Why Obama Shows No Inclination to Use our 14th Amendment to Avoid Defaulting on our Debt

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jul-31-11 07:02 PM
Original message

Why Obama Shows No Inclination to Use our 14th Amendment to Avoid Defaulting on our Debt

As Republican fanatics in Congress hold the payment of our national debt hostage to their long-held plans to destroy the New Deal legacy of FDR, it has been pointed out by many that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution provides a means for our President to avoid defaulting on our debt without submitting to blackmail by right wing fanatics in Congress. That section of our 14th Amendment reads in part:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law� shall not be questioned.

There is a very good reason for that portion of the 14th Amendment. It has long been well understood that failure to honor our debts will result in catastrophic economic consequences for our country. Section 4 of our 14th Amendment provides a way to avoid those consequences if, for example, irresponsible members of Congress decide to hold payment of our debt hostage to their own selfish ends � or the selfish ends of their wealthy supporters.

Yet President Obama refuses to even acknowledge this potential solution, despite the fact that it has been pointed out and highly recommended to him by members of his own Democratic Party in Congress. Instead he maintains that he must compromise with right wing fanatics in Congress who are intent on destroying the nearly eight decade-long legacy of the New Deal, which did so much to lift millions out of poverty and create a prosperous middle class in our country.

But as always, his compromises tilt much more to punishing the vulnerable, the poor and the rapidly shrinking middle class, than the wealthy. William Greider recently commented on this in his article, �Obama�s Bad Bargain�:

The budget cuts he first proposed would have punished the middle class and vulnerable three times with a big stick, shrinking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits while hitting the wealthy only once with a modest tax increase. When Democrats complained that this wasn�t fair, Obama adjusted the �shared sacrifice� to a dollar-for-dollar ratio. Take a dollar from working stiffs who need these programs, take a dollar from the superrich who don�t need a tax break. How fair is that? Obama�s facile arithmetic essentially scrapped the Democratic Party�s longstanding commitment to progressive taxation and universal social protections.

Obama�s concessions to phony right wing talking points � and the consequences of that

Just as bad, Obama has conceded erroneous right wing talking points about the origin of our expanding national debt. Greider continues:

The claim that cutting Social Security benefits will �strengthen� the system is erroneous. In fact, Obama has already undermined the soundness of Social Security by partially suspending the FICA payroll tax for workers � depriving the system of revenue it needs for long-term solvency.

The mendacity has a more fundamental dimension. Obama helped conservatives concoct the debt crisis on false premises, promoting a claim that Social Security and other entitlement programs were somehow to blame while gliding over the real causes and culprits� There should be no mystery about what caused the $14 trillion debt: large deficits began in 1981, with Ronald Reagan�s fanciful �supply side� tax-cutting. Federal debt was then around $1 trillion. By 2007 it had reached $9 trillion, thanks to George W. Bush�s tax cuts for the wealthy and his two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the massive subsidy for Big Pharma in Medicare drug benefits.

Ari Berman expands on how Obama�s rhetoric and actions have shifted the debate way to the right and fueled the belief that we need drastic cuts in long-standing safety net programs:

President Obama has actively shifted the debt debate to the right, both substantively and rhetorically. Substantively by not insisting on a �clean bill� to raise the debt ceiling at the outset and actively pushing for drastic spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs as part of any deal. And rhetorically by mimicking right-wing arguments about the economy, such as the canard that reducing spending will create jobs (it won�t), or that the government�s budget is like a family�s budget (it isn�t), or that major spending cuts will return confidence to the market and spur the economy recovery we�ve all been waiting for (Paul Krugman calls it �the confidence fairy�).

Due to the combined effects of right wing fanatics who repeat their phony arguments ad nauseum, a corporate owned media that echoes those arguments, and a Democratic President and some Congressional Democrats that also echo those arguments, the American public is becoming more and more inured to the idea that deep cuts to so-called �entitlement� programs will help our economy. Berman continues:

By a two to one margin, according to a July Quinnipiac poll, Americans still believe that reducing unemployment is more important than cutting the deficit. But they only narrowly believe that reducing unemployment is more important than reducing federal government spending, by a 49 to 43 margin. And the public now says that �major cuts in federal spending� would help, not hurt, the economy, a 15 point reversal from March.

