The Ruling Class' Feint-and-Dodge "Debt Ceiling Deal"

There are a multitude of objections to the Ruling Class' "deal"; among them, that the deal does NOT "cut" spending except in the vocabulary of the usual DC Mind-Fraud:  it cuts, instead, from "projected spending" which just happens to be seven percent larger than current appropriations.

Others object that the "deal"-makers caved far too early, and could have sweated Obozo & Co. for another umpty-billion bucks by stalling for another 20 days or so.  Still others were echoing Cassandra:  the "deal" will trigger massive inflation.

No matter.  The "deal" was cut.  Since your children and grandchildren will pay for it, the Ruling Class doesn't really give a rip.  This bill is the DC version of Flee-Bagging, and the Clock Tower should build an addition.

Now come Herb Titus and Bill Olson who have another objection:  the damn thing is un-Constitutional.

For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue.  What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated. 

...By giving the President the authority to increase the debt ceiling and to determine that borrowing is necessary to meet the nation's commitments, this bill turns the legislative process on its head.  According to Article I, Section 7, before an act can become a law, it must first be passed as a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Thus, any action taken to authorize the borrowing of money on the credit of the United States - whether such action is a formal bill or a vote or resolution -- must be initiated by Congress and, then, presented to the President for his veto or signature.  This bill creates what it calls a "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" whereby the constitutional process is reversed.

 Oh, that's not all.  Not by a long shot.


...the joint select committee on deficit reduction provision undermines the constitutionally established bicameral legislative process.

Here, members of Congress yield their individual legislative duties and responsibilities to a "Super Congress" selected not by the people -- but by Republican and Democrat leaders

("Yield" is not accurate.  "Abscond" is the correct word, thus the Clock Tower analogy.)


They authors discuss the "12 Wise Men" horse-shit and conclude:


...As the Supreme Court observed in I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 949 (1983), "by providing that no law could take effect without the prescribed majority of the Members of both Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief ... that legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the Nation's elected officials."
 

The Budget Control Act of 2011 departs from that commitment vesting incredible power in the joint committee, virtually guaranteeing that deficit reduction legislation will be "carefully and fully considered," if at all, only by 6 of 100 elected senators and 6 of 435 elected representatives

That's only a detail, that "Constitution" stuff.  After all, there's a re-election to worry about, right?

What we have here is a blatant fraud.  Republicans and Democrats can posture, inveigh, campaign, and screech to their hearts' content while figuratively going to the Clock Tower for cocktails and dinner.


They should bring violins, too.  Music makes conflagrations so much more bearable.

HT:  Arms/Law