Political Animal
Blog
We have a very clear sense of how House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) wants the next several days to go. In his vision, Boehner will bring his budget proposal to the floor tomorrow; it’ll pass; Senate Democrats will back down and pass it; and President Obama, out of time and options, will put his signature on it. Disaster averted.
It’s an extremely unlikely scenario. Let’s instead consider the more realistic scenarios for the week:
* House defeats Boehner bill: If this happens tomorrow, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D) offer gets a significant boost, and would appear to be the last option standing. Senate leaders would immediately try to bring Reid’s plan to the floor, and seek as much GOP support as possible.
* House passes Boehner bill: If this happens tomorrow, Senate Dems, who’ve already pledged to defeat the Speaker’s plan, would use the amendment process to effectively replace its contents with Reid’s counter-offer. The Senate plan would then be to pass the “fixed” version and send it back to the House.
There are all kinds of complications, of course. We don’t know, for example, the extent to which Senate Republicans would delay the process with obstructionist tactics. For that matter, we also don’t know if a filibuster would doom Reid’s bill, even if it’s the last option available. There are, after all, 53 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, some of whom won’t back Reid’s plan (see Sanders, Bernie) because it’s too conservative. Could the Majority Leader’s proposal generate support from, say, 10 Senate Republicans to get over the 60-vote threshold? No one knows.
And what if it does? Whether Boehner’s plan passes the House tomorrow or not, we also don’t know what would happen if the lower chamber were forced to choose: calamity or the Reid plan? House Democratic support would likely be pretty significant — Pelosi has already endorsed Reid’s measure — making passage likely even if only a third of the House GOP caucus supported it. But would a third of the Republican caucus go along to prevent a catastrophe? No one knows this, either.
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, reports that some in the West Wing believe the Senate would kill the Boehner plan, and the House would kill the Reid plan, creating the need for a non-existent third alternative to come together very quickly.
At the White House, officials anticipate that neither the Boehner nor Reid plans can get through both houses of Congress, and they are crafting alternatives that could be finalized over the weekend and put to a vote Monday or Tuesday.
They are trying to develop alternatives combining elements of the Boehner and Reid proposals and another from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) so each can claim a measure of victory. The blend could include caps on appropriated spending, a congressional commission to offer further deficit-reduction and a McConnell-style “disapproval mechanism.”
“We have been in regular contact with leaders of both houses and both parties,” White House press secretary Mr. Carney said. “We’re working on plan B.”
Did I mention that Aug. 2 is six days away? And that we blew past Plan B last week and are now eyeing a possible Plan P?
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on July 27, 2011 10:40 AM:
Barack - you may soon have the duty, not an obligation, to use the 14th Amendment and take any consequences.
And if the lunatics want to impeach you over saving the economy, well, let them try.
I think more Americans will be with you after that than if you do nothing, and let them drive thiw car off the cliff.
Never mind the song - 'Suicide IS Painful!'
g. powell on July 27, 2011 10:46 AM:
"the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
The only way out of this for Obama is follow the examples of Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR. He should declare the debt limit unconstitutional and issue more bonds. Let the House impeach. That's where it will end.
But Obama won't, because he's a one-term wuss. Not a Lincoln, not a FDR. He is mediocrity who will oversee vast budget cuts and default that will inflict irreparable harm on this country due to a weakness of conviction. He should not run for another term. He is not up to the job.
Danp on July 27, 2011 10:48 AM:
I dare the Senate to filibuster the Reid plan. This has everything Republicans ever asked for (out loud) and they won't even allow an up and down vote? Even if it means failure to pay the nation's debt? This would be one turd even they couldn't polish.
david1234 on July 27, 2011 10:50 AM:
The 14th Amendment clearly requires that America must pay its bills if it has the money. We still have money in the form of gold in Fort Knox. Obama should say he will use that when the other money runs out Aug 2. That would be scarier to most Tea Party types than a default.
bleh on July 27, 2011 10:52 AM:
Gawd. And the Silly Season doesn't even start until next week.
