President Obama, Speaker Boehner and Senate leaders in both parties have agreed to a deal that would effectively raise the debt ceiling through 2012 while enacting a mostly Republican-friendly package of spending cuts (and no new revenues). It would also set up a likely showdown in December over a second wave of deficit-reduction measures as recommended by a bipartisan congressional “supercommittee” — assuming the committee members, who will be evenly split between the parties, can agree. If they can’t agree, or if Congress doesn’t pass their recommendations, harsh across-the-board cuts in defense spending, Medicare and other programs would follow — a “trigger” that is designed to force both parties to bargain in good faith. But hey, at least the “trigger” won’t be default.
Tea Partiers, having quite clearly “won” the negotiations, are, of course, outraged. So are liberals, who see this as yet another Obama capitulation (though really, I’m not convinced Obama had that much choice in the matter, when his opponents were willing to “shoot the hostage” — in this case, the economy — if their demands weren’t met). Consequently, although it’s likely to breeze through the Senate, it’s not at all clear the deal will pass the House, where there are fewer moderates and more hard-line, unruly partisans on both sides of the aisle.
House Republican leaders are touting the new deal as better than the measure that they narrowly, and belatedly, passed last week. But the provisions on the Balanced Budget Act are already attracting criticism from conservatives.
Twenty-two House Republicans voted no on that bill, and it is likely that there will be more defections on the measure embraced by President Obama Sunday night. If every Democrat voted against it, Republicans could only afford about two dozen “no” votes and still pass it. …
Yet it remains unclear how many Democrats will vote yes on the debt-limit bill. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a co-leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, bashed the agreement on Sunday. Others are expected to follow his lead on Monday. …
[House Democratic leader Nancy] Pelosi…has not publicly endorsed the deal. … [She] issued this statement: “We all agree that our nation cannot default on our obligations and that we must honor our nation’s commitments to our seniors and our men and women in the military.
“I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my caucus to see what level of support we can provide.” …
Pelosi has wanted to raise the debt ceiling, but preferred that a “clean” bill go through without any strings attached.
A few of her deputies, meanwhile, have argued that Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling.
Regarding the “clean” debt ceiling increase, House Republicans put that notion up for a political show vote back in May, uniformly voting against it. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer urged his colleagues to vote against it, and most did — even though they actually supported the underlying policy it purported to enact — because they wanted to deny the GOP its desired political victory on the designed-to-fail bill. I’ve said all along, and it’s now completely clear in retrospect, that this was a tactical mistake, as well as a substantive one. Democrats would be in a much better political position today if they were already on record as supporting a “clean” increase, which is, of course, the only correct solution to this invented problem. Their too-cute-by-half decision to oppose a bill they support (paging John Kerry!) makes them look like idiots, and greatly complicates their argument now.
In any case, with time having essentially run out, the question at this point for Democrats is which is worse: cementing the horrible precedent that debt-ceiling extortion works, or allowing a default that will damage the economy and destroy Obama’s presidency? They can float bogus 14th Amendment arguments all they want, they can complain that Republican intransigence and illegitimate hostage-bargaining put them in this unfair and untenable position (and they’re right!), but that’s the choice they face, like it or not. I have no idea which way they’ll come down. All I know is that this whole thing is a farce, we should never have arrived at this juncture, and — whatever happens — I will never forgive the shameless Republicans who manufactured this “crisis” for political gain.
(Having said that… don’t think for a moment that Democrats, led by the same liberals who are crying foul over today’s deal, won’t eagerly use this same horrible precedent — that debt-ceiling extortion works — the next time they control part of Congress and a Republican president requests a debt ceiling increase, which will certainly happen. They’ll do it on goose-gander grounds, and to try and achieve policy objectives that would otherwise be impossible. And when they do, that will be unreservedly the Democrats’ fault. The debt ceiling is a math problem, not a policy decision.)
Obama gets primaries. What else?
The debt ceiling is a math problem, not a policy decision
Correct. You know where you are supposed to make policy decisions about spending? The budget. You know, the thing that the Democrats have failed to produce for the last two and a half years?
Perhaps if the Democrats had produced a budget, where they would have to be honest about their outrageous spending, we could have had this fight then.
True enough, but I don’t agree that the debt ceiling is merely a math problem, at least not any more. The debt ceiling was just a math problem. But now enough of the public (but not enough of the Left I’m afraid) have woken up to the fact that the nat’l debt has grown — and will continue to grow if left unchecked — to such proportions that it will be, must be, the sine qua non of just about every future political debate. And it was a long time coming. As one commentator dubbed it, welcome to the Debt Era.
But I do agree with Brendan that it’s not clear whether the Dems will allow a default.
Joe, really, where were you when Bush doubled the debt by slashing taxes and starting two wars? Give me a break, the right’s intellectual dishonesty on this makes me want to puke. Republicans only have a problem with the debt when they can try and score political points on it, it is despicable and disgusting.
