One of the most memorable parts of President Obama’s hour-long press conference on Monday came he was forced to face the issue of his own negotiating credibility problem. From the transcript:

OBAMA:  Julianna Goldman?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to come back to the debt ceiling, because in the summer of 2011, you said that you wouldn’t negotiate on the debt ceiling, and you did. Last year, you said that you wouldn’t extend any of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and you did. So as you say now that you’re not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling this year, why should House Republicans take that seriously and think that if we get to the one minute to midnight scenario that you’re not going to back down?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, Julianna, let’s take the example of this year and the fiscal cliff. I didn’t say that I would not have any conversations at all about extending the Bush tax cuts. What I said was, we weren’t going to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. And we didn’t.

Now, you can argue that during the campaign, I said — I set the criteria for wealthy at $250,000, and we ended up being at $400,000, but the fact of the matter is, millionaires, billionaires are paying significantly more in taxes, just as I said.

This issue is not just that Obama has a habit of drawing lines in the sand only to later break his promise, as he recently did on the Bush tax cuts.

Obama’s behavior regarding the debt limit has been all over the map. Back in 2011, Obama seemed to actively encourage GOP “hostage taking” because he wanted to negotiate over the debt limit to get a grand bargain.

When that blew up in Obama’s face he changed his tune by claiming he would not negotiate over the debt limit again. Yet only a few days later Obama included a one year increase in a possible fiscal cliff deal, basically allowing it to be used as a negotiation bargaining chip by John Boehner. It is only because those negotiations failed that Obama has again gone back to claiming he will not negotiate over the debt limit.

Finally, Obama describing this current situation as the GOP holding a “gun to the head of the American people” is not at all reassuring given his past statements. The last time Obama used this hostage metaphor to describe a congressional negotiation it was to justify folding in 2010. At that time Obama said he had to break his promise because,”the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

I will admit this time Obama does really sound sincere, but he sounded sincere almost every other time as well. If I have trouble I believing Obama is credible this time, and I can only imagine it is much worse for House Republicans.

Following the recent mass shootings there has been a noticeable spike in support for stricter gun laws; but overall, a plurality of Americans are still satisfied with our current gun laws, according to Gallup. From Gallup:

This is a reminder that even though the politics around gun control have changed noticeably in the last few months, it would still be a significant political lift to change the gun laws. While other polling has shown there is overwhelming support for a few particular provisions, there does not seem to be overwhelming grassroots desire for sweeping changes.

This is one of the reasons why any gun control proposals from the White House will likely contain several very modest reforms that many people would probably be surprised to learn aren’t current law.

President Obama really wants everyone to know the only game he intends to play over the debt ceiling is chicken.

Republicans want to negotiate over the debt limit and President Obama says he won’t. When two sides take such contradictory positions by definition there can’t be compromise. As a result, there are only three basic ways this dispute can end. Realizing this, the bulk of the Democratic Congressional leadership has endorsed Obama using a form of unilateral action to address this issue.

In response, the White House has gone out of its way to say they will not go this route. Last year they shot down the 14th Amendment solution and over the weekend they took the platinum coin option off the table. White House Spokesmen Jay Carney said, “there is no plan B.  There is no backup plan.”  The administration wants everyone to think they mean it.

Effectively, the position of the White House is that this fight will only end if Obama folds or the Republicans fold.

It would appear the intent of the administration is to tell every CEO, Wall Street executive, and large bond holder who is concerned about the debt ceiling that their only option is to put the squeeze on House Republicans.

Obama doesn’t want to get around the debt ceiling, he wants to beat the Republicans on it.  Obama seems to believe he can win at a game of chicken, despite his rather abysmal track record so far.

