David Corn explains why the president is very unlikely to yield to the Republicans’ demands that he negotiate over raising the debt ceiling. I think the basic difference between today and 2011 is that the president doesn’t have to worry about getting reelected, so he’s willing to call the Republicans’ bluff. Back in 2011, a default would have probably made him a one-term president. Today, a default would still be terrible for the country, but he at least has the option of letting it happen. If he takes extraordinary steps to avoid a default, he has less to worry about in terms of backlash. Plus, the Tea Party fervor has faded, the deficit has been coming down, and the mandate from the 2010 elections has been superseded by the mandate from the 2012 elections.
It’s not at all clear that Speaker Boehner can raise the debt ceiling with only Republican votes. With two vacancies, the House has 433 members, of which 233 are Republicans. For a bill to pass it needs 217 votes. That means that Boehner cannot afford to lose more than 16 members of his caucus.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who opposes any debt-ceiling increase at all, estimated there were 10 to 15 Republicans “that feel as strongly as I do,” and predicted GOP leaders did not have the votes to pass the legislation.
Rep. Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones doesn’t just oppose the Christmas tree legislation that Boehner is concocting to attract Republican votes. Rep. Jones opposes raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances, and says he has potentially as many as 15 colleagues who feel the same way. If he’s right, Boehner can’t lose any additional votes, which seems like a stretch if he is forced to ask for a bill without any concessions from the president.
But the Republicans are operating under the assumption that the president will back down.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) made clear that Republicans were not operating under any illusions that this initial offer would remain intact, however. He described it more as a wish list.
“We’re obviously going to throw out what we want. Obviously that’s not going to be acceptable to the other party, most likely,” he said. “It puts our marker down.”
But Simpson said the one-year delay of ObamaCare is a mandatory component for Republicans.
“When Obama says he’s not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling, that’s just baloney,” Simpson said. “Ultimately, he will.”
I think David Corn has made a compelling case that the president actually won’t negotiate. I’m not sure what he will do if it comes down the last moment and Congress hasn’t extended the debt ceiling, but it seems clear that he’s prepared to tell the Republicans’ to stuff it. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not yet convinced of that, so the hostage-taking will continue.
I hope someone is readying the SWAT team.
Had nothing to do with worrying about getting re-elected. He wanted a Grand Bargain, and Boehner failed to deliver, surprising both Boehner and the president. We’re paying not only for him continuing to push such a Grand Bargain on the merits — which is terrible policy and politics — but because it gave rise to these extremists’ continuing demands that it always be a negotiating point.
I’m glad he learned his lesson, but let’s not kid ourselves about why he negotiated before.
He made a deal on the debt ceiling because he wanted a Grand Bargain that was already dead?
A GB was dead in 2011?
Dude, you just argued in the other thread that the president “had” to offer stuff that could reasonably be enacted (Chained-CPI being the least harmful, which I would agree with) because the Republicans slaughtered us in 2010, giving them a mandate.
I should clarify. It did “die” after Boehner couldn’t deliver, which was the summer of 2011.
I don’t know what you mean when you say that the president “wanted” a Grand Bargain.
That word is a bit ambiguous.
In the context of the 2010 shellacking, the president felt compelled to acknowledge the political mandate the Republicans had to address the debt and deficit. He didn’t “want” to be in that situation, but considering that we was in that situation, he wanted to cut the best deal he could.
In any case, he and Boehner failed to create something that the House could support, so he was faced with a default on our sovereign debt. He didn’t “want” that, either.
And, since the Sequester went into effect, he has “wanted” to doing something a bit saner which would require some kind of negotiation with concessions and policies that he doesn’t “want” except that he can’t get something saner without them.
To argue that the president didn’t negotiate on the 2011 debt ceiling crisis because he was afraid a default would tank the economy and his chances of reelection, but only because he “wanted” a Grand Bargain, is about the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever seen you write here.
He created Simpson-Bowles well before 2010 election; February 2010, to be more precise. It seems to me that he did “want” to be in that situation.
He was questioned as to why he agreed to extend the tax cuts in 2010 after the election without also taking the debt ceiling off the table (his first ‘mistake’).
Q Mr. President, thank you. How do these negotiations affect negotiations or talks with Republicans about raising the debt limit? Because it would seem that they have a significant amount of leverage over the White House now, going in. Was there ever any attempt by the White House to include raising the debt limit as a part of this package?
THE PRESIDENT: When you say it would seem they’ll have a significant amount of leverage over the White House, what do you mean?