And Gahrie, if memory serves congress hasn’t passed all the various budget packages in their entirety since the Clinton administration. Then again, expecting intellectual honesty from a Republican is like expecting to go outside and see unicorns.
Joe, really, where were you when Bush doubled the debt by slashing taxes and starting two wars?
To quote myself yet again:
Bush and the Republican Congress ran a deficit of $500 billion a year. Bush and the Democratic Congress ran a deficit of $1 trillion a year. Obama and the Democratic Congress have run a deficit of $1.75 trillion a year. Yeah..it’s all Bush’s fault….
Republicans only have a problem with the debt when they can try and score political points on it,
Many people would agree with you. Which is precisely why those people formed the Tea Party in the first place.
And Gahrie, if memory serves congress hasn’t passed all the various budget packages in their entirety since the Clinton administration. Then again, expecting intellectual honesty from a Republican is like expecting to go outside and see unicorns.
Who is being intellectually dishonest here? My point was that we could not have the argument we just had during the debt ceiling debate when we should have had it (during budget debates) since the Democrats haven’t produced a budget to debate for the last two and a half years and the Democrats chose to ignore the budget that the Republicans proposed. Who cares about your Democratic talking point?
Bush ran a deficit: it’s his fault.
Dem congress ran a deficit: it’s their fault
Rep congress ran a deficit: it’s ther fault
Obama ran a deficit: it’s his fault
Americans voted for all those people: it’s our fault
(Those who don’t vote get a share too)
I sincerely hope that Joe Loy is right, and enough people are paying attention to force debt/deficits into the spotlight on EVERY issue.
dcl…Really? Seriously? Have both parties contributed to the absurd debt? Yes. Republicans were awful in the first 6 years of the last decade. They controlled DC and didn’t act like conservatives should act. However, Bush didn’t start 2 wars, those wars were started by outside entities. We can argue Iraq all day, but YOU are not being intellectually honest if you insist Bush started the wars. We were not even on a path to war on 9/10/01.
It also amazes me how people blame tax cuts passed a decade ago for the debt. Isn’t the core of the problem the gov’t failed to adjust to lower revenues as it became evident we were going to see less in flows? Philosophically we differ on the role government should play, but my opinion is that lower taxes on ALL of our citizens is a good thing and if that leads to less revenue for the gov’t then they have an obligation to adjust spending. Just like if I take a pay cut at work, I can’t keep spending based on old revenue numbers. The tax cuts passed, Americans are getting taxed less, to me that is good.
Get tax hikes through Congress….good luck trying. In today’s political environment that will be a really hard sell.
Brendan, I have consistently read your total bashing of the Republicans, but in the end of this post you finally admit the Dems will be doing the same thing when given the chance. I don’t like that the R’s leveraged the increase of the debt ceiling for political gain, but isn’t that how DC works? Don’t elected officials leverage whatever they can to achieve their goals? Didn’t the Dems use legislative rules to get President Obama’s healthcare legislation moved through both houses when those rules had never been leveraged that way? Politics is a dirty business and I wish we could see more civility in DC, but it’s obvious the R’s felt the only way they could get attention paid to the issues that concerned them was to leverage this “math problem”. Pathetic? Yes. Necessary? Probably.
Finally, how about a commentary on how the very poor leadership practices of our President. My fear when he was elected wasn’t the radical agenda he would push, it was that he had NEVER been the head of any substantial organization. The complete and utter inability to lead Congress through this process clearly points out that while a great campaigner, he is not a seasoned leader. He is not used to having to bring diverse opinions together and deliver a result. I am quite sure the partners in a law firm don’t always agree. But a good managing partner will build consensus, sometimes drop a hammer, and move the firm forward. President Obama FAILED in leading on this issue. I believe this failure is yet another example of his gross incompetence to lead. Please don’t tell me that a deal got done so President Obama didn’t fail, he did, the deal got done in spite of him not because of him. Heck, I give Harry Reid more credit on this getting done and I can’t stand him. Oh, and I am not particularly impressed with Speaker Bhoener’s leadership either. Credit to real leaders who navigated challenges like this with far better success. Men like President’s Reagan and Clinton, Speaker’s Tip O’neil and Tom Foley, and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, acted like statesman and provided leadership.
So much balderdash, so little time.
Tea Partiers, having quite clearly “won” the negotiations, are, of course, outraged.
You find a citation for the liberal version of this comment; how about the Tea Party version? I’ll grant you Michele Bachmann, Club for Growth, and a handful of others are disappointed that the cuts weren’t deep enough and thus they do not support the bill, but I haven’t seen anything near the level of outrage and disappointment with Republican leadership as I’ve seen with Dems and Obama.
In any case, with time having essentially run out, the question at this point for Democrats is which is worse: cementing the horrible precedent that debt-ceiling extortion works, or allowing a default that will damage the economy and destroy Obama’s presidency?
