EZRA KLEIN is once again banging the drum and calling, quite rightly, for Congress to eliminate the debt ceiling. In the long term, one hopes this idea will become part of the centrist conventional wisdom, and perhaps be enacted at some point in the future when America is again capable of passing legislation. In the near term, however, the demand to eliminate the debt ceiling won't accomplish much, since Republicans have somehow become convinced that debt-ceiling hikes are concessions to Democrats, and hence form a crucial and legitimate bargaining chip. So as long as we're tossing out ideas that aren't going to be adopted, with a view to shifting the Overton window, I would like to chime in with a concept that is both bold, and stupid. Instead of demanding that Congress raise the debt ceiling, or demanding that it eliminate the debt ceiling, Barack Obama should threaten to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress goes along with his demands. This idea, though utterly dumb, has a formal logic to it. There is, after all, no reason why hikes in the debt ceiling should be seen as particularly liberal or conservative moves. As Republicans never tire of pointing out, Mr Obama himself voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, in protest against the deficits caused by the Bush administration's tax cuts. A protest vote against raising the debt ceiling when one knows it will be raised anyway is, of course, a very different thing from an actual failure by Congress to raise the debt ceiling, which would force the government to default on its bonds, cause global securities and repo markets to seize up, and probably summon the Beast of Revelations. But the point is that even if one accepts that opposition to raising the debt ceiling has some political colouration, that colouration can just as easily be liberal (taxes on the wealthy are too low) as conservative (government spending is too high).

An alternative view is that meaningful threats to block a debt-ceiling hike, as opposed to symbolic ones that aren't carried out, have no political colouration or content at all. The threat to actually block the government's borrowing authority is simply a threat to force the government to default on its debts and to crash global bond markets. Neither political party argues that the government should default on its debts and crash global bond markets. In this view, a meaningful threat to block a debt-ceiling hike is simply an arbitrary act of hostage-taking; the message is not "I am very, very conservative", but rather "I am very, very desperate and possibly crazy, so you'd better accede to my demands." A credible threat to carry out any unacceptable action—to put LSD in the water supply, to bring back "Lost" for an eighth season—would work just as well.

If either party can take advantage of this sort of doomsday threat, it should be clear that neither can. To underline that fact, Mr Obama ought to counter the Republican threat not to raise the debt ceiling, with a threat of his own to veto a raise in the debt ceiling. Republicans may demand the postponement of Obamacare in exchange for a debt-ceiling hike. Mr Obama can demand passage of an immigration-reform bill including a path to citizenship in exchange for a debt-ceiling hike. Will Democrats risk defaulting on America's debt in order to preserve Obamacare? Will Republicans risk defaulting on America's debt in order to block immigration reform? Heck, why not throw in the rest of both parties' agendas: approving Keystone XL, ending the sequester, banning abortion, fully funding Head Start, slashing food stamps, fully funding food stamps, firing Big Bird, taking away everybody's guns? All of this must happen before October 31st, or the House will refuse to pass a debt-ceiling hike, and the president will also veto it!

Obviously, this idea is ridiculous. For one thing, there's no concrete difference between Mr Obama threatening to veto a debt-ceiling hike and simply refusing to negotiate over it, which is what he's doing now. For another thing, yield curves are already starting to invert just at the prospect of Republican resistance to a debt-ceiling hike; if Mr Obama signaled his willingness to veto one too, all hell could break loose. I mean, the whole idea that Mr Obama would threaten to tank America's credit rating and the global economy in order to achieve his legislative agenda is just nuts. Whereas Republicans, well, you just have to expect them to pull that sort of stunt, because...because why again?

(Photo credit: AFP)