Thursday, May 12

Treasury has deliberately exceeded debt ceiling

The willingness of the Obama administration to ignore the law of the land appears to be not only increasing but becoming more blatant. First it was seizing private property without compensation (ordering a pennies-on-the-dollar settlement with Chrysler bondholders), then refusing to enforce unambiguous, uncontested law regarding voter intimidation by the two "Black Panthers," the apparent "Justice" department decision not to prosecute vote fraud cases if the defendants were black. And today...
The Treasury Department auctioned $56 billion in new debt Tuesday and Wednesday, enough to take the U.S. over its federal debt ceiling when the three- and 10-year notes settle on Monday.
If you're a normal working American the above sentence probably looks harmless. But the calculated action behind it should chill you: For good or ill, there's a law limiting the amount of money the government can borrow. And unless you're a liberal, laws aren't supposed to be the equivalent of suggestions, and violating them can be serious.

If you haven't heard, Republicans in congress have been trying (albeit not very effectively) to enforce at least *some* spending cuts in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling. Predictably, congressional Democrats have opposed virtually every cut proposed by the GOP. But as the deadline approached, the prospect of a shutdown was expected to command a compromise.

But Obama's Treasury Department has simply--deliberately--borrowed more than the legal limit.

"Debt ceiling? What debt ceiling?"

Now, all my liberal friends will immediately mount the defensive chant of "Trivial! No harm no foul!" But although the percentage is tiny, the act is lethally serious, because it's a deliberate act that removes all incentive for the Dems to compromise. After all, if no one is willing to call the president on this violation, why not another, then another?

This is a "dry run," just as those by Muslim airline passengers deliberately testing airline security to see how much they can get away with, as a means of designing future attacks.

And as an aside: I predict that if any American citizen tried to sue for violation of this law, the courts would rule that no one--not even a member of congress--has the legal standing to sue. It's their standard response when they don't want a law enforced.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home