Why didn't the Democrats in the Senate raise the debt ceiling while they had control, instead of

[JohnSJ]

kicking the "can down the road", in the lame duck session?

"WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders have all but abandoned the idea of acting to raise the debt ceiling this month before Democrats lose control of the House, punting the issue to a new Congress when Republicans have vowed to fight the move, and setting up a clash next year that could bring the American economy to the brink of crisis.

Democrats had urged party leaders to act during their lame-duck postelection session to increase the legal borrowing limit, taking advantage of their party’s final months of unified control. Doing so, they argued, would avert a potentially catastrophic conflict over the issue next year, when Republicans have threatened to block the move unless it is accompanied by substantial cuts to domestic spending and social safety net programs."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/09/us/politics/congress-debt-ceiling.html

For whatever reason, the Democrats in the Senate dropped the ball on this.

I suspect, though I have no actual evidence, that it was due to two Senators who refused to make a filibuster exception to raising the debt limit in the next two years.

We will be paying a price for this if the economy collapses due to the republican obstruction to raise the debt limit at the end of the year, with entitlement programs held hostage, which we have PAID into, and are ENTITILED to those benefits, because of republican irresponsibility.

and it will be naive to think that the illustrious press will not play the bothsiderism game, as they are doing with the classified documents that were found at President Biden's office, by conveniently leaving out key differences between that, and what trump did, by intentionally obstructing and returning those documents

[Bettie]

1. My best guess is that either Manchin or Sinema

said no and would not budge.

[rubbersole]

3. I think you're right.

[JohnSJ]

4. I agree, and that may doom us all

[AZSkiffyGeek]

8. Needs 60 votes in the Senate

Not just Manchinema's fault.

[onenote]

18. Not their fault. They voted for the debt limit increase in 2021 when their votes were needed.

You are right about needing 60 votes. You are wrong to suggest Manchin and Sinema would have been a problem.

See post #14

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. Nope they could have used reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes

But Manchin was opposed.

[onenote]

48. Schumer was opposed to using reconciliation in 2021 as were most Democrats.

Schumer's comments on the Senate floor in September 2021 in response to republican suggestions the Democrats use reconciliation to lift the debt ceiling:

Now, in solving this crisis, this body cannot and will not go through a drawn-out, unpredictable process sought by the Minority Leader. It risks the full faith and credit of the United States. To do this through reconciliation requires ping-ponging separate bills back from the Senate and the House. It's uncharted waters. Individual senators could move to delay and delay and delay. It is very risky and could well lead us to default, even if only one senator wanted that to happen. That's very possible. So you can't do it this route. Everyone who has studied it knows it is risky, and it's simply a political gambit by Leader McConnell who has changed his tune several different times.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/majority-leader-schumer-floor-remarks-on-republican-obstruction-of-a-vote-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling-and-the-urgent-need-to-avoid-a-catastrophic-default-crisis

[W_HAMILTON]

41. It could be done through reconciliation, but Manchin was against it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. Yes, it was Manchin's fault

Manchin specifically opposed lifting the ceiling using budget reconciliation in the lame duck period, which would have required only 51 votes.

He said this in mid November, when there was still time to use reconciliation if he had supported it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/16/lame-duck-debt-ceiling-deal-00067123

[Hortensis]

11. Also guessing Manchin in red WV, and a handful of other Democratic

senators whose positions generally reflect conservative tilts in their states, and slithery sidewinder Sinema.

[onenote]

17. You'd be guessing wrong. See post #16

Edited to correct cross reference.

[Hortensis]

26. Biden issuing a reversible EO is not a guaranteed fix, though,

straight off to the courts and if the EO patch survives cancellable by the next president.

Controlling the nation's purse is congress's job, and the OP asks why senate Democrats didn't do it. Congress could eliminate the debt limit or at least push it way up so it wasn't triggered every year, or adopt other floated fixes, but that'd of course require majority Democratic support in both houses. We need bigger majorities so the few more conservative leaners in our liberal caucuses have less influence.

Good article, though, well worth posting and reading.

[onenote]

19. Your best guess - and those agreeing with you: wrong.

See post #16

[FalloutShelter]

2. Nancy Pelosi never let a vote go to the floor if she didn't have

the votes to win. There is my guess. She didn't have the votes.

[JohnSJ]

5. The House DID have the votes. It was the Senate, and the archaic filibuster rules in the Senate, an

most likely either Sinema, Manchine, or both who refused to make a filibuster exception for this.