Why doesn�t Obama embrace the 14th Amendment solution instead of submitting to right wing blackmail?

So why does Obama submit to this blackmail rather than consider taking the 14th Amendment solution to avoid defaulting on our debt, and at the same time avoid cuts to social programs that would cause great harm to the vast majority of Americans, especially the most vulnerable among us?

It could be suggested that he doesn�t want to act in a heavy-handed manner that would constitute abuse of his presidential powers. But he doesn�t seem to have much of a problem with acting in heavy handed ways with regard to other issues. He unilaterally commits us to a war with Libya without even seeking Congressional approval, thereby bypassing our Constitution�s provision that gives the decision to make war to Congress. His justice department actively seeks to punish those who use, sell, or prescribe marijuana for medical purposes, thereby overruling numerous state laws that provide for that use. And he authorizes the assassination of U.S. citizens based on unproven allegations of terrorism and his say-so alone.

Why does he feel free to use very heavy-handed tactics in these areas, but won�t even consider a constitutionally approved solution for avoiding the first default on our debt in U.S. history and simultaneously avoiding deep cuts in social safety net programs that have long been symbolic of the Democratic Party�s commitment to improve the lives of ordinary citizens? The only answer that comes to mind is that he has no problem with heavy handed tactics as long as the only people offended are the liberals/progressives of the Democratic base.

What then are his reasons for refusing to acknowledge even considering the 14th Amendment solution? Three possible reasons come to mind � and they�re all just about equally bad:

1) He really believes in the right-wing talking points and �compromises� that he embraces
Many have referred to President Obama as a �centrist�. But deep cuts to New Deal era programs that make life bearable for our most vulnerable citizens goes beyond � and to the right � of �centrist�. Doing so without even demanding concessions from those right wing fanatics is even worse.

2) He doesn�t want to offend powerful interests that heavily contributed to his 2008 campaign
Candidate Obama received record levels of campaign contributions from the financial industry in 2008. He surrounds himself with economic advisors who are highly associated with Wall Street, and his economic decisions always reflect the desires of Wall Street. His rhetoric on the need for spending cuts to social programs to achieve debt reduction is right in line with the powerful interests that he has relied upon in the past to fund his campaigns.

3) He fears heavy criticism from our corporate owned media
If he fears that use of the 14th Amendment to avoid defaulting on our debt would be met with heavy criticism from our corporate media, he is undoubtedly right on target in that fear. But in a democracy, the people elect their presidents to represent them, not just the wealthiest among us. If a president can�t fight for our interests at the risk of offending powerful corporate interests and attracting right wing criticism, then he shouldn�t be president.

Conclusions

I�m not saying that Obama is as bad as the right wing crazies who are planning on running against him in 2012. But some have suggested, and I believe they have a point well worth giving serious consideration, that liberals/progressives need to seriously challenge and fight against what the Democratic Party is becoming or has in many respects already become:

The Democratic Party ("Republican Lite") is perhaps more dangerous than the Republican Party in transforming the United States� because it proceeds more slowly, more surely, and less obviously in this direction. This is particularly true with the office of President, for liberals and many progressives are able to rationalize their support of morally untenable policies out of a fear that things would be even worse under a Republican President, so it's necessary not to rock the boat.

It is time that we recognize the Democratic Party for what it sadly has become. It, like the Republican Party, is institutionally controlled by the very wealthy, concretely by the huge corporations whose interest they necessarily serve. For a great many decades, the Democratic Party has functioned to siphon off the energy of mass progressive movements, emasculating our political effectiveness�.

In other words, as the Democratic Party falls more and more under sway of the same powerful interests that have long controlled the Republican Party, we need to constantly assess to what extent it serves our interests, and the interests of our country, to give them our unqualified support. Unqualified support from the left can enable them to move further and further to the right, with the firm confidence that abandonment of long-held Democratic principles will help, not hurt them politically. We should let them know that our support depends upon the extent to which they represent our interests over the wealthiest 1% among us.