The #GOP released their budget to avoid default on the Debt:
Cut #StudentLoanDebtRelief, the #ElectricVehicle tax credit, and money earmarked for fighting the #ClimateCrisis. But doesn't ask Corporate America or Billionaires to step up and pay what they owe. 😞 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/20/three-takeaways-mccarthys-debt-limit-bill/
@POTUS had something to say about the #GOP's budget to avoid hitting the #DebtCeiling:
Yes, POTUS had a lie to tell. And we really need to call this what it is, a lie.
It's not up to the speaker of the house to pay the nation's bills, but rather it's up to the president.
The Treasury has plenty of money, by its own statements, to pay the bills. There is absolutely no reason to default unless the president chooses, on his own, to default.
We really need to be clear about this. Biden is threatening default even though he has enough money to service the debts of the United States. It is ridiculous and, if he follows through on the threat, it is impeachable.
If Biden wants more power to borrow more he needs to be transparent about it and negotiate for that power. It is irresponsible for him to promote this line that it's anything else.
@volkris Uh. No. That's not how it works. 🤦♂️
How do you think it works?
This is basic civics. The legislative branch authorizes and the executive branch executes.
The Treasury is part of the executive branch, and as they collect taxes and write checks to spend money, they're under the authority of the president.
If the president directs the Treasury not to pay debts, that's up to him.
What part of that do you disagree with?
@volkris ONLY Congress has "the power of the purse" to tax & spend. POTUS does not "pay the bills". Nor did he run up the bill. And the Treasury never said "they have plenty of money." That's absurd.
Republicans passed a budget that spent more than we collect in taxes (the Deficit.)
Making matters worse, they passed huge tax CUTS making the Deficit even bigger.
Now they don't want to raise the Debt Ceiling to PAY for the spending they already agreed to.
POTUS/WH has *NOTHING* to do with it.
The US Treasury, which writes checks and spends money on behalf of the United States, is an Executive Branch department.
It is not a part of the Legislative branch, which wouldn't make sense anyway.
It's true that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law" but power of the purse only extends to giving the president the permission to spend.
If you want more evidence of how this works, note that the Treasury NEVER spends exactly what lawmakers legislate. And that's because Congress does not, and cannot, spend.
You're missing the different functions of the separate branches of government.
@volkris Sigh. The Treasury can't "pick & choose" what it spends money on or how much. It merely cuts the checks, paying for the things Congress approved spending on.
You might remember Trump tried to misappropriate funds committed by Congress by spending them to build his idiotic Wall™.
The Executive Branch has NO power to change spending.
Of course the Treasury can pick and choose what it spends money on, because that is how the separations of power of the US government is designed.
If Congress authorizes the Treasury to spend money that it does not have, then it is implicitly all about letting the executive branch pick which things it wants to spend money on.
If I tell you that you can spend $10,000 but you only have $1,000 to spend then mathematically there is no choice but for you to pick and choose what to spend money on.
That is what we are facing now.
@volkris You wrote: "If Congress authorizes the Treasury to spend money that it does not have, then it is implicitly all about letting the executive branch pick which things it wants to spend money on."
No. When Congress budgets more spending than revenue, the Treasury must raise money to cover that *Deficit*. It can't simply decide to spend less.
I think the key there is the word "budget".
A budget is a plan. Sometimes plans don't work out. Often in the US government plans don't work out.
Just because they budget for something doesn't mean it will work out, and when you review the treasury reports it never ever does.
The Treasury never actually spends what is budgeted.
So no, when Congress budgets more spending than revenue, it's not only true that Treasury must raise money to cover that deficit, constitutionally the Treasury cannot raise money to cover that deficit without additional legal action.
It's not that the executive branch can't simply decide to spend less; constitutionally it has no choice but to spend less.
@volkris I don't know where you're getting your info from, but it's completely wrong.
Congress... and ONLY Congress... has "the power of the purse". If The treasury could pick & choose what the gov't spends money on, we wouldn't NEED Congress to write a budget.
Your argument is like saying YOUR BANK can pick & choose which of your bills to pay and for how much.
Congress says, "We need XYZ". The Treasury (a bank) says okay, when that company sends us a bill, we'll pay it. 😞
The Treasury absolutely does pick and choose what government spends money on.
Keep in mind that every single year the Treasury does not spend exactly what Congress has appropriated.
That fact alone disproves the idea that Congress spends money.
Congress has the power to control access to the purse, but once Congress authorizes access to the purse, it's an Executive Branch function to actually spend money.
In short, what you're saying can easily be debunked by simply looking at the difference between what Congress appropriates versus what the Treasury spends.
@volkris You didn't "debunk" anything unless you can proove the Treasury pay out doesn't match how much Congress budgeted.
WHY does Congress have to raise the #DebtCeiling if what you say is true? Why would there be concern of Economic Catastrophe if they don't? Why was the U.S. Credit Rating downgraded from "AAA" to "AA+" in 2011?