The House had the votes, and were ready to go, and President Biden was ready to Sign it. It was the Senate

I saw an interview on Bloomberg by a Democratic Representative from Pennsylvania, who I don't recall the name, we said as much.

[FalloutShelter]

9. Thanks for the correction.

Missed that.

[JohnSJ]

12. It isn't widely discussed. The only thing discussed now is what a disaster it will be if the debt

limit isn't raised at the end of the year

I am hoping there is some maneuver in the House, or 5 republicans who can vote with the Democrats to see this doesn't happen

[Mad_Machine76]

37. We've been here before and we've survived

Republicans have consistently wound up with egg on their faces when they've tried to hold their ground on it.

[JohnSJ]

46. It isn't the same republicans and leadership

[Mad_Machine76]

47. True

but Republicans are still not likely to ultimately blow things up. They have a very thin majority and not all Republicans are stupid/suicidal and willing to go along with this madness. Just trying to stay hopeful on this. If we get to the point where some kind of out of the box solution is needed, I'm sure that the Democratic leadership and Biden will figure something out.

[JohnSJ]

49. I hope so

[Mad_Machine76]

50. Me too

Whatever the outcome is, though, it won't look pretty for the Republicans if they stand in the way.

[Genki Hikari]

63. You do realize that by votes, that includes the Senate?

Pelosi knew how her chamber would vote, and how the other one would as well. She factored in the Senate vote count for every bill or action she got behind...and what she didn't.

She tended to back only bills that had a chance of success. However...

When the r thugs held the Senate, she let bills go through knowing they'd fail in the Senate, if it would expose the r thugs for the anti-American dirtbags they were.

But with a D Senate, she focused more on what bills could actually get through, to bolster an image of Democratic competency and success.

She may have been the most brilliant Speaker and Democratic Party promoter we've ever had, and that's saying something when Sam Rayburn always looms over that debate.

[Emile]

6. Better yet, they should of held a vote to do away with it.

[JohnSJ]

7. Exactly. It is money already spent.

[Phoenix61]

10. I think it was a political decision.

The Dems raise the debt ceiling and the repukes can’t push to slash the programs they want to slash. People get complacent and in 2024 they keep the house and we lose the senate and then we are all truly screwed. This really is the best way to make sure people know what the Rs want to do while being able to block the vast majority of their hatefulness.

[JohnSJ]

13. Not from the country or Democrats point of view

[Arazi]

14. My guess is Biden will ignore the debt ceiling as unconstitutional

This article has a good explainer of Biden’s options. There are several. Personally I believe he’ll declare the debt ceiling as unconstitutional but there are other strategies he can take.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2023/1/10/23542845/joe-biden-debt-ceiling-kevin-mccarthy

2) Invoke the 14th Amendment

Some legal scholars have argued that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which specifies that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned,” renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, as it threatens the validity of the US’s public debts by creating the possibility of default.

This is hardly a consensus position among constitutional law experts, but if Biden were to declare he was ignoring the debt ceiling because it’s unconstitutional, it’s not clear that anyone would have legal standing to sue him and challenge the decision. That helped encourage a number of political actors, from then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to former President Bill Clinton, to urge Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment during his debt ceiling showdowns.

[JohnSJ]

15. Interesting.

[onenote]

16. The Senate couldn't pass a debt ceiling bill with just 51 votes.

Folks have short memories. In 2021, efforts to raise the debt ceiling were stymied, not by Manchin or Sinema, but by the fact that it takes 60 votes to get cloture and bring the measure to a vote unless reconciliation process is used and that's too time consuming. Ultimately, the debt ceiling legislation passed the Senate in 2021 because a deal was struck between Schumer and McConnell to allow a one-time, fast-track process for considering the bill. An amendment allowing such a process was tied to an existing bill which picked up 14 republicans so it could then be put to a vote, which passed with 9 republican votes (59-35 ). Five days later, using this one time process, the Senate was able to pass a stand alone debt limit bill on strict party-line 50-49 vote (Repub. Senator Lummis (R-WY) skipped the vote. It then went to the House for approval.

[JohnSJ]

21. Thanks, however, it can be done by making a one-time filibuster exemption for just the debt ceiling

[onenote]

29. Yes. But you have to overcome the filibuster to create that exemption

That's what happened in 2021. See post #16

[Gore1FL]

20. It doesn't matter. The debt ceiling is unconstitutional. nt

[JohnSJ]

22. You really think this Supreme Court will agree with that?

[Gore1FL]

23. The 14th amendment is pretty specific on the topic.

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. "

[JohnSJ]

28. I hope so. Why wasn't this presented when the republicans tried this previously?

[Gore1FL]

30. I don't know specifically

If I had to make a guess, it's been that we were too busy cowering in fear of what the GOP would say in the media if we opposed it. We've certainly never challenged it. But if they play brinksmanship, I hope we push them off the edge, this time.