President Obama during last year's address

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has officially invited President Obama to give his State of the Union address before the Congress on February 12 and the President has accepted. From Boehner’s official invite:

Dear Mr. President:

Our nation continues to face immense challenges, and the American people expect us to work together in the new year to find meaningful solutions. This will require a willingness to seek common ground as well as presidential leadership. For that reason, the Congress and the Nation would welcome an opportunity to hear your plan and specific solutions for addressing America’s great challenges. Therefore, it is my privilege to invite you to speak before a Joint Session of Congress on February 12, 2013 in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.

The timing is very interesting because the debt limit will likely be reached sometime between February 15th and March 1st. This gives Obama an unparalleled opportunity to frame the possible fight, its solutions and consequences before the American people, just as the deadline approaches.

The bully pulpit has limited ability to change peoples’ minds on issues they already have formed opinions on, but it can be very useful in shaping how people see arcane matters and assigning blame.

Vice President Joe Biden is meeting with representatives of the video game industry to talk about gun violence, so I want to take a moment to talk about how incredibly misguided it is to blame video games for the incredible amount of gun violence in this country. It shows how distorted the debate has become in this country that regulating virtual depictions of guns is often more discussed as a solution than regulating the actual guns.

There has basically been a natural worldwide experiment taking place and it shows video games are not responsible for Americans’ unusually high number of gun deaths. It is important to note there is no such thing as an “American” market for video games. The market for video games is completely international. The best selling games in America and Europe right now are nearly identical, except for the regional difference in sports game preference. The same “violent” first person shooter games are equally as popular in Europe as they are in the United States. In fact, many of the most violent videos on the market are not even made by American companies.

American and Europeans play the same video games, yet the rates of gun violence in Europe are radically lower than in the United States. It is not the video games that are causing the problems.

Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM)

The Republican Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, says she plans to have her state expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. From KOAT 7:

Gov. Susana Martinez announced the expansion of the state’s Medicaid system, meaning many New Mexicans could soon have federally funded insurance.

It’s an unusual move for a Republican governor to accept President Barack Obama’s offer to expand Medicaid, but the move means up to 170,000 more New Mexicans could soon have health insurance.

The announcement on Wednesday elicited a standing ovation.

When the Supreme Court declared the Medicaid expansion under the ACA optional the big question was: would any Republican dare reject such a “good deal?” Now that almost half a dozen Republican governors have publicly declared their decision not to take part, the question has instead become: will any Republican governors dare buck the party by accepting it?

Martinez is only the second GOP governor to decide to take part. The other is Nevada’s Governor Brian Sandoval who announced his intent to expand Medicaid late last year.

While there are some indications that a few of the reluctant GOP governors may decide to expand Medicaid in the future, in the meantime their decisions will cost millions of low income people access to health insurance. In addition, it is going to create a patchwork of coverage across a large section of the country which should make the already problematic implementation of the ACA even more difficult. Fully federalizing the Medicaid program remains the best and easiest way to address this issue.

Last year was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The average temperature in 2012 was 3.3°F above the average for the last century and was a full degree warmer than 1998, the previous record holder. Perhaps even more importantly it was the second most extreme year. It featured an unusually higher number of droughts, wildfires and severe storms.

There is little doubt that this is in large part the result of man-made climate change. It is a real, present and growing danger. If nothing is done the negative consequences will get significantly worse in the future.

That is why this is the perfect time to point out how incredibly idiotic it is hat Washington has been solely consumed with the issue of long term deficit projections over the past few years. Not only is the long term projected deficit not the most important immediate problem facing the country, which is unemployment/the weak economy. The deficit is not even the most important long term issue facing the country, climate change is.

If the so-called deficit hawks are really so deeply concerned about what they are leaving their “children,” the crisis is the climate, not potentially inaccurate projections about future Medicare spending.

The United States Supreme Court won’t be responsible for destroying the world economy. While I theoretically could be wrong, I’m somewhat confident that this is something the current nine justices are simply unwilling to do.

This is important to keep in mind when talking about the possible legality of unilateral ways to avoid the debt limit, be it with a platinum coin, invoking the 14th Amendment, or moral obligation coupons.

