But the far more dishonest statement is Boehner’s line that the debt ceiling amounts to a “blank check.” This is a straight-up lie. Not the everyday, casual fudging that politicians do, but a straight up lie. As the Government Accountability Office explains: “The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.”
This isn’t a perfect metaphor, but not raising the debt ceiling is more like refusing to pay your credit card bill than it is akin to asking for a blank check. Congress appropriates funds; if they don’t want Obama to spend more, it’s within Congress’s power to withhold that money. That’s you know, in the Constitution. I believe the GOP insisted on it being read at the beginning of the 112th Congress, but they don’t seem to have been paying attention.
The Washington Post’s Plum Line was back on the case Thursday, this time with Greg Sargent pointing out that the “blank check line” was not only false, but that Michele Bachmann—who used the line as recently as yesterday—argued against it herself when she got Boehner’s talking point tangled up in her own bag of rhetorical tricks. She was speaking on CNN, several steps ahead of reality. Here’s an account from CNN’s web site:
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said President Obama would be a “dictator” if he raised the debt ceiling by executive order, using the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution as justification.
“It’s Congress that does the spending. The president is prohibited to do that. If he had the power to do that he would effectively be a dictator,” the Minnesota Congresswoman said Thursday on CNN’s “American Morning.” “There would be no reason for Congress to even come to Washington, D.C. He would be making the spending decisions Clearly that’s unconstitutional.”
Sargent’s response:
Of course, if Congress ultimately determines spending—which of course it does—there’s no way raising the debt ceiling would constitute giving President Obama a “blank check,” as John Boehner and other Republicans keep falsely insisting.
The Plum Line was not totally alone its effort to take Boehner to task over his wildly misleading use of “blank check.” Kudos also goes to The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait and particularly Mother Jones’s David Corn, who two days ago (and two days before us), not only called out Boehner, but also the media for breathing life into the “blank check” lie and making it all the more poisonous.
The GOP is peddling a potent lie. And Boehner and his comrades are able to get away with it because within the current political-media culture there is not much of a penalty for exploiting lies. Reporters toiling for supposedly objective outlets tend to focus on charge and countercharge. (He said it was a lie; he replied that it was not a lie.) Sure, there are fact-checking outfits run by the mainstream media. (I’ve yet to see one pronounce a verdict on the “blank check” charge.) But usually their disapproval does little to stop a politician from repeating a falsehood.
It’s irresponsible when politicians make these claims, but its many times more so when the media so blithely lets them.

Well hell, if such non-partisan and non-ideological types like Kevin Drum, Adam Sewer and Greg Sargent says so, it must be the Gods honest truth, as near a metaphysical certainty as we humans are capable of producing!
Here the context you don’t get from the juicebox Mafiosos you so regularly link to. Obama wants to sign off on a debt limit increase with no provisions attached to it. Oh, sure, he talks a good game about sitting down with the GOP and hammering something out, but he doesn’t have any plan does he? Certainly nothing he’s made available to the public (or is it one of those we have to pass it before we know what’s in it kind of bills). Jay Carney has admitted as much. So how can there be compromise if there are several GOP plans and no plans from congressional dems or the president?
And for those who think this is “unfair” that the GOP should be holding up the debt ceiling in exchange for reductions in the defict: tough shit. Its like the president himself once said: elections have consequences. Consequences like voters sent a freshman class to Washington who were hell bent on dealing with the deficit in 2010.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 04:07 PM
Mike,
You are missing my point. Please see this link to a report by the non-ideological, non-partisan Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-203. And take particular note of these lines:
"The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred."
That is, raising the debt ceiling does not allow for a spending spree, but merely to pay for things that have already been promised (in the budget) and approved by Congress.
That is the opposite of a blank check. Payment is due.
#2 Posted by Erika, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 05:53 PM
And to add to what Erika said, it's about making payments on things Congress has already voted for.
If the Republicans want to stop future spending, they should vote against that spending. But not raising the debt limit is like just deciding to ignore a contract. That's what deadbeats do. And it seems that's what the Republicans are trying to do now.
