But you don't gotta keep lying that we must raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid default on the debt.
Good point. That rationale has been used like a dozen times to get around the war powers act, when Congress funds a military effort in some place, but doesn't declare war.
But this rationale is what comes into play if "ignoring the debt ceiling" is not what happens, and if instead a limit is placed on debt making it impossible to pay the present spending programs unless the creditors are shafted. This is what could happen if the Congress (legitimately) finally chooses to exercise its debt-limit power, which so far it isn't doing, because it always increases the "debt ceiling" before the deadline occurs. But it might finally make the choice to not increase the debt, which would be legitimate unless you believe that UNLIMITED DEBT is necessary and "in the end we're all dead" anyway, so don't worry about it.
So if Congress does finally go that route, a tough choice would have to be made somewhere.
A decision has to be made, either to prevent default on the debt (paying the creditors) and slash spending in order to pay the debt, or to default on the debt in order to have funds to pay all the current budget programs.
If the President takes the action unilaterally, maybe even illegally, to impound funds in order to pay the creditors, is this analogous to a President unilaterally taking military action he thinks is necessary, against the will of Congress?
If we agree that the President does in effect have such power -- even if it's technically illegal -- and he could do it and get away with it if nothing is done to stop him, then the argument for slashing spending in order instead to pay the current debt is similar, maybe the same, as the argument to let him start up his own personal war he claims is necessary to save the country from destruction.
But actually, the argument to pay that debt no matter what it takes is almost certainly more legitimate than any argument to let him initiate military hostilities on his own. The need to pay the debt is more obvious.
However, suppose hypothetically there's a case where there really is a military threat that could destroy the nation unless immediate offensive action is taken, before Congress can handle it. Like there's only a few minutes to decide before the whole country gets blown up somehow, which hypothetically could happen -- maybe a case where an asteroid will hit earth in 5 minutes and there's no time for Congress to do anything.
Perhaps in that case the President should take that action on his own, in effect becoming the Absolute Dictator for that moment because of the extreme crisis having to be resolved in a few minutes, even a few seconds, or all is lost.
So it's not the case that there's absolutely no scenario imaginable where the President should have such power. I.e., as long as our system is one which has such a thing as a "President" who is given the highest power over anyone else. Yet maybe we don't need such a system. The truth is that there's no absolute need for such a system. The highest power could be placed in a small committee that could act quickly because it's given that power and function to deal with something so immediate.
And that's all hypothetical. In our present reality, all we can do is ask what such a committee would decide if the debt issue was put to them, and if the debt had not been raised and yet payment to creditors is due, and the only funds available are those about to be paid to federal workers, contractors, entitlement recipients, etc. So in that case, what would the committee do, assuming that they understand fully what the risks are.
What would be the decision of a "perfect" decision-making system? Would it be better to let the creditors go unpaid, which means all future borrowing comes to an end, so that there can be no more deficit, beginning next fiscal year? so that in a year or so from now the federal budget would have to be slashed in half and all future budgets also slashed in half? including entitlement payments? far into the future?
Or would it be better to pay the creditors now, apply a meat-ax now to spending, slashing it 20 or 30 or 40% now, and then in a year trim the budget down a little, keep borrowing as needed, so that future spending could be maintained at 10% or so lower level than now, and future borrowing would still continue to maintain the future budget at that 10% lower level?
And on the other hand, what about the military action which the Congress doesn't have time to consider? Couldn't the small committee of 3 (or 5) also address that? If it's an asteroid about to strike earth in 5 minutes, why couldn't the committee of 3 be ready to convene immediately and take up such an emergency? If the decision is so spontaneous that it requires only 30 seconds, maybe even "the President" wouldn't be able to handle it.
In the case of the emergency military action (if it's legitimate), the reason there's a crisis is that the Congress simply doesn't have the time to deal with it. But in the case of the debt crisis, the problem is that the Congress cannot agree on what to do, even though it has time. It's not a time constraint, but conflicts of differing interests and ideologies preventing them from deciding, because there are too many decision-maker demagogues, and each one is worried about getting re-elected.
Maybe there needs to be a decision-maker who knows everything about the issue but who is not worried about getting re-elected. Which is not the reality, so all we can do is speculate what would be decided if we had a good system where such a crisis is decided rationally in the best interest of the whole country rather than only for narrow special interests and current political expediency.
Whatever hypothetical system there is, if it has the best motives, we should assume it would decide to put payment to the creditors as the higher priority, because of the future need to borrow, which outweighs the present need to pay the spending programs now only in order to cause much greater slashing of future spending much farther into the future.
It's clear that the long-term welfare of the nation requires paying the creditors now, no matter how much spending cuts are needed in the current budget programs. The President would have to make this decision, even if it was immediately unpopular, which is the only reason anyone can give why he should not do it. It would be a good example of JFK's "profiles in courage" for a President who would make that decision.
How can anyone suggest that only instant gratification now matters, which is the only reasoning for not cutting the programs in order to pay the creditors? The instant-gratification route of paying all the programs now and shafting the creditors would be a choice to put an end to all future borrowing and inflict far greater harm.
bottom-line moral of the story: Stop repeating the lie that not raising the debt ceiling means defaulting on the debt.