A worthwhile use of the Senate's "nuclear option?"

 I have expressed opinions ranging from annoyance to irritation at the recurrent suggestions that the Democrats invoke "the nuclear option" in the Senate to do X.  It won't work, and it isn't worth it, at least not for what the Democrats and their base propose.

Some review.  Senate rules, as written, omit the "previous question" motion, which is the motion that the House uses to end debate and bring a bill to a vote.  Consequently, the Senate has unlimited time for debate unless there is a "unanimous consent agreement" to limit debate, which allows a minority to block floor consideration through a filibuster.  In 1917, the Senate introduced the cloture motion to end debate, first at a 2/3 threshold, then reducing the threshold to 3/5 in 1975.  That still means a minority can block nearly anything, if committed.  The only real restriction is that which can be passed under budget reconciliation rules.

However.

The filibuster only exists as long as the majority allows it to exist by following the rules.  They can throw out the rule book and simply say, might makes right.  That's the nuclear option.  There are no rules except what we say, forget what the rules actually say.  Make no mistake, the "nuclear option" is a violation of the rules.  When Reid first invoked it, his hand was forced, knowingly, by McConnell when McConnell blockaded the DC Circuit, asserting that only Republican presidents would be allowed to fill vacancies on the second-most important court in the country.  Reid had no choice whatsoever.  And there's no such thing as a "just the tip" nuclear option.  Even though Reid's use of the nuclear option was limited to executive branch appointments and court appointments below the Supreme Court, that action made it absolutely, 100% certain that the next Supreme Court vacancy would see an extension of the nuclear option.  There is no such thing as using the nuclear option "but just for this one thing."

That's why it's called, "nuclear."

Yet, the nuclear option has not been extended to legislation.  The legislative filibuster remains.

And for all of Democrats' "the Republicans would do it" nonsense... they didn't.  They were stymied under Trump, and they didn't.  Why not?  Because if you eliminate the filibuster, you can't stop the other party when you find yourself in the minority.  And McConnell wanted to be able to do that.  Republicans still want that.  The extension in 2017 was to the Supreme Court, as was obvious, but the legislative filibuster remains.

So right now, the internal debate within the Democratic Party on the nuclear option is stupid.  It is stupid for several reasons.  First, Joe Manchin won't do it, so this ain't goin' nowhere.  Second, the Democrats won't really gain much from their plans.  That voting bill?  Ain't nothin'.  No, folks, extended hours at polling places and drop boxes are not the definition of "democracy."  Good to have?  Yes, but this is freaking out over penny-ante politics.  To repeat, post-VRA, African-American turnout was higher than white turnout, controlling for the main determinants of turnout, prior to the introduction of these extensions.  This shit is not that important.

What is?

The debt ceiling.

Eliminate this.

It may be worth the nuclear option.  Manchin probably still wouldn't do it, and frankly, I think most of the Democrats would be too cowardly, but this... may be worth it.

Quick review.  This country is weird.  We pass spending bills through the appropriations process.  We pass tax bills.  Never the twain shall coordinate.  OK, sometimes they do, but not to any real effect.  So, we have deficits.  Do they matter?  They can.  There's a thing called "crowding out," and I'm not getting into that today, because it's not my point, but debt can drive up interest rates, and yadda-yadda, some other time.  Anyway, the way we finance deficit spending is with the sales of bonds.  But, we have a statutory limit on the value of bonds that the Treasury can issue.  So, if Congress tells the IRS to collect X in taxes, and tells agencies to disburse Y in funds, and Y > X, the Treasury has to make up the difference with (Y - X) in bonds, but if (Y - X) exceeds the statutory limit of what the Treasury can issue, one of a few things has to happen:  1) agencies don't disburse all of the money that they have been told to disburse, which would be illegal, 2) the IRS collects more money than they have been told to collect, which would be illegal, or 3) the Treasury issues more bonds than they have been allowed to issue, which would be illegal.

You see the problem?

Treasury ain't takin' Door Number 3.  IRS ain't takin' Door Number 2.  So someone ain't gettin' paid.  That's a problem.  Especially if the people who don't get paid are bond-holders.  Any way you cut it, that's us, defaulting on a financial obligation, and a violation of the law.

Unless Congress raises the debt ceiling.

If Congress just raised the debt ceiling every time they appropriated money, this wouldn't be a problem.  Once upon a time, they did that.  Once upon a time, Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) used to insist on it, leading to what was called "the Gephardt rule," but then our politics started getting ever-crazier, even before the lying-est liar who ever lied a lie showed up on the scene, and we nearly defaulted in 2011 thanks to the Tea Party, which now seems sane, compared to QAnon, but the problem is that the Republican Party is just too crazy.

Yeah, the Democrats are crazy too, but they're differently crazy.

But what if we defaulted?  The problem is that our bonds are a cornerstone of the global financial markets.  That'd be a fucking meltdown.  Global financial catastrophe.  And this country can't be trusted.

As long as the debt ceiling exists on the law books, we're waiting for this catastrophe.  As time passes, the probability of a default asymptotically approaches 1, particularly given the craziness of our politics.  And the GOP, especially.

Can it be eliminated through budget reconciliation?  I... don't think so.

It would take the nuclear option.

And it may be worth it.

If the Democrats wanted to do something worthwhile, and were really thinking about the nuclear option... this might be worth it.  Otherwise, eventually, some of these dipshits are going to cause a default.