…(Having said that… don’t think for a moment that Democrats, led by the same liberals who are crying foul over today’s deal, won’t eagerly use this same horrible precedent — that debt-ceiling extortion works — the next time they control part of Congress and a Republican president requests a debt ceiling increase, which will certainly happen….)
This makes no sense to me. Why would conservatives ever oppose the debt ceiling being raised? Okay, sure, we might end up with a happy-spending Republican president along the way, but I can assure you the rank and file would be standing right there saying, “Hell no, don’t raise the debt ceiling!” I’ll take a blue-dog / Tea Party coalition standing up to a Republican president begging for more debt any day.
And conversely, the idea that the Democrats would ever find political value in taking the debt ceiling hostage is utter absurdity: “Spend way more on redistributive social policies… or I won’t vote to increase the debt!” “Give us massive tax hikes to close the deficit… or I’ll force you to immediately cut massive amounts of public spending instead!” The very idea is ridiculous. Talk about cutting off your political nose to spite your ideological face.
Truly this is very dumb political analysis on your part, Brendan. Really, try thinking this through and posit how the holding the debt ceiling hostage could ever be an equal tool for Democrats as it is for Republicans.
All I know is that this whole thing is a farce, we should never have arrived at this juncture, and — whatever happens — I will never forgive the shameless Republicans who manufactured this “crisis” for political gain.
Awwwwwwwww, booooooo hooooooo!
I can’t help observing that this is a clinical example of your tendency to care far more about process over results. Presumably, you and Becky are quite concerned about the financial stability of this nation, and your beautiful children’s economic future. You crave government financial reform, and you’ve posted numerous times about your concern for this nation’s future and our need to act quickly to keep from destroying our economic future.
Yet — the Democrats refuse to put forth a budget and compromise with the House and Senate Republicans (your favored approach; follow the existing governing processes). The GOP, then, takes the initiative to use every opportunity at its disposal to accelerate reform… and so you howl in protest. Gee, that sure makes a lot of sense!
You forgave Obama. Or even if you haven’t totally forgiven Obama, you’ve forgiven him enough to vote for him, support his policies, and to give him the benefit of the doubt that somehow he has his heart in the right place, while Michele Bachman is nothing but a shameless opportunist.
By the way, I don’t know if this has been discussed here before (if it has, I apologize), but if defaulting on the debt is your major concern, have you ever stopped to question the meme that we need to increase the debt ceiling to avoid default? You don’t need a higher credit limit to rollover existing credit limits, you just need to keep the credit limit the same. It just means you have a choice: honor your debts, or spend as you were before. Of course that does mean that we might have to cut people’s Social Security checks in half, furlough all non-essential federal workers, extend payments to federal contractors, withhold the last dollars of the “stimulus”, stop sending money to Fannie and Freddie, etc.. But to default or not to default was a choice outside of the debt ceiling.
Also, if we leave aside partisan pride and assessments of the political ramifications of this outcome, and look at the compromise bill as a matter of policy, it’s hard to say that the Tea Party won much of everything. All the savings are backloaded, virtually nothing is saved upfront, most of the promised savings are unpecified and left to a later time, and the amount of the initial cuts ($1 trillion over 10 years) is a pittance when you’re running a deficit of $1.5 trillion per year. I think the biggest victory the Tea Party can claim is that the Republicans weren’t hoodwinked again into accepting immediate and real tax increases in exchange for illusory and backloaded spending cuts.
Cartman:
The victory for the Tea Party and the American people is the fact that we are even discussing spending cuts at all. The American people took a look at the outrageous spending of President Obama and the Democratic Congress and decided to do something about it in 2010. This was just a start. Unfortunately we will have to wait another 18 months to get a republican president and a Republican Congress to finish the process.
The Republican party also won. Remember all the talk in 2008-2009 that the Republican party was dead? Anyone saying that now?
OP: “Regarding the “clean” debt ceiling increase … House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer urged his colleagues to vote against it, and most did”
If this is the vote I think it is (House vote #379 on May 31st), a narrow majority of Democrats voted in favor of the “clean” increase: 97 yes, 82 no, 13 present or didn’t vote.
#11: I have to agree with AMLTrojan that it seems unlikely that Democrats would obstruct a debt ceiling increase that was supported by Republicans. Not impossible, but it would be a long way to get there from here.
Re AML @ 11, I too was trying to imagine a scenario where Brendan’s prediction that the Dems “will certainly” play tit-for-tat with respect to the debt ceiling against a Republican president would happen. Don’t see it. All I can think of is Dems insisting on cuts to defense spending in return for increasing the debt ceiling, but even that is a stretch. Cutting spending just isn’t in the Dems’ DNA (creating and growing constituencies via gov’t spending is). The “goose-gander” rule is probably followed more often than not in Washington, but it won’t be here.