#3 Posted by J, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 06:22 PM
It is plain and simple unprofessional reporting at the national level. When I was a City Hall reporter, I felt obligated to use a quote that contained false information if that was the source's primary message. But it's as easy as this to quote a lie, but put the readers first: "Obama wants a "blank check" with the ceiling raise to spend more money, Boehner said." Followed by the line. "Raising the limit only pays for debts already incurred, not future debts," Treasury officials said.
#4 Posted by J Parker, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 06:39 PM
Thanks for pointing once again how uninformed and poor in analysis many - if not most - of the press is. The "blank check" phrase worked because reporters accept the way politicans - especially the Republicans - conceptualize and explain the entire US economy, namely, it's no different than how you handle your checkbook. This everyday experience - I make x and I spend y - is an esay way to explain the complex US economy. Who needs the real world complexity?
#5 Posted by Michael Nutkiewicz, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 06:43 PM
Erika wrote: "That is, raising the debt ceiling does not allow for a spending spree, but merely to pay for things that have already been promised (in the budget) and approved by Congress. That is the opposite of a blank check. Payment is due."
padikiller: Erika... Your story is disingenuous... The "blank check" Obama wants is not the check he's going to write to pay the interest on our debt... It's the check he's going to write to keep paying for the all the commie/liberal government nonsense that got us into debt in the first place! He wants the "spending spree" and he'd rather see the government default than give it up.
The simple fact of the matter is that Obama is not willing to accept spending cuts to get a deal done on the debt limit. He wants a blank check from Congress. PERIOD.
What does Obama want, if not a blank check? Who the frick knows?. We know about the plans for his birthday bash/fundraiser on August 3rd... But where is the link to the president's plan for dealing with the impending default on August 2nd? If the check Obama wants isn't blank, the what is the amount he'll accept? HUH?
The Dems have nothing. They have no written plan. Nada. The Democratically controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than 2 years... Obama's budget was such a joke that not a single Democratic senator voted for it.
The Dems want a blank check. This is just the reality.
Boehner's metaphor is perfectly valid.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 07:08 PM
What the Republican trolls don't tell you is that the debt limit has been extended roughly 90 times over the last 70 years without any strings attached. Two-thirds of those votes occurred under Republican presidents. Never before has one party held the country's good faith and credit hostage.
padikiller froths about the "commie/liberal government nonsense that got us into debt in the first place" but fails to acknowledge who is actually responsible for most of the debt incurred over the last decade -- G.W. Bush.
The other day the NYT had a nice little chart that itemized debt incurred under Bush vs. Obama. Bush racked up $5.07 trillion compared to only $1.44 trillion for Obama. The single biggest ticket item was Bush's tax cuts, which at $1.8 trillion totaled more than all of Obama's add on's combined -- including the stimulus bills, tax cuts and health reform.
padikiller also forgets to tell you that current Republican leaders such as Cantor, Ryan and McConnon all voted for major drivers of the debt during the last decade such as the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D and TARP.
If these guys were statesmen rather than hyper-partisan hacks they would acknowledge their powerful role in racking up the nation's credit card. They would also play by the rules, e.g., vote on the debt limit without strings. And they would acknowledge that compromise means you don't get everything your tea party radicals want.
How about a little statesmanship, padikiller? Or is that too old school for you?
#7 Posted by Dr Lemming, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 02:01 AM
Dr. Lemming wrote: "padikiller froths about the "commie/liberal government nonsense that got us into debt in the first place" but fails to acknowledge who is actually responsible for most of the debt incurred over the last decade -- G.W. Bush."
padikiller responds: Baloney... A simple search of the comments here will show that I have called for Bush's impeachment here going back to at least 2006.
He was more liberal than Clinton was fiscally, and I have consistently said so.
Nor have I held back on my criticism of Republicans who reneged on their promises and racked up insane debt (though nowhere near as much as Obama and the Dems managed to do in just two years)
Read first, then post, Doc...