What a clown show.
I'm with Atrios. Wake me when it's over.
Keith Sader on July 27, 2011 10:58 AM:
You know this clown posse could just pass a *clean* debt limit bill like has been done in the past...
chi res on July 27, 2011 11:00 AM:
@gpowell
I must have missed all those times that Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR did stupid things that led to their impeachment, particularly during an election year; please enlighten.
beep52 on July 27, 2011 11:00 AM:
When it comes to what conservatives might and couldn't possibly do, I underestimated them from Nixon through the Clinton impeachment.
I don't do that anymore. They're capable of anything.
In fact, the thing you fear the most is probably the goal they're hellbent on achieving, by any means necessary and at any cost. All the while, wearing that flag pin and beating you over the head with that cross.
Rathskeller on July 27, 2011 11:05 AM:
As others have said, I don't see why the third alternative isn't to pass a clean bill. Obviously, it failed before in the show vote, when it was 100% GOP against. But if Boehner goes to Pelosi, and can bring about 30 votes with him, then it gets done. If we're playing brinksmanship, then that seems like an option.
It's not without costs. Boehner loses his role as Speaker of the House, since his caucus would boot him ASAP. But he is ultimately a GOP supporter, and this the right thing to do for his party and his nation. He is or should be aware that a real impact of a default will gut the GOP for a generation.
g. powell on July 27, 2011 11:06 AM:
@chi res
Jefferson -- Louisiana Purchase
Lincoln - Suspension of habeas corpus
FDR- Supreme court packing
First two were certainly impeachable offenses.
But you know what's really stupid? Signing on to a plan designed by your enemies to wreck the economy so that you will lose the election. going the unconstitutional route is risky, but preferable to the certainty of defeat.
biggerbox on July 27, 2011 11:14 AM:
Deck chairs. Titanic. Or maybe it's fiddling while Rome burns.
I can't believe how much effort, attention and anxiety is going into a "crisis" over what is essentially a bookkeeping detail. If only we could summon up so much creativity, focus, and negotiation to try and solve ACTUAL problems. (Last time I looked, we had quite a few.)
I guess I'm just glad that I'm old enough to have dim memories of the United States as a functioning country that had a vibrant economy, led the world in science and technology, and could put a man on the moon.
How did I end up living in this crumbling banana republic?
chi res on July 27, 2011 11:16 AM:
@gpowell
Proposing the President ignore the Constitution and blaming Democrats for the state of the economy... sounds like you belong at Erickson's place instead of Benen's.
June on July 27, 2011 11:19 AM:
Listening to the WH press briefing yesterday, I heard Jay Carney make it pretty clear that Pres. Obama and the WH lawyers do not consider invoking the 14th Amendment to be a legitimate legal manuever. So, I don't know where that leaves us with any viable third option.
g. powell on July 27, 2011 11:25 AM:
@chi res
I only blame the Democrats for the state of the economy only because they allow the GOP to box them in. The GOP would never allow the opposite.
The GOP has shown it is willing to destroy the entire economy in order to win the 2012 election. I suggest taking an "creative" approach to interpreting the Constitution is what is required here. This would not be the first time this happen in U.S. history, nor would it be the last. And the debt limit rule is really stupid. it should be scrapped.
Chris on July 27, 2011 11:34 AM:
If the debt-ceiling isn't raised and Obama does not invoke the Fourteenth Amendment, then Democrats should impeach him. (I say that sarcastically)
The LA Times captures a point that I've been making: "Mixed messages complicate White House debt strategy"
In my view, Obama should have stuck with his original request for a clean bill, and rather than framing his subsequent negotiations as an "opportunity" for a so-called Grand Bargain in which he cuts Medicare/Medicaid/SS benefits, he should have framed his talks as, essentially, a hostage negotiation in which he tries to mitigate the damage caused by Republican austerity demands on a fragile economy.
