michael Needham of Heritage They have dropped that crazy idea.

Last week Kibbe was gung ho on not raising the debt ceiling:
"We will go past the deadline for the debt ceiling, and I don't think that that is a bad thing if we can get to better fiscal policy," Kibbe said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/freedomworks-debt-limit_n_4033156.html
-------------

Now they have changed their opinion:
Today in Huffington Post Needham:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4070242/

"No, we should raise the debt limit," he said, though he added that he would oppose an increase that extends until after the 2014 election, which is Obama's preferred outcome.
-------------------

Matt Kibbe said the same thing in the article:
Matt Kibbe, the president and CEO of the influential conservative group FreedomWorks, also said in a Wednesday interview with The Huffington Post that the debt ceiling should be raised in order to keep the Obamacare fight focused on the continuing resolution.

"This is an emerging set of opinions that looks to be where everybody's gravitating to," he said.

[Samantha]

13. I think these people are acting as if they have a bipolar disorder

And that is not intended to be a derogatory remark toward people who suffer from this disorder, my sister was one of them. But as you probably know, those who have it experience extreme highs and lows. And some of these Republicans are exhibiting those traits, which leads people to think one minute they have come to their senses, a little later they develop a new "plan" and are exhilarated about it (remember the "happy" and "giddy" talk), then throw in some rumors of their realizing they are not going to get anything and truly can't allow the government to continue in shut-down mode or the economy to collapse.

So I don't mean to worry you, but these people are totally unpredictable. I don't think they are truly emotionally and mentally built to serve in Congress.

We heard a few days ago about 17 House Republicans were willing to side with the Dems in a vote to reopen the government. Hope returned. Then came the report that while they were publicly willing to say this, signing on the doted line and bucking the Speaker was quite another thing.

Since the Koch Brothers now are publicly making noises they wince at the thought of the economy collapsing (they have businesses to think about) perhaps that will make some of the Tea Party reps back off.

Who knows what will happen -- but we citizens should not have to tolerate this type of conduct from our "public servants."

Thanks for your response.

Sam

[Southside]

14. Ditto

Can't stop the money train, but only give Obama a 6 week extension, then we can make the country suffer again. Sick

[PETRUS]

15. Better yet.

Give up the practice of borrowing to cover federal deficits. Really. Why Does Uncle Sam Borrow?

[Samantha]

16. This was discussed yesterday on one of the cable shows on MSNBC

Congress approves certain expenditures caused by bills it has passed. Revenues flow into the Treasury. The difference between the incoming available revenue and the legislation which must be funded is borrowed. So the reason we have a deficit is because Congress spent more than it should have, or one might say the Federal Government allowed too many corporations to not pay taxes and/or gave them subsidies to boot, and many wealthy people sheltered their income and did not pay the taxes they truly owed. The latter two items can be corrected without shutting down the government, but I am sure the Republicans would try to run interference on that.

Some might say we have spent entirely too much money on national defense, especially in the arena of espionage on our own citizens, not to mention a preemptive war.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam