Political Animal
Blog
As of this morning, it appears the weeks of bipartisan debt-reduction talks are now dead. Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the leading House Republican in the talks, quit. Soon after, Minority Whip Jon Kyl, the leading Senate Republican negotiator, walked away, too.
But that’s just Phase One coming to an end. Phase Two will feature President Obama sitting down with House Speaker John Boehner’s court — and Boehner’s not especially happy about it.
Why would he be? The Biden-led talks had reached the point where difficult — and unpopular — decisions had to be made. Cantor, who doesn’t exactly put the “leader” in “House Majority Leader,” didn’t see much of an upside to agreeing to a deal that’s likely to prove controversial, even among Republicans.
So, Cantor’s passing the buck, probably because he realizes the final deal will need to bring in some additional revenue. As one senior Democratic aide told Brian Beutler, “Eric Cantor just threw Boehner under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be a need for revenues in the final deal to cut our deficit, and Cantor doesn’t want to be the one to make that deal.”
It’s gone largely overlooked in recent weeks, but Republican leaders know there has to be a deal, but don’t necessarily want to be the one to strike the deal. National Journal reported recently that Boehner put Cantor in the room to give the Speaker some cover: “The debt deal must have Cantor’s fingerprints on it.”
But Cantor doesn’t want his fingerprints on a controversial measure, especially when he has the option of making Boehner do the hard work. Ezra Klein had a good post on this today.
Cantor seemed the most obvious choice [to cut a deal] because he has the most credibility with the Tea Party. But that very credibility with the Tea Party is why Cantor won’t cut the deal. They support him because he’s the guy who won’t cut the deal. He can’t sign off on tax increases without losing his power base. But if he’s able to throw it back to Boehner, and Boehner cuts the deal, that’s all good for Cantor: Boehner becomes weaker and Cantor becomes stronger. Which is why Boehner will also have trouble making this deal. It’ll mean he made the concessions that Cantor, the true conservative, didn’t. That’s not how he holds onto the gavel in this Republican Party.
If you had to write a plausible scenario for how America defaults on its debt, or at least seriously spooks the market, this is how it would start. After insisting on using the debt limit as leverage for a budget deal, the Republican leadership finds they can’t actually strike a deficit-reduction deal, but nor can they go back on their promise to vote against any increase in the debt limit that isn’t accompanied by a deficit-reduction deal. Cantor is putting personal power before country here, and in a very dangerous way.
Daniel Gross added, “And now John Boehner must decide if he wants to govern or be Speaker. In this climate, with his party, he can’t do both.”
Keep in mind, there’s no turning back. Boehner was inclined to do the right thing months ago, before he realized that his right-wing party wouldn’t tolerate it. Now he has to strike a deal that can pass, or his party will crash the economy on purpose. Those are the options.
No one ever said leading a radicalized, pathological political party in a time of multiple crises was easy.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on June 23, 2011 12:52 PM:
Republicans don't do "govern."
They prefer to "rule."
And, even if the economy goes in free-fall, if they think this will help put them back in the position to "rule" in the future, they'll take it.
Remember - they'd rather rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.
Hell, here we come.
Unless Wall Street comes in and saves the day - which, I believe they well.
These hard time's are good time for Wall Street!
Neil B on June 23, 2011 12:55 PM:
There are some hopeful stirrings, but the MSM needs to really get on the ball and get the message out, much as they hate to pick on the Party they have so-long wrongly considered "serious", patrician, limited-but-rational governors. We need to push them, or the public will never get the message. As one of our commenters said: we need "skin in the game" and to show it.
We need to vote too - those that stay home to prove a point are enabling this poisoning, and there is *no* excuse. WTF is with Olbermann, saying he doesn't vote? Do whatever else you need too that's worth doing, but not that.
Zoffa on June 23, 2011 12:58 PM:
Who said there are only two choices? There's always the path of least resistence: get Obama to capitulate and talk the Congressional Democrats into getting on board. the prediction is this will be exactly like the last couple of deals: the "right" won't be happy because they didn't get 100% of what they want, instead only getting 90%.
Yana on June 23, 2011 1:01 PM:
@Neil B
My sister is a journalist of 20 years. She also doesn't vote. Journalists believe that it lends to thier "objective" credibility. They used to teach that in the journo schools. I am not sure if they still do but it is what a lot of them believe.
js on June 23, 2011 1:04 PM:
They are cowards, they are scared to the tea party & Grover Norquist. They would rather take care of their own hide and to heck with the country.
mellowjohn on June 23, 2011 1:07 PM:
i think that rather than weight on his shoulders, the perpetually confused cantor would much rather put a knife in boehner's back.
eric must figure that he's the perfect candidate for the teabaggers to back if boehner decides he'd rather govern.
james on June 23, 2011 1:08 PM:
I know the Republians look "unified" when they all vote the same way. But I am beginning to see more clearly how deeply divided they are, and how much they seem genuinely not to like each other very much.