[JohnSJ]

33. Thanks for the insight

[onenote]

31. And yet no one has tried challenging it until now.

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2023, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Why do you think that is? Maybe because it isn't as cut and dried as you think.

For years, even Lawrence Tribe felt the 14th Amendment argument wasn't the answer. He's changed his tune, but acknowledges that having the president take unilateral action to avoid default raises its own constitutional issues since the power of the purse is exclusively delegated to Congress under the Constitution.

[Gore1FL]

62. I think it's because Democrats had a post 1984 period where we cowered in the corner.

I think we have finally been emerging from this, now.

It's a pretty clearly-worded statement. Where do you see the wiggle-room?

[FBaggins]

25. No it isn't

Saying that the validity of the debt shall not be questioned does not mean that the ability to take on more debt can’t constitutionally be constrained.

“We cannot abrogate our debts” does not mean “there is no limit to what we can borrow”

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. There is nothing in the constitution giving congress the power to deliberately default

In fact, deliberate default is specifically prohibited.

Someone compared refusing to lift the ceiling to “refusing to cash checks that have already been written” (expenditures already authorized legislatively).

This could indeed end up as Constitutional brinkmanship between all three branches.

[FBaggins]

45. As you say - default on existing debt is not an option

But that doesn't mean that additional debt can't be restricted.

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. But the debt ceiling is about debt that has already been legislatively approved. Nt

[FBaggins]

57. Legislatively approving spending isn't the same thing as taking on debt

If that were so, every defense contractor would use this argument when a program gets canceled. And there are plenty of federal programs that have to pause when things cost more than they budgeted for and they run out of money. Nobody says "Congress approved 250 widgets and that's now a debt that the constitution says must be honored".

On top of all of this - we know how the court would rule.

[Fiendish Thingy]

58. Do we?

Do we know the courts would rule in favour of congress deliberately defaulting on the debt?

[FBaggins]

59. Non sequitur

Defaulting on the debt isn't an option.

But debt payments (while huge) are just a percentage of federal tax revenues.

The courts would likely rule that the executive branch does not have the option of not making payments on the debt. It would have to cut somewhere else.

[Fiendish Thingy]

60. But since SCOTUS has ruled the line item veto unconstitutional, Biden couldn't cut

It would be up to congress to pass new legislation, which Biden could then veto, and if no cuts are approved by the date the treasury says the debt cap will be exceeded…then what?

I know there are lots of hypothetical scenarios, but There seems to be no clear consensus on legal, constitutional action the executive can take to avoid default.

IMO, it’s a full on, three branch, constitutional crisis in the making. It could be the biggest domestic test of a president’s spine since at least the Great Depression, maybe ever.

[FoxNewsSucks]

24. They did pass a "can down the road" increase,

but Manchin refused to allow a permanent fix. I'm sure Sinema was along for that ride. Republicons didn't want a permanent fix.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. They did not.

They passed a continuing budget resolution, which prevents a shutdown through September, but took no action on the debt ceiling, which is projected to be reached this July.

[FoxNewsSucks]

61. Oops, my mistake.

I lost track of budget can-kicking and debt ceiling can-kicking. I just knew that it could have been addressed, but two senators made sure the republicons got their way and their hammer to use against us.

[mcar]

27. Senate didn't have the votes

and no, it's not Sinema and Manchin's faults (to respond to the knee jerk reactions from some posters).

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. They could have passed it using reconciliation with just 50 votes.

But Manchin publicly opposed that route, so, yes, it’s Manchin’s fault.

[W_HAMILTON]

44. This.

Anyone else suggesting otherwise clearly didn't follow the news very closely.

I won't link the article since it goes against me giving this particular organization publicity, but if anyone still doubts this, Google "White House's hopes for a lame-duck debt ceiling deal are fading fast" and read the reasons why this didn't happen (spoiler alert: it couldn't get Republican votes to pass it through normal order and it couldn't get 50 Democratic votes, primarily due to Manchin, to pass it through reconciliation).

[onenote]

51. The part you left out from the article:

The administration has determined that if it were to go the reconciliation route on the debt limit, it would face likely opposition from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). And there could be other defectors. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he wants a bipartisan vote to raise the borrowing cap during the lame-duck session.