Now the Obama Administration truthfully pointed out that the President offered to cut the deficit by $4.7 trillion, and the GOP-led media is crying, "put it in writing". (You should have seen Chuck Todd on the liberal network this morning..."Obama won't give us his proposal in writing. Can he be believed?")
Again, Obama's performance throughout this process has been very, very disappointing for three reasons:
1) His mixed messages throughout the process have left the public confused about who the hostage takers are and who the victims are.
2) He offered to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits as part of his Grand Bargain. That, in and of itself is inexcusable, but again, it confuses the public (myself included) about whether Democrats can be depended upon to protect seniors and the most vulnerable.
3) Obama is advocating for austerity when he should be advocating for stimulus.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-debt-20110725,0,7092814.story
XNYer on July 27, 2011 11:36 AM:
I cannot believe that this president, or ANY president would allow 60-or-so radical idealogues to bring down the economy and create a totally avoidable recession. I hope & pray that the president will simply say "I will not allow this country to default on my watch", and then invoke the 14th Amendment.
from esintio
Perspecticus on July 27, 2011 11:57 AM:
I just listened to an entire hour of the Diane Rehm Show on this very topic and at no time did anyone mention the fact that, deals be damned, they can simply take the 5-minute vote and extend the debt ceiling. Essentially, the idea of a clean debt limit increase is no longer even on anyone's mind as an option to end this ridiculousness.
They did discuss the 14th amendment option that Bill Clinton and I like. However, on further thought, it appears that Congress is explicitly given enforcement over the 14th (Sec. 5) so I am not so ardent in my support for that option. Plus it appears Obama has again rejected this approach.
Finally, the woman from Brookings said it: "BOTH SIDES (tm) have refused to compromise." Surprisingly, there was what amounts to push-back among the media lately when the guest host asked for examples of Democrats refusing to compromise. The woman's response amounted to: "Well, in recent weeks Obama has shown a willingness to deal, but since he didn't accept Simpson-Bowles 100%, my point is valid." This, of course, received no follow-up or push-back.
On an unrelated note, my steering wheel now has a forehead sized warp in it for some reason I cannot quite recall at this time. Coincidentally, I have a massive headache. This has been your Diane Rehm Show report brought ot you by Perspecticus.
gdb on July 27, 2011 12:25 PM:
I agree with Galston at tnr and Krugman at the NYT on the statement of the problem-- which this crazy Progressive has framed in this way for over 6 months. I bet we disagree on the solution: Pray that BHO and the Repubs DON'T negotiate an economy-killer "compromise" solution that BHO gets enough members of the opposition party (the Dems) to help pass and sign their political death warrants.
Pray for a manufactured crisis now that has easier solutions than do Great Depressions --- and that give voters a chance to remove those responsible for this debacle: Repubs, some Blue-Dog-type Dems, and BHO (God knows and cares less what his political ideology actually is.)
CDW on July 27, 2011 12:42 PM:
IF the House passes boner's plan, and I think they will, they will not do it in time for the dems in the Senate to amend it. That's my bet.
The Senate will probably get the bill on Sunday or Monday so they either pass it as is, or amend it and get blamed for whatever happens the 2nd or 3rd.
gdb on July 27, 2011 12:45 PM:
One solution to the immediate debt-limit crisis (but not the underlying political and economic problem) is an agressive interpretation of the 14th amendment. In that regard, the words of Jefferson and Lincoln are relevant:
TJ (re Louisiana Purchase)
"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
AL: (re suspension of habeus corpus)
"Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
DisgustedWithItAll on July 27, 2011 12:57 PM:
@CDW: The NYT had a bit on there is probably a way the Treasury can continue paying bills for another week. Sure hope the date is really 8/9/11 and that the WH gamed it that way to plan for a situation like the Republicans waiting to time out so Dems would have to take their "solution."