"That fact alone disproves the idea..."
You're trying to absolve the Republican House of blame for the #BudgetCrisis and lay it all at the feet of the Biden Admin.
The Treasury says the Treasury payout doesn't match how much Congress budgets.
On their website they release monthly numbers showing so.
Congress doesn't have to raise the debt ceiling. That's the whole point.
That the credit rating was downgraded shows that the debt ceiling doesn't have to be raised. So your own observation disproves the claim.
If the debt ceiling had to be raised and the Treasury had to pay these debts then there would not have been a downgrade. That there was a downgrade shows that the story isn't true.
@volkris When the U.S. Credit Rating was downgraded, interest rates went up, hurting the economy. And that was over a mere *delay*. Think what a total *default* would do?
But you seem to think the Treasury can simply not pay it's bills. I hope you don't work for a contractor on the other end of some of those bills, or have any T-Bills you don't mind forfeiting a years interest on. 🤦♂️
No I'm saying the exact opposite.
I'm here pointing out that the Treasury can and must pay its bills, so how in the world do you conclude that I think Treasury can simply not pay its bills?
I'm emphatically saying that it must!
@volkris YOU'RE KIDDING, RIGHT?
You've been arguing for DAYS now that the Treasury can pick & choose what bills to pay, and in fact just argued the Treasury don't always pay for everything Congress budgets (even just now providing a link.)
And NOW you are trying to gaslight me and insist you're "emphatically saying it must" pay for everything Congress appropriates? 🤦♂️
We're done.
BTW: You're link doesn't show the Treasury picking what to fund. Spending isn't always evenly divided over time.
You misunderstand.
It's not that the Treasury can pick and choose which bills to pay. It must pay all bills.
The key that I think you're missing is in assuming there are bills for money not yet spent. Those aren't bills, and the Treasury must not create bills that it can't pay.
If the president does not have the money to buy a new fighter jet and he cannot raise money through borrowing, then he should not buy the jet.
There is no bill for the jet that he does not buy.
@volkris No. I understand. You don't.
When Congress places an order for a jet, the Treasury can't simply cancel the order or decide when to pay. If the contractor demands payment (full or in part) in advance, the Treasure can't say, "Nope. Payment on delivery only."
What contractor would take on such a costly obligation (it's never just ONE jet. Typically dozens) w/o knowing when they get paid?
You're mixing up your branches of government again.
Congress does not place an order for a jet. The procurement agencies are in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
Congress can authorize the executive branch to buy a jet, but the Treasury, DoD, GSA, and all of the other agencies that are involved in the procurement are executive branch functionaries.
@volkris Again, you are claiming exactly what you just denied doing: suggesting the Treasury can pick & choose which bills to pay. 🤦♂️
If the president does not buy the jet then there is no bill for a jet to pay.
Once the president does buy a jet, then there will be a bill to pay. But until the president buys the jet, no bill.
So if the president doesn't have funding for a jet, he should not buy the jet. Therefore there will be no bill to decide not to pay.
Once the jet is bought, though, then the president has no choice but to pay the bill.
@volkris WRONG!
I am an independent contractor. When someone places an order with me, I require a retainer before any work begins. If I complete that work and you decide you don't want it, you can forfeit your retainer. That's *private* enterprise.
Gov't contractors don't operate that way. B/c these projects are so large, most will demand full payment in advance (and by your own word, the Treasury can't decide which projects not to buy.)
@volkris If by some miracle a contractor agrees to (say) requiring only 50% up front and then the Treasury decides they don't want the project, contractors will raise their price (and retainer) before they agree to another contract.
And THAT is why they expect payment in advance, and no one would do business with the gov't if they could simply cancel projects and have their employees, suppliers and creditors out to dry.
You are entirely missing the point. This has nothing to do with the timing of the payments.
It doesn't matter whether the executive branch agrees to pay up front or after delivery; the issue is whether the executive branch agrees to the transaction at all.
If the executive branch doesn't have the money to pay for a fighter jet, then it should not order a fighter jet, regardless of whether the payment will be up front, or 50% upfront, or to be paid for on delivery. That has absolutely absolutely nothing to do with it.
The question is whether the executive branch has the financing to pay for some transaction that it might be interested in seeking.
You have really missed the point here once again.
If the president wants to buy a billion dollar piece of equipment, but it doesn't have a billion dollars to pay for it, then there's no dispute here over when it should pay, it's simply a matter that it should not buy the piece of equipment at all.
Where in the world do you get the impression that I claimed that they can't decide when to pay bills?
I point out that that is irrelevant, and you say that somehow be irrelevant point is what I'm arguing?
I honestly wonder if maybe we have a language issue here.
@volkris Hmm, lessee...
You tried to claim you WEREN'T arguing IF the Treasury pays the bills, and now you're claiming they also can't decide WHEN to pay the bills, so what's left?
Don't answer. This pointless meandering debate has run its course. 😞