Category Archives: Current Events

24 Hours – Where’s Jack Bauer When You Need Him?

If it sounds familiar, it’s because it is. The House is now voting on a version of the Reid debt reduction proposal even though Reid doesn’t even have the votes to bring it to the floor in the Senate as yet.   Nonetheless, House Republicans want to make clear that the current Reid proposal has no chance of passing the House.  It’s too nice a day for me to watch the vote unfold, so let me tell you beforehand how it will turn out: Reid’s bill will go down to defeat,  particularly since it was taken up under special House procedures called “suspension of rules” that are normally utilized for non-controversial measures.  Under the suspended rules, there is limited time for debate – 20 minutes for each side – and there are no amendments allowed.  Passage requires 2/3 of the House – and that’s not going to happen in a Republican-dominated chamber.  So the Reid bill will fail on almost straight party line vote.

Meanwhile, back in the Senate, Reid is trying to drum up the requisite 60 votes to invoke cloture sometimes in the wee morning hours of Sunday – a first step in his own bid to bring a debt ceiling bill to vote.  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has other ideas, however, and has already informed Reid that he has 43 Republican Senators pledged to oppose the latest Reid plan, which would essentially give President Obama the power to raise the national debt limit in two separate stages of $1.2 trillion each.  This would be paired with $2.4 trillion cuts in spending over the next ten years.

With Boehner’s bill tabled in the Senate, and Reid’s bill not likely to even come to a vote, the stage is set for a deal that will almost certainly center in part on the preferences of the four Republican Senate moderates who didn’t sign McConnell’s letter: Alaska’s Murkowski, Maine’s Snowe and Collins, and Scott Brown who holds the Kennedy seat in Massachusetts.  At this stage I’m betting both sides will agree to a short-term extension of the debt ceiling past August 2 to let negotiations play out.

One interesting twist to the negotiations is McConnell’s demand that President Obama take a public seat at the negotiating table, rather than participating behind the scenes.  With his approval level at 40% – the lowest Gallup rating for his presidency – the debt dispute is clearly taking a toll politically not just  on Congress, but on Obama as well. The recent bad economic numbers aren’t helping either.  With this backdrop, McConnell wants to make sure that Obama cannot portray himself as the mediator in chief – the “adult” responsible for bringing the two feuding children to the table.  Instead, McConnell wants Obama to roll up his sleeves and join the food fight. Even some Democrats are apparently voicing private complaints that Obama has not been forceful enough in these negotiations.

The next 24 hours should be crucial.  If word begins to leak regarding the outlines of a compromise deal, I’ll come back online.  Meanwhile, where’s Jack Bauer when you need him?

 

How The Debt Impasse Will End

Big doings today that set the stage for the last minute compromise that I have been predicting for several weeks now. As expected, the House passed a revised version of Speaker Boehner’s bill by a 218-210 vote to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, but only after Boehner sweetened the pot to include language that a balanced budget amendment be passed by the House and Senate before a second increase in the debt would be allowed next year. Even with this provision, Boehner still lost 22 Republicans – most of them Tea Party caucus members and/or fiscal conservatives.  The measure received no support from Democrats in the House.

Shortly after House passage, the Senate – again as expected – moved quickly to table consideration of the House bill, 59-41, again on a largely party line vote. Six Republicans joined all the Senate Democrats in voting to table the House bill: Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), and David Vitter (La.).  One should not make the mistake of assuming that these Republicans will now support Reid’s version of the debt extension – they will not.  By tabling consideration of the House bill for now the Senate leaves open the possibility of taking it up later, but amending it by substituting a version of Reid’s bill which, if it passes the Senate, would then be sent to the House. The strategy here is to send the House a bill with almost no time left before the August 2 default deadline, leaving the House with two choices: sign on to the Senate  bill or be blamed for default.

Meanwhile, in a sign that Reid recognizes that his own debt limit bill in its current form lacks filibuster-proof support, the Majority Leader refused to take Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s suggestion to immediately move to a vote on Reid’s bill  (more precisely, a move to invoke cloture which would prevent a Republican filibuster).  Reid’s refusal indicates that – at this juncture – he does not have the 60 votes he needs to pass his debt extension.

None of this was surprising, but all of it was necessary in order to demonstrate to the ideological purists in both wings of the party – and their activist supporters – that the only way to resolve this debt crisis will require compromise. (Now if we can only drive a stake through the heart of this 14th amendment nonsense!) Neither side is going to win this debate, and neither side gains from a default.

So, how will the debt impasse be resolved?  First, one more round in the vote carousel needs to play out.  Reid will need to revise his bill in order to attract at least 7 Senate Republicans to reach the 60-vote filibuster proof total.  If Democrats can do that, they would then send the “bipartisan” proposal back to the House with very little time for Boehner to respond.  That would put pressure on the Republicans to either accept the Reid bill or potentially take the blame for inducing a national default after Aug. 2.

Anticipating this, Boehner will take up the current Reid bill tomorrow in expedited fashion – technically, under “suspension of rules”.  In essence, that means the final and only vote on Reid’s measure is to suspend normal House rules and to pass Reid’s bill – but by a 2/3 majority vote.  The vote is purely symbolic, but it does signal that even if Reid’s bill somehow passes the Senate in its current form, it is dead in the House.

So, what is the endgame?  It will likely end – for this round – like this.  Democrats’ primary concern is to prevent a two-step process- they are holding out for an extension of the debt ceiling that is high enough to take us beyond the 2012 election.  What can Republicans extract for agreeing to this?  I can think of two things: a straight vote on a balanced budget amendment and deeper spending cuts with no revenue offsets.  And that is almost surely how this current budget impasse will be resolved.  Although Obama has stated that he won’t agree to a short-term debt ceiling extension, he will almost certainly be willing to compromise on this point in order to give both sides another few days to finalize an agreement.  So, I expect Republicans to concede on the two-step process in return for getting steeper spending cuts and no revenue offsets, and an up-or-down vote on a balanced budget amendment. If they are close to an agreement of this type, Obama will surely agree to a short-term extension of the debt ceiling.