Sinister eyebrow on July 27, 2011 12:59 PM:
How about just raising the debt ceiling as the backup plan? You know, the same way every Congress has done the last 70 times it was raised. Every Congress except this one, that is.
Holmes on July 27, 2011 1:04 PM:
@ Chris -- Agreed. Obama is wrongly adopting the framing that the immediate problem is the deficit, not massive unemployment, and using family budget belt tightening as a (false) analogy. Krugman posts over the last several weeks articulate this well.
And just in case anyone still doubts that Obama proposed raising the Medicare age, here are a couple of sources. Admittedly, no one in the White House has put this on the record, and in the ordinary course I'd prefer to wait and see. But this is not the ordinary course, as it looks like huge policy changes, many that hurt working people, are going to be jammed down our throat in crisis mode (aka the "Shock Doctrine"). We're only going to find out for certain what's in any deal at the very last moment, without much time to respond, and probably with a demand for an immediate up or down vote with the economy at dire risk.
Washington Post 7/24, Zachary Goldfarb
"Several features of the offer Obama made to Republicans struck Democrats as conceding a great amount of ground, including raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 over the long term and trimming Social Security benefits by making smaller yearly cost-of-living increases."
Huffington Post 7/11 Sam Stein
"In his press conference on Monday morning, President Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that he was willing to tackle some sacred cows as part of a larger package to raise the debt ceiling. Just how sacred, however, may surprise political observers.
According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues."
Ezra Klein, who seems plugged in to the White House, has a critique of Obama's proposal to raise the Medicare age to 67. Excerpt of his 7/26 post:
"Tyler Cowen says that when he hears President Obama is considering raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67, he does not infer that Obama is stupid, a poor negotiator, an idiot, or a sell-out to progressive principles. Instead, he infers that Obama believes Medicare will be difficult to reform, worries that his health-care law may not work and thinks the program will be easier to reform with fewer people in it.
As I mentioned this morning, I’m skeptical of explanations that rely on 11-dimensional chess. I would infer that this is exactly what it looks like: The White House’s political strategy right now is to show that they’re willing to make tough compromises and the other side isn’t. The problem is, how do you prove that you’re willing to make tough compromises? The Medicare eligibility age is, or was, the answer to that problem...."
chi res on July 27, 2011 1:48 PM:
gpowell: I only blame the Democrats for the state of the economy only because they allow the GOP to box them in. The GOP would never allow the opposite.
Yep, Republicans have always gotten everything they want. That's why we all have private social security accounts, I guess.
gpowell: I suggest taking an "creative" approach to interpreting the Constitution is what is required here. This would not be the first time this happen in U.S. history
You're absolutely right. GWB took many "creative" liberties with the Constitution after 9/11 and in his wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Thought I remembered a lot of yelling from these quarters about that, though.
Camus on July 27, 2011 1:57 PM:
While I'm clearly on Sanders side in this absurd fight--if his vote is needed to break a filibuster on the Reid plan he should be willing to help. There really isn't much in the Reid plan liberals should object to. The bulk of the cuts come from defense and ending the Iraq/Afganistan expenditures. While I would prefer a clean bill that doesn't seem to be likely at this point.
CDW on July 27, 2011 1:57 PM:
@disgusted
I hope it's the 9th, too. But there's the crying wolf problem in that case.
Zach W. on July 27, 2011 2:45 PM:
Here is a radical idea as an alternative to the Boehner and Reid plans... A CLEAN BILL! It's can be written in 20 minutes (probably less), and it actually leaves the country better off that it would be if all the spending cuts were enacted. I blame Obama for not pushing harder for a clean bill. That should have been plans A through Y.
MsJoanne on July 27, 2011 3:07 PM:
“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross.”
How to define the GOP in 16 words.
fddsrfwews on July 28, 2011 7:18 AM:
Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.
Let¡¯s Facelift bar!
====accept credit card
= = = = = { www.voguecatch¡£com }===
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
UGG BOOT $50
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Han bags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
= = =www.voguecatch¡£com =