Q Just in the sense that they’ll say essentially we’re not going to raise the — we’re not going to agree to it unless the White House is able to or willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board that probably go deeper and further than what you’re willing to do. I mean, what leverage would you have –
THE PRESIDENT: Look, here’s my expectation — and I’ll take John Boehner at his word — that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen. And so I think that there will be significant discussions about the debt limit vote. That’s something that nobody ever likes to vote on. But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower.
And so my expectation is, is that we will have tough negotiations around the budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping Social Security checks going out, keeping veterans services being provided, but at the same time is prudent when it comes to taxpayer dollars.
Knowing full well that if a reporter thinks Boehner was going to use it as leverage, the president damn well knew that he would use it (or try).
So that brings us to the beginning on 2011, when he and Boehner suss out a deal they both agree with. Cantor intervenes, the votes fall apart, talks break down, and we’re left in early summer with no deal.
Then we get the sequester which “No One Thinks Will Get Enacted,” and then does.
The president had the chance to take this off the table by:
a. Pairing it with the extension of the tax cuts. He didn’t. if Marc A. knew Boehner would extort something with the debt ceiling, the president knew it as well. In fact, he was banking on it because they could get something they both support: a GB. Boehner failed to deliver.
b. Not negotiating with it in the first place by trying to get his cutsey Grand Bargain through unconventional channels when the Senate voted down his stupid commission and his Executive Order failed, too.
It seems to me the timing and sequence of events matters here.
Early 2011: President Obama is willing to cut a deal with Speaker Boehner on a “grand bargain”.
Mid 2011: Obama and Boehner cut a deal…then Boehner disappears from radio contact for 24 hours (during which Cantor tells him he doesn’t have the votes) and then the deal is off.
August 2011: No “grand bargain”, just Republicans taking a fragile economy hostage and demanding $1 trillion in spending cuts as ransom (including the sequester). That’s the deal Obama cuts. Like Booman, I think he did it because he calculated it would be less bad for the economy than the alternative, and that a growing economy was necessary to his re-election prospects.
Today: Obama doesn’t have to run for re-election, ever. Thus (or so it seems), Republicans have less leverage over him than they did two years ago. The president may still want a “grand bargain”, but it sure looks like he doesn’t need to cut a deal on the debt ceiling limit.
I think we agree in general but we disagree over what the driving force is. I don’t think Obama truly understood the sheer insanity and lack of control Boehner had. TBH, without seeing everything they did wrt health care law, I’d have said you’d be crazy to think they could use the debt ceiling as leverage. But the president is a smarter person than me, both politically and generally. Which leads me to occam: he thought Boehner could deliver, and I think Boehner thought that as well; neither expected Cantor to undercut them. But there it is.
In this context, I think it’s less worrying about his re-election than knowing Boehner can’t deliver on jack shit and not trusting him.
Here, go into the time machine and report back on how willing the Democrats were to ignore the debt maniacs.
That sounds about right. As for re-election v. Boehner’s ability to deliver, it’s probably a little of both.
Are you under the misimpression that the administration supported the findings of the Simpson-Bowles Commission which didn’t even agree to anything?
It seems to me that your position is that the White House should never have done anything to try to stave off the debt maniacs that arose in the spring of his first year in office. It was a non-problem.
He never should have tried to address it at all. Just ignore it and hope that it goes away.
I’m sure that would have gone over great with Finance Chairman Baucus and Budget Chairman Conrad. I’m sure senators like Blanche Lincoln would have been totally on board with that.
You’re living in some kind of Krugmanesque ivory tower.
Back in 2010, the Blue Dog caucus was at least twice as big as it is today, and they were absolutely obsessed with debt.
You can yell about passing out free money from helicopters all you want, but you can’t do that if your own party doesn’t have your back.
In any case, there is nothing about the debt ceiling fiasco of 2011 that Obama “wanted.”
Curious, are you claiming that their voters slew those Blue Dogs in 2012 because they failed to get that GB that their voters were so hot for just a year prior?
I’ve argued this was his plan since it first happened. I’m surprised to see that MattY also agrees:
The absolute worst mistake Obama has made as president came back in 2011 when Republicans first pulled this stunt. At that time, Obama desperately wanted a bargain over long-term fiscal policy. So he tried a bit of too-clever-by-half political jujitsu in which GOP debt ceiling hostage taking became a pretext to start negotiations over long-term budgeting. All manner of evils have fallen forth from that fateful decisions, including an economic weak patch in 2011 the ongoing mess of sequestration, and worst of all the setting of a precedent for future crises.
