Redakcja
Implikacje gospodarcze to jednak nie wszystko. Zagraniczne stolice już zaczęły poddawać weryfikacji relacje z coraz bardziej niesolidnymi Stanami Zjednoczonymi. Obserwowaliśmy, jak USA tracą wiarygodność w dotrzymywaniu zobowiązań. Brak porozumienia w sprawie zwiększenia pułapu zadłużenia mógłby dramatycznie obniżyć zdolność USA do zaznaczania swoich interesów na całym świecie.
Stany Zjednoczone nie mogą pozwolić sobie, by postrzegano je jako nieudolne państwo, bez względu na to jak licznymi siłami zbrojnymi dysponuje. Prezydent mógł wykonać właściwie kilka ruchów. Gdyby Izba Reprezentantów nie chciała współpracować, mógłby pozwolić krajowi zadłużyć się, pozwolić ruchowi Tea Party, odnodze Partii Republikańskiej, dyktować warunki prowadzenia krajowej polityki lub mógłby jednostronnie polecić Departamentowi Skarbu, by wyemitował więcej obligacji.
Potencjalnie istnieje legalne uzasadnienie jednostronnej interwencji prezydenta w przypadku limitu zadłużenia, choć Barack Obama zaznaczył, że możliwość działania w pojedynkę go nie interesuje. Niemniej jednak impas zagraża mechanizmom służącym równowadze politycznej. Izba Reprezentantów pokazała, że wykorzystuje swoje kompetencje do granic możliwości, co i tak już zaburzyło równowagę sił organów władzy. Izba niższa przekształciła swoją rolę kontrolną przewidzianą przez konstytucję we władzę absolutną w zakresie polityki krajowej.
Gdy zawodzi tradycyjny proces rządzenia, to prezydent powinien podjąć działanie i pociągnąć Kongres do odpowiedzialności. Stawką nie jest ani jego prezydentura, ani ustawa Affordable Care Act czy automatyczne cięcia i wydatki budżetowe, ale przyszłość demokratycznych rządów Stanów Zjednoczonych.
Steve Tokarski,
wydawca
A Constitutional Crisis
Nobody really knows exactly what would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised. A U.S. Treasury Department report states that the consequences would be at least as bad as the global financial crisis of 2008. Some Republican congressmen seemed to think that the consequences would be minimal, but their willingness to risk the consequences of default was incredible. Why were they willing to risk it? What did they gain?
The economic consequences would be only part of the story. In foreign capitals there has been the rethinking of their relationship with an increasingly unreliable United States. We have been witnessing the decline in the credibility of American commitments. A failure to raise the debt ceiling could dramatically decrease American ability to assert interest around the world.
The United States cannot afford to be perceived as a failed state no matter how big our military. Confronted by this reality, the president had few options. If the House Republicans did not cooperate, he could allow the nation to default, he could allow the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party to dictate the terms of the national policy making, or he could unilaterally order the Treasury Department to issue new bonds.
There are potential legal justifications for unilateral presidential action on the debt ceiling. The President has indicated that he is not interested in acting unilaterally. However, this impasse threatened the system of check and balances. The House of Representatives have pushed its authority to the limit in a way that has already wrecked the balance of powers among the branches of government. The House of Representatives has turned its checking role under the constitution into absolute power over national policy.
When the normal process of government fails then it is up to the president to act and demand accountability of Congress. What is at stake is neither his presidency nor the Affordable Care Act, sequestration or spending cost, but the future of American democratic government.
Steve Tokarski,
Publisher
Nobody really knows exactly what would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised. A U.S. Treasury Department report states that the consequences would be at least as bad as the global financial crisis of 2008. Some Republican congressmen seemed to think that the consequences would be minimal, but their willingness to risk the consequences of default was incredible. Why were they willing to risk it? What did they gain?
The economic consequences would be only part of the story. In foreign capitals there has been the rethinking of their relationship with an increasingly unreliable United States. We have been witnessing the decline in the credibility of American commitments. A failure to raise the debt ceiling could dramatically decrease American ability to assert interest around the world.
The United States cannot afford to be perceived as a failed state no matter how big our military. Confronted by this reality, the president had few options. If the House Republicans did not cooperate, he could allow the nation to default, he could allow the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party to dictate the terms of the national policy making, or he could unilaterally order the Treasury Department to issue new bonds.
There are potential legal justifications for unilateral presidential action on the debt ceiling. The President has indicated that he is not interested in acting unilaterally. However, this impasse threatened the system of check and balances. The House of Representatives have pushed its authority to the limit in a way that has already wrecked the balance of powers among the branches of government. The House of Representatives has turned its checking role under the constitution into absolute power over national policy.
When the normal process of government fails then it is up to the president to act and demand accountability of Congress. What is at stake is neither his presidency nor the Affordable Care Act, sequestration or spending cost, but the future of American democratic government.
Steve Tokarski,
Publisher