Don't you just love a family spat taking place in public? Makes for great entertainment. Bad governing, but great entertainment. And that's all Americans really want -- to be entertained. It distracts us from how bad things are in this country right now.
walt on June 23, 2011 1:09 PM:
I fear Zoffa's prediction is correct. The problem for us as liberals is that we have to defend something Obama won't. That is, a Keynsian economic model that was the engine of our economic prosperity for two generations. That consensus is gone. And what remains is a cultish and absurd "theory" that is so wrong-headed that even its defenders dismiss it when it's inconvenient to their political interests. We have with Obama not a stalwart defender of reason and empiricism but the editor of a law review who apparently splits every difference since being in the middle on everything is his definition of leadership. God help us here.
zeitgeist on June 23, 2011 1:10 PM:
Zoffa is correct. There is a third option, one that should help Boehner sleep peacefully: the Dems will bail him out. They will cave and agree to massive cuts, and to Ryan-lite, killing the best 2012 campaign issue we have in the process.
Screw that. Dems have three strong options; they really need to choose one: (1) play really a really hardball game of chicken and try and force the R's to cave under pressure from Wall Street; (2) start working the message and let default happen and blame the R's; or (3) simply have Obama announce that he'll ignore the debt limit because it is unconstitutional and order Treasury to cover the obligations and dare Congress to try and stop him.
j on June 23, 2011 1:23 PM:
I am wondering if anyone else (besides me)
has noticed, the stimulus had taken hold and jobs were being opened up slowly but steadily - then the mid-terms which gave the repubs in the house to stop any jobs bills, and also repub governors were elected who are laying off people by the thousands. I read this morning that the gov in Georgia (not the sharpest pencil in the box) proudly put through a bill against illegals - worse than Arizona's, now they are all in a panic - crops are rotting in the fields and no-one will gather them! And repubs think this is going to help them!!!!!
Mike on June 23, 2011 1:26 PM:
Keep in mind, there’s no turning back. Boehner was inclined to do the right thing months ago, before he realized that his right-wing party wouldn’t tolerate it. Now he has to strike a deal that can pass, or he his party will crash the economy on purpose. Those are the options.
As has already been pointed out, you conveniently left out what might be the most likely option. Capitulation, once again, by the administration to the radical demands of the GOP. The Republicans are willing to allow this country's economy to collapse for perceived political gain. My money is on another Democratic caving. If history is an indicator, that is what will probably happen.
DAY on June 23, 2011 1:37 PM:
Ah, the joys of NOT being a member of congress! (Right, gulag?)
So I am free to bring a different perspective to our current impass:
Steve Benen writes:"If you had to write a plausible scenario. . . "
As I read the post, I thought what a wonderful play Bill Shakespeare could make of this sorry state of affairs!
Th on June 23, 2011 1:39 PM:
This opens the door to Nancy Pelosi to take control. She is the only one I see who can deliver a very large block of votes to anything that can actually pass the House and Senate. And she owes Obama a knife in the back the way he sold her out in the health care fight. Time for a clean increase for 6 months and then tie the debt increases to the budget bills.
FRP on June 23, 2011 1:55 PM:
Or being in the same hemisphere , actually . The feelings inspired by the hard hitting tee pee baggeurs are so terribly difficult to phrase , without noting their vile tendencies towards an adoration of the rhetorical violent obscenities found in some twisted airless logic of freedom .
That reminds me of being a teenager and becoming aware of the panoply of characters in The Brothers Karamazov , especially Dmitri , plus the utter nihilism of The Idiot . Dostoevsky's unbalanced characters are more coherent and bear more responsibility in their madness than the whole pointless hate Obama parade of onion paper thin delight in the idea of destroying the memory of a KenyanIslamofacistHummazexual tolerating terrorist and Sovereign Nation Invading bully . It his fault , all his fault , they had to destroy America to destroy him , really , also .
beejeez on June 23, 2011 2:05 PM:
I don't get why y'all think capitulation is a serious option for Obama. That hands the Republicans legitimacy AND tanks the economy to an extent that will hurt incumbent Dems in 2012.
For campaign donations? Why wouldn't Big Business prefer Republicans anyway?
So Obama can look statesmanlike? The economy would make 2011 look like the good old days. Why wouldn't independent voters want to dump Obama for a real Republican? Why would Democratic voters even turn up?