Ideologically he believes the best way to move the country forward is by working together to solve the Big Issues. This has always been his philosophy. So even if he didn’t like the details of a Grand Bargain he still wants it, because he thought it would move the entire country forward (lead to the best situation in the long run).
I think that’s largely part of it, too. Somehow he thinks they’ll just leave it alone if we deal with it now, so we have time/money to invest in other things. I wonder how he feels after the recent food stamp cut attempt. Welfare reform certainly stopped that, except it didn’t.
F*ck the SWAT teams!
I want good old-fashioned slow tumbrels and rusty, dull guillotines.
Some people don’t deserve a quick and merciful death.
But make sure the pikes are sharp, so the heads stay on them.
*SNARK!
Lest someone take me seriously.
Dunno, guillotines are less efficient than tanks at slaughtering the poor so…
Actually, it would be great to see all the nation’s goddam municipal militarist SWAT teams defunded, not Obamacare. Yes, I know it was a metaphor….
I couldn’t get Corn’s article to load, but if we were almost “forced” into a new mid-east war over red lines and prez “credibility”, then I surely hope that Obama means what he has said about 3 dozen times vis-a-vis no negotiation over the debt ceiling. I think the nation’s crazed Repubs should get at least the same level of serious consideration for their actions as Assad Jr, haha. Not that Obama could ever get any “credibility” with these poisoned-brain nitwits.
Obama simply can’t engage in a debt ceiling negotiation now given what he’s said a hundred times, so I figure he has gamed this out well and has the spending prioritization ready to go. I wonder why he just doesn’t release it right now, it’s not like we’re not on the brink.
Repubs think they have to destroy the village in order to save it, because that’s real “patriotism”. Water the Tree of Liberty or whatever. And I sure as hell hope there is some plutocrat/corporate and Red State Tea-Rager pain involved in the spending priorities. Buying and owning the latest Repub models should have some risk involved as well as the endless tax rewards.
Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that the Democrats are approaching this very differently than they have in the past. Just listen to the rhetoric:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama–obamacare-critics-are–desperate–fat-cat-fox-news-watchers-224720869.h
tml
In the first term there were attempts to engage with Fox News, attempts to negotiate – what we critics often referred to as pre-compromises that did nothing but move the window of agreement toward the Republicans. The Democratic leadership acted fearful that they might offend some voters … voters that they had no chance of reaching anyway. More than anything Obama was trying to be the Great Compromiser who was above the fray. Of course, the last thing the GOP wanted was to do anything to make Obama look good – the more he pre-compromised in their direction, the more extreme their demands became. 11th dimensional chess? Well, maybe, but then you’d have to believe that the plan all along was to get creamed in the 2010 midterms and allow massive gerrymandering at the state level to allow the GOP to keep the House with a minority of national support.
The great news is that they aren’t that dumb, they seem to have learned from their mistakes in 2010 and are taking an entirely different approach now. Will it work? Will they not only win the negotiation but also get the middle voters to see the GOP as the anti-American extremists that they are? We’ll see … but we know the old method certainly wasn’t working.
Another observation. I generally try not to buy into the political theater – it’s been pretty common in the past that there was a lot of political theater for public/media consumption and we learn later that the basic deal was agreed to in advance.
In this case, though, there may be something to it. First, I’ve never seen the Democrats this united in their message. There was the Dem Sen of WV who went off course and offered to delay ACA by a year, but he quickly backtracked and that’s the only deviation I’ve seen. That’s the kind of message discipline we’ve seen over the years from Rove Republicans, not Democrats.
Second, the GOP has totally lost their message discipline. Unless they have some 11th dimensional chess plan to appease their base while doing what the base doesn’t want … and if they do have that plan, well, at the very best they buy off the base a year until the next showdown.
Given these situations I expect that the Democrats have let their flock of unherdable cats know not to be scared of the shutdown. It seems likely to me Obama plans one of two options after the shutdown is initiated. First, declare the debt ceiling in conflict with other laws mandating that debts be paid, and issue an executive order telling the Treasury to keep issuing debt. Second, issue the platinum coin. Obama goes on TV and says “the GOP has made an unprecedented move and is trying to bankrupt America … I will not give into this nonsense so will use this method as a last resort.” We couldn’t have imagined Obama using this language a year ago – now we can.
Either method would result in immediate lawsuits and throw the case to the SCOTUS, where the Scalia Five will be put in the position of either backing Obama in a fight against their party or forcing a shutdown and all of the political blowback that would cause against the GOP (it would also emphasize just how extreme they are).