These screwy liberals will blither any nonsense that creeps into their undertasked minds...
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 02:22 AM
"The simple fact of the matter is that Obama is not willing to accept spending cuts to get a deal done on the debt limit. He wants a blank check from Congress. PERIOD."
Except you're wrong padikiller. Obama's plan calls for cuts to SS, MC and other spending.
#9 Posted by Juan, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 03:56 AM
Yeah, padi is an idiot.
Obama does not want to get into another debt ceiling fight during the 2012 election. There's going to be enough bickering with the Bush tax cuts expiry and we all know that the republicans are more than willing to make the country a hostage to preserve those.
He gave them them the benefit of the doubt during the last unemployment/Bush Tax Cut extension. Why should he trust them enough to do it again?
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 05:46 AM
@Juan:
We're not talking about political haggling. We're talking about a dollar amount of money that ends up on a piece of paper that Obama turns into law.
If you're arguing that Obama isn't seeking a blank check, then tell us the actual specific amount of money he is demanding in federal spending..
Of course you can't do this because hasn't specified an amount of acceptable spending. He doesn't have a plan - he's just playing politics by shooting down the only real plans that the have been offered so far.
Here in Realityland, we have a name for an instrument that provides spending authority without specifying an amount...
We call it a "BLANK CHECK"!
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 10:57 AM
padikiller's comments are a good example of the way that rational discourse is hijacked by right-wing zealots trained in the black arts of advanced propaganda techniques.
"Blank check" is the latest sound bite from the folks who gave us "death panels." At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether the term is adequately grounded in facts and logic. What matters is that "blank check" sends a simple, compelling message to low-information voters.
Of course, in typical fashion, padikiller must rail indignantly -- and arrogantly, if necessary -- against anyone who questions his basic analysis. Any further engagement with him will just lead deeper and deeper into the parallel universe he calls "Realityland." That's apparently where his friends Grover Norquist and Joe Walsh happily reside, luxuriating in the cash-and-carry money laundering machine made possible by the Citizens United decision.
#12 Posted by Dr Lemming, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 02:34 PM
Dr. Lemming wrote (paraphrasing): Blah, blah, blah... I don't like padikiller.. blah, blah, blah... He might be right about the "blank check" thing, but padikiller is arrogant... blah, blah, blah... It's not fair for right-wing zealots to use ninja "propaganda techniques" against us... blah, blah, blah, blah...
padikiller reiterates: If any of you liberals take issue with the term "blank check"... All you have to do is give us a number and then you've proven me wrong...
HOW MUCH MONEY does Obama want? What NUMBER goes in the payline of the check Obama wants from Congress?
HUH?....
If you can't answer that question (and you obviously can't) then just accept the R E A L I T Y - namely that Obama wants a blank check!
Or don't accept it. Whatever. The reality isn't going anywhere, either way.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 03:29 PM
@padikiller
His plan includes 1.2 trillion dollars in cuts.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-25/politics/debt.talks.obama_1_debt-ceiling-spending-cuts-budget-plan?_s=PM:POLITICS
Though, it looks like this plan was shot down this morning.
#14 Posted by Juan, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 04:22 PM
LOL..
It's not "his" plan... It's Harry Reid's non-starter of a plan that was DOA the moment it was unveiled.
The President doesn't even have a plan to deal with August 2nd (though he does have plans for his birthday bash on August 3rd).
The Reid (non)plan counts on the war ending to make savings. Since Obama seems to be better at starting wars than ending them, this planned is doomed. I mean in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, we now have Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan.
Nice try, though...
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 05:17 PM
A guide and pattern for delusional anti-communist fighters. Why stop at being head of the army?
Independent: Breivik demands to be made head of army, but may not be deemed insane By Tony Paterson and Charlotte Sundberg Monday, 1 August 2011
[Anders Breivik demanded to be appointed the head of the Norwegian army and called for the abdication of King Harald V during police questioning, but despite his apparent delusions of grandeur, forensic experts have concluded that the confessed killer is unlikely to be declared insane.]
#16 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 09:46 PM