I get it that a deal on Obama's terms (some cuts, some tax hikes) can be a political winner, if not satisfying to us lefties. Why he'd settle for less is beyond me.
zeitgeist on June 23, 2011 2:38 PM:
beejeez:
you're being far too logical. there are three reasons to think Obama will cave and "settle for less" than a deal on his terms.
1) history. there have been several other times - health care is the most obvious - when he has held what looked to be good cards and still folded. he had a fairly timid temperment: given the choice between the risk of overplaying a hand, and the risk of underplaying it, i'm not sure I can think of a single time where he took the more abitious route.
2) perceived moral high ground. he still wants desparately to be that "post-partisan" President he promised to be, and if the Republicans wont come to him, he will feel compelled to go to them, no matter how far he has to travel.
3) the liberal curse of actually caring. in a hostage negotiation, whoever cares the most about the hostage starts at a fundamental disadvantage. Obama may well believe that nothing is worth ruining the full faith and credit of the United States - no deal is too bad, no political outcome too painful. his job is to protect the good of the country, period, no game playing. the problem, of course, is that the rightwing knows that we good governance types are suckers for that argument, so we always lose. over time, i would argue that is the worst thing for the country of all. it isn't clear Obama sees it that way.
Kuji on June 23, 2011 2:48 PM:
@gdb
I don't think you've taken into consideration the rammifications of letting the debt deal fold and not raising the debt ceiling.
1) US loses its Credit Rating - The era of cheap borrowing is over. Now think about that for a second. Really think about what hapens when the currency devalues and you need even more dollars to pay higher treasury interest rates? If the GOPteaparty is so concerened about cutting spending that it has no problem risking making ithe American people/ businesses pay more for less is beyond stupid. The whole idea of capitalism is access to the free flow of capital for business an growth. What the GOPteaarty is doing is pretty much anti-capitalism for the sake of being Conservative or something. Driven by fear of welfare queens ruining the economy i guess.
2) Default on debt - Ok think about that. What is US Treasury Bonds mixed with? That's right, everything. Since there is no tax on US Bonds its been the safe vehicle for all investment portfolios since the advent of US Bonds. We are talking pension plans, 401k's, vehicles for CDs - any conservative and SAFE portfolio has US bonds cut into it. It's not China that gets screwed. It's everyone.
I'm not an economist but those seem like pretty drastic changes to public and private finance...
So if The GOPteaparty want to kick out illegal immigrants so that the American workforce can have the good jobs, like corn and tomato picking - they are on the right path. We can even put our hard earned money in tin cans. You can kiss the promise of FDIC goodbye.
This idea of letting the markets correct themsleves or let the US default and get it over with arent even better in theory than in practice. We let Lehman Bros. Collapse and quickly realized that lending came to a grinding halt. Lehman assets were frozen and it killed the market. Why do you think the Feds were so keen on forcing mergers when Bear Stearns and Merrill lynch were next - or Capital injections around the house so banks could lend? Now Imagine the US government in the same situation. It would be catastrophic. It's not an option we are not "broke". Would shareholders of GE be okay with the board of directors saying that in order to restructure pension plans it no longer thinks is valuable to pay out - GE will not borrowor and make all its businesses come to a grinding halt. Contracts can't be completed and GE Financial division willstop lending so people can't finance their washing machines.. But we won't have to pay those horrible pension plans! This is the debate the GOPteaparty put forth.
2) if the US defaults on debt - this is a an expensive and convoluted process to untwine. Think of all the
Zorro on June 23, 2011 3:01 PM:
It'll mean he made the concessions that Cantor, the true whackadoo post turtle, didn't.
Fixed that for Ezra.
-Z
st john on June 23, 2011 3:48 PM:
We are talking about death panels here. Can you imagine withholding funds to treat a sick and dying child to prove a point? For political advantage? I use child because most people seem to react to that image, even though in reality they couldn't care less. We are living through a crisis of spiritual dimensions. No, I am not saying religious, though many equate the two. What separates us is what will kill us: the perception that we are not connected in every way possible. May I suggest everyone look up the movie, I Am, the documentary. www.iamthedoc.com. It brings together secular science and spiritual connection. Cantor, Boehner and Obama are playing out our deepest fears and rigid beliefs about how life is. Nothing is as it appears, but until we acknowledge that reality, we will suffer the consequences. We Are One and we do create our reality by our thinking and our belief.
I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation.
peace,
st john
Goldilocks on June 23, 2011 4:24 PM:
Since the GOP on the gang of six are dropping like flies, who's left? Three Dems? How did Boehner get in? Missed that. Looks like the Dems are not caving, at least not totally.
Absent a deal, the vote goes ahead. Are the Republicans really going to put themselves on record as the ones who threw the country into default?
Their paymasters in the top 1% can survive just about anything, but the rest of the country will go down the tubes. Where then will the GOP get their votes?