Ultimately it is the Supreme Court that decides if any of these options are constitutional or not. But the Supreme Court doesn’t provide advisory opinions. The only way the Supreme Court could end up ruling on one of these actions is if President Obama actually uses one to avoid the looming crisis, then someone with standing sued him, and the Court decided to take the case.

This, however, would put the Court in a politically untenable position. If the Court actually rules that the administration’s unilateral solution to the debt limit is unconstitutional, it would likely cause unbelievable damage to the world economy. It would probably force an immediate default event, void all bonds that had been issued for the past month and/or possibly result in clawing back of money already paid. It would be a practical, legal and economic nightmare situation.

I simply find it impossible to believe that five Supreme Court justices are prepared to be seen as solely responsible for such a disaster. It could significantly undermine the popular, moral and legal credibility of the institution. It could trigger a true constitutional crisis.

It seems the most likely way the Court would address the issue is by determining that no one has standing to bring the case. That would allow them to keep their hands clean because even accepting the case would probably cause some economic panic.

Since the Court would probably never dare force the government into default, all these possible solutions are in the most Machiavellian sense “constitutional” to the extent they would never be declared unconstitutional while it still mattered. While many may not feel comfortable playing Calvinball with the Constitution, it is the level to which our government has already devolved in recent years.

If Congress creates a catch-22 forcing the President to break the law, they should say which law should be chosen & why

The laws surrounding the federal debt limit are logically inconsistent, the legislative equivalent of “this sentence is a lie.” If we assume the trillion dollar platinum coin solution or moral obligation coupons are not viable, what Congress has done with the debt limit in conjunction with other laws is to force the executive branch into breaking the law. It has made it logically impossible for the President to dutifully follow all of the laws still in effect.

Several laws passed by Congress require the executive branch to give different entities money at specific times. Congress has also set a borrowing limit which would theoretically prevent the executive branch from getting the money it is still legally required to give out. There is basically nothing in the relevant legislation regarding how to deal with this conflict, and the President literally can’t do both. He must break some laws, and the question then becomes which laws should he break.

The President could ignore just the debt limit law and continue to fulfill all the spending laws. Or, the President could fulfill the debt limit law, but that would require ignoring multiple other laws which would force the President to randomly pick who does and does not get paid.

I think everyone involved in this potentially enormous and important fight — including the President, the Treasury Secretary, Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, etc. — should be forced to answer this simple question: If Congress creates a legalistic catch-22 that forces the government to break its own laws, which law do they think should be broken, and why does that one takes precedence?

I would love to hear individuals threatening not to raise the debt limit have to explain why that law must be followed, but the President must break other contradictory laws to do so. I’m very interested in hearing, for example, the legal reasoning behind why Wall Street bond holders should still be paid while doctors, FBI agents and seniors should be stiffed.

It is amazing that we are on the precipice of an incredibly important policy event and those involved haven’t even been made to explain what they legally think is at stake, and why.

The next big budget fight is going to be the debt limit, so it is critical to know when true deadline will be reach. An analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center projects that the Treasury will no long have funds to pay its bills starting some time between February 15th and March 1st. From the Bipartisan Policy Center:

At this point it is impossible to know what the exact deadline will be. How much money the government takes in over the next several weeks will determine exactly when the limit is hit and since it is tax season that is hard to estimate with precision. The federal government is already taking extraordinary measures to put off the moment for as long as possible.

What is important is that it appears the debt limit will be the first of several budget related deadlines the federal government will be forced to face in the coming months. After the debt limit, which is likely to be reached in late February, Congress will need to deal with the sequestration cuts that would start March 1st. Less than a month later, Congress will need to find a way to keep the government funded because the last six-month continuing resolution ends on March 27th.

It is possible that these will all be looped into one big fight or they could end up a serious of brutal negotiations dragged out over the next two months.