Schumer opposed using reconciliation in 2021. No reason to think he was inclined in that direction in 2022.

[W_HAMILTON]

53. Other than the fact that the administration was pursuing it to begin with.

If Schumer had told them under no circumstances would he raise the debt ceiling through reconciliation, they wouldn't have pursued it at all.

Biden and Schumer/Pelosi work very closely together and the fact that Biden's team was trying to pursue this route indicates that, yes, Schumer was on board.

But, as usual, the typical obstructionists were not: pretty much all Republicans and Manchin.

[Ocelot II]

32. They didn't have the votes in the Senate.

I thought we'd discussed this to death already.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. Manchin said publicly he would oppose lifting the ceiling during lame duck

It’s that simple- it was reported widely that Manchin opposed lifting the ceiling during lame duck, and yet so many folks are wringing their hands saying “why didn’t Dems address this during lame duck?” as of the Dems hadn’t thought of it already…

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/16/lame-duck-debt-ceiling-deal-00067123

Manchin was stating his opposition in mid-November (specifically to using reconciliation to lift the ceiling, which was the only likely way it could be done, with the filibuster intact), so this shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone now in 2023.

[Mad_Machine76]

38. Right

If we've thought of it, it's nearly guaranteed that the Democrats in Congress have too. That's why all of these "Why don't Democrats do........." posts drive me up the wall. If they're not doing something, there's usually a reason why they've not done it and often times it's as simple as not having the votes, although some people always want to ascribe more conspiratorial motives and/or incompetence to their behavior.

[W_HAMILTON]

40. Because Manchin.

And yet another post acting as if only Democrats have agency here.

[onenote]

52. Not just Manchin

Schumer isn't a fan of using reconciliation to raise the debt limit -- he opposed that approach in a floor speech in 2021. According to one article that mentions Manchin's opposition to using reconciliation, he was not alone:

The administration has determined that if it were to go the reconciliation route on the debt limit, it would face likely opposition from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). And there could be other defectors. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he wants a bipartisan vote to raise the borrowing cap during the lame-duck session.

[W_HAMILTON]

54. Yes, just Manchin.

If not, name the others.

"Could be other defectors" is a hypothetical and very rarely have we seen any other defectors from broad-based Democratic-backed policies other than Manchin and, at times, Sinema.

[onenote]

56. Schumer, speaking on the floor of the Senate, about using reconciliation

Schumer's comments on the Senate floor in September 2021 in response to republican suggestions the Democrats use reconciliation to lift the debt ceiling:

Now, in solving this crisis, this body cannot and will not go through a drawn-out, unpredictable process sought by the Minority Leader. It risks the full faith and credit of the United States. To do this through reconciliation requires ping-ponging separate bills back from the Senate and the House. It's uncharted waters. Individual senators could move to delay and delay and delay. It is very risky and could well lead us to default, even if only one senator wanted that to happen. That's very possible. So you can't do it this route. Everyone who has studied it knows it is risky, and it's simply a political gambit by Leader McConnell who has changed his tune several different times.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/majority-leader-schumer-floor-remarks-on-republican-obstruction-of-a-vote-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling-and-the-urgent-need-to-avoid-a-catastrophic-default-crisis

Yes, this is from 2021, but show me where his position had changed in 2022. Show me where any attempt to publicly pressure Manchin was made in 2022. If it was just Manchin, Pelosi would have had the House go first, putting the pressure on the Senate. But Schumer obviously didn't want that.

[Bucky]

64. I wonder (unflattering speculation here) if it's a strategic set-up

Everyone knows the debt ceiling vote will come up and a serious faction of the GOP is deadset on driving the car off the cliff. On the one hand the Democrats know that preventing the country from going into default (geeze, can you even imagine what that would do?) will force a few semi-responsible Republicans to break from the leadership and force any debt extension bills to come to the floor. The lead up to that will be several weeks of hand wringing with Republicans on TV repeatedly arguing in favor of destroying the economy on principle.

That's really bad optics for the Republicans.

On the other hand, there might be some Republican machiavellis hoping to make the Democratic minority expend political capital on negotiating the few moderate Republicans over to the sane side of the fence, which in turn would give them the leverage they need to keep the pro-responsibility faction down on the farm for other votes, like on further bogus investigations questions or even a crazy impeachment vote (for which they're undoutedly lusting).

They don't care about governance. They crave confrontation and lust for sheer power. By this, I mean they're nihilists. They don't care about consequences. They just want to fight and fuck... and a fragile government is the closest hole they can find.