Oh, I see - they'll defund elections. It's all so obvious really.
bdop4 on June 23, 2011 4:46 PM:
They are counting on Dems to cave like they did last December and slash social programs in order to get under the current debt ceiling.
This time instead of the unemployed being held hostage, it's every governmental program that benefits those in need.
They won't EVER let the U.S. actually default on its debt obligations. They just want to first eliminate every good service that the federal government performs for its citizens.
Marko on June 23, 2011 5:03 PM:
"(3) simply have Obama announce that he'll ignore the debt limit because it is unconstitutional and order Treasury to cover the obligations and dare Congress to try and stop him." - Zeitgeist
Not because it is "unconstitutional", but for "national security reasons". Bush played that trump card like a mad hatter. I'd love to see Obama use it just once.
karen marie on June 23, 2011 5:08 PM:
It's a good thing Cantor and Boehner and Kyle and the rest of them weren't around in 1776 because the United States would now be divided between England, France and Spain.
The United States was founded on a shit ton of money borrowed from Dutch businessmen.
emjayay on June 23, 2011 8:31 PM:
Zeitgeist: Your comments are always interesting and intelligent. So, where's the caps?
Whoever was talking Keynsian up there: The problem is that we were supposed to have a surplus built up in the good times. We weren't supposed to have to start fixing a crash from a huge yawning Bushhole. Imagine even starting two years ago at zero.
I'm sick of hearing myself say it, but anyway, if President Don'tBlameAnyoneForAnything would just get off it and start calling it the Bush Crash and the Bush Deficit (no wait a minute, the Reagan-Bush Deficit) about ten times a day etc....but I don't see him changing. Just continuing to let the Bully Pulpit gather dust, and instead sit around figuring out how to pre-cave on the next negotiation for anything.
Doug on June 23, 2011 9:44 PM:
If you folks are so damnded determined to fight, why don't you join a gym or something? Starting from the top:
Zoffa @ 12:58 PM - Capitulate? I don't think that word means what you think it does, not when the "capitulation" you refer to results in INCREASED spending...
gdb @ 1:07 PM - You want the economy to tank so both Obama AND the Republicans get the blame and your as-yet-to-be-determined "progressive" white knight can ride to the rescue, first in the 2012 Democratic primaries, then in the general election? Just about any plan is better than your "We have to destroy the village to save it" one.
Mike @ 1:26 PM - "...most likely option. Capitulation, once again..." See my comment to Zoffa above.
Th @ 1:39 PM - "And she owes Obama a knife in the back the way he sold her out in the health care fight." Silly me! And all this time I thought Sen. Reid was Majority Leader of the Senate and thus responsible for seeing legislation through that chamber! As for Rep. Pelosi "taking control", taking control of what? The problem now isn't getting a bill through the House. It's getting a bill through the House, that will also pass the Senate, INTRODUCED!
Zeitgeist @ 2:38 PM -
1) Strange, I don't remember it that way. I remember a "very progressive" ACA getting through the House and being whittled down to merely "progressive", if only because it's an improvement over today's HCI state of affairs. True, President Obama should have FORCED the Senate to approve the House version, but that's what you get when you elect a Democrat, I guess.
2) Of course, there is the fact that Mr. Obama, as President, is the only elected offical who represents of ALL the citizens of this country, but what the hey! I think too many people consider President Obama's willingness to COMPROMISE in the face of unpleasant political facts a weakness, rather than the strength it really is. How much of the important legislation that DID pass, would have, had the President NOT been willing to compromise when need be? We're not talking "purity" of intent here, again something too many mistakenly over-rate, we're talking having enough VOTES to pass legislation that, however incomplete, accomplishes something of what we want. Or is "All or Nothing" the new motto?
3) This is the most irritating one of them all! Are you seriously implying that President Obama, suddenly now a "liberal", is incapable of realizing that any "deal" based solely on Republican demands won't be just as destructive to the US? Slow strangulation (Republican "economics") versus a bullet to the heart (economic collapse); there's difference?
bdop4 @ 4:46 PM - I see you've internalized the talking points. The deal to which you refer resulted in an INCREASE in government spending of, I believe, around $3 billion, NOT a decrease of $39 billion.
emjayjay @ 8:31 PM - Since the public already agrees that Bush is responsible for the current economic mess, what you're really saying is "I want the President to be as violently and publicly anti-Bush as I am, regardless of the need." Other than YOUR approbation, just what would this gain for President Obama? Also, I've never seen "pre-cave" before; I presume it means "not to get 100% of what I want" and is classed as a VERY intransitive verb?
And people wonder why White House staff members have such a low opinion of us "lefties"...