The platinum coin isn’t happening; the Fed stated publicly they won’t accept it.
I know. I think the executive order is more likely. But opinions can be reversed, and so can that statement, so I listed as an option.
I think you can only take Executive action closer to the deadline, if only because you don’t want the Republicans to go into court and pre-emptively enjoin you before the action is taken. Take the action when it is no longer possible to prevent default if no action is taken, send it to court if necessary, and let the world (and the judge) know that siding with the Republicans will destroy human civilization or whatever.
Oh, I would suggest taking the executive order a few days after the shutdown and after the pain starts getting felt. And not hinting about it in advance. It helps with the positioning: “We were forced into this as a last resort”.
Another reason the executive order is better than the platinum coin is that it forces the SCOTUS, if they are to avoid chaos, to declare the debt ceiling invalid for blocking payments already authorized by law. It wipes out the debt ceiling as a hostage tactic permanently. The platinum coin is a loophole that can be closed by law and does not offer a permanent solution.
Better to think of this Exec. Order as a declaration of a State of Emergency. The inability of congress to act before 10/17/13 will be the emergency.
The platinum coin is just too silly. I don’t think it’s necessary anyway. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but when the president said the other day that we aren’t a deadbeat nation, it struck me that he wasn’t just saying he won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling, he was also saying we aren’t going to stop paying our bills.
At any rate, I hope that means he’s committed to taking executive action if necessary. And I think there are solid constitutional grounds for it, because the debt ceiling is just completely ridiculous. I think the main reason people have so much trouble understanding it is that it is so ridiculous. Whatever spending or borrowing Congress authorizes, they are responsible for paying the bills. When you tell people that the Treasury needs to borrow money to make payments that Congress has already approved, but Congress is threatening to withhold permission to borrow that money, it just doesn’t make sense.
For what it’s worth, we got our emails about a shutdown on Wednesday (from the union) and Thursday (from director).
We have reserve funds, and we requested OPM to approve of their usage in the event of a shutdown. OPM delivered, so shutdown or not, my area of the government is going to work. We have enough money to last about three weeks.
I’m convinced that Obama has mapped out a number of contingencies. I think he’s ready to do whatever it takes to prevent default or minimize the impact.
This is so dangerous, but the Prez needs to stand his ground for all of us.
We’re still paying in excess of 1.5 billion (and counting) for the harm the 2011 debt ceiling episode did to treasury rates. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/gao-debt-ceiling-fight-cost-taxpayers-at-
least-1-3-billion/ )
And now we’ve got Repubs like John Kline (MN-bluster) and John Fleming (LA-fool) making statements about how we can never really go into default and no one will really be hurt:
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/27/226716489/house-gop-leaders-gear-up-for-debt-ceiling-battle
They’re playing with the chosen reserve currency of the world. Reduced trust in that currency will cost us many more billions in treasury rates.
And empower the Chinese!
Honestly, and against every inclination, I think they need to kill this debt ceiling fucker once and for all, or THAT will cause loss of faith in our currency.
That’s not “Christmas Tree” legislation.
That’s “Dingleberry” legislation.
Jeez.
Do y’all really think that the corporate-owned Permanent Government will let itself be “shut down?” For real !!!??? It’d be bad fer business, fer chrissake. If you do I have a number of bridges to sell you. There’s money to be made. No matter whether as a result of some plot or by accident/imcompetence, a real government shutdown would be met by martial law. Luckily (???), we now have a huge surplus of soldiers and police (Thank God we’re not at war anymore, eh?), all armed to the teeth and ready to SWAT, so any “shutdown” will be promptly opened up again. By force, if necessary. I got yer “SWAT” team. Right here!!!
Watch.
My bet?
RatPubs fold publicly. In private? Concessions will have been promised, to be delivered after the dealers make damned sure there’s no Snowden-style snooping going on. Delivered sub rosa. Bet on it. If a real “shutdown” occurs, I firmly believe that it’s part of a deal to put this country under martial law. I don’t think that’s what is up here…it’s just business as usual…but after the media have made their bucks doing their patented “HOTTEST THING EVER!!!” schtick (Maybe even after a couple of days of…HORRORS!!!…”shutdown,” but probably just in the nick of time.) we will settle down into the next planned crisis, even more frightened by the PermaGov bogeyman than we were before this latest scare.
Watch.
The Perils Of Pauline
It’s not just a movie anymore, it’s media-generated “politics.”
Neither is “1984” any longer fiction.
It’s PermaGov business as usual.
Bet on that as well.
Watch.
AG