The fallback option – which I expect Tea Partiers in the House to reject – is a version of the McConnell plan to allow Obama to raise the debt limit subject to a 2/3 override vote in both chambers of Congress – a ceiling that would in effect give Obama a blank check.  Unless this is paired with significant concessions to the House Tea Partiers, such as a clean balanced budget vote, I don’t  see this going anywhere.

That’s how I see the endgame playing out.  Before we get there, however, both sides – egged on by party activists like Krugman and Limbaugh – will undoubtedly ratchet up the rhetoric.  That will surely dominate media coverage, but don’t be deceived – negotiations for a bipartisan compromise are ongoing and will result in a compromise that will prevent a debt default.

More in the morning, and keep those comments coming….

My Ox Was Gored, the Veto Threat and Other Developments

As Speaker Boehner and the Republican House leadership struggle this morning to lock down the votes needed to pass the Republican debt limit bill, there were a couple of other developments.

First, the President gave a brief statement this morning that essentially reiterated his belief in the necessity of a bipartisan compromise, and he once again urged people to write their congressman, noting that when he last made this pitch, the public response was overwhelming.  Again, however, it’s not clear to me that the people who are writing in are doing so in favor of bipartisan compromise; my guess is that the communications are coming mostly from issue activists on both sides of the political divide, telling their representatives to hold tight against the forces of evil.

What was more interesting is what Obama did not say: once again, he did not offer his own plan, nor did he promise a veto threat of the existing plans, despite previously releasing a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) noting that his adviser would recommend a veto.  As Peter Baumann reminds me, this is typical language when preparing a veto threat.  But there are exceptions – Obama was much more explicit in promising to veto the Republican Cut, Cap and Balance bill.  I think it’s significant that he has not yet gone that far with the Republican bill.  Of course,  his Press Secretary is arguing that the veto issue is moot, since the Republican bill will never pass the Senate.

As if lawmakers needed any more incentive to act to prevent a default, the second quarter economic report was not good, with growth the slowest since the recession “officially” ended.  This is not good news for Obama’s reelection prospects.

Finally, Tom Harkin joins the growing line of Democrats arguing that Obama would be justified in invoking the 14th amendment to end the debt impasse.

It is fascinating, and not totally unexpected, to hear Democrats who bitterly complained about George W. Bush asserting strong executive power to act in a national emergency now reversing field and urging Obama to emulate Bush, while Republicans have suddenly become the defenders of the Constitution.  It all about whose ox is gored.

At this point, depending on the whip count, Boehner is planning to bring the Republican bill to a vote today.  Meanwhile, the House Rules committee has issued a rule that will allow the House to vote on the Reid bill as well.  In the Senate, Reid has acknowledged that they can’t wait for the House to act to start deliberations, so they will begin debate today as well.

It is make or break time. More later today as developments come in.

And the House Vote Is…..!

Delayed, at least as of this writing (at 10:11 p.m.).  Evidently Boehner and Cantor are trotting the fence-sitting Republicans in to Boehner’s office  to make the case for supporting the leadership bill, but it is simply too close to risk bringing the bill to vote.  If the blog sources are correct, Boehner is not offering earmarks in return for support.  As a congressional aide emailed me, “You talk about the legislative coffers — a few years ago they’d just promise a bridge and we’d be all good to go. Now they don’t have any arrows in the persuasive quiver. What are they going to say, vote for this bill or we’ll KEEP funding that agriculture program in your district???”

So what is Boehner offering?  My guess it’s a combination of tweaks to the bill to include a stronger “trigger” so that in a two-step debt ceiling process, Congress is forced to make more spending cuts in the second round next year, as well as a clean up-or-down vote on a balanced budget amendment.  Remember, many of the fiscal conservatives and Tea Partiers want to be able to go back to their districts and show that they voted for the balanced budget amendment, particular since several conservative lobbying groups (Club for Growth) have noted that they will score this as a key vote when rating legislators’ voting record.  If you are going to take a hit on this vote, at least soften it somewhat with a second one to balance the voting record.  And while it  is true that most of the “no” or “leaning no” votes are in safe districts, some of them may be concerned about getting primaried from the right.

But I think Boehner is also making the argument that it is important, in a multi-step bargaining game, that Republicans stick together on this first vote in order to force the Democrats in the Senate to go on record in opposition.   Republicans will still get a second shot at more spending cuts when the inevitable counteroffer comes from the Senate.  In short, Boehner is saying, “Don’t let my speakership fall because of this vote.  Send a signal that we will stick together.”

Meanwhile, as I follow the debate, there’s a couple of interesting tidbits to report.  First, Nancy Pelosi is promising anyone who will listen that Democrats will not support the Republican House bill.  In truth, Pelosi is largely irrelevant to this debate in the House  – I’m pretty sure Boehner is not thinking at this stage that he needs to win Democrats to pass this bill.

It now appears that the bill is going to be tweaked in the Rules Committee.  If so, and if I remember my parliamentary procedure correctly, that means the Leadership will need a vote on the new Rule before taking up the bill.  That can be done on an expedited basis, but it’s another complication.  This is looking like a late night.

I think I’ll stay with this post until my scotch runs out (Hint: it has never run out).   If you are following this, comments are welcome……

10:37 p.m.  Well, that was quick.  No sooner do  I  open the scotch bottle than multiple sources report Boehner has pulled the plug for tonight, so that the Rules Committee can tweak the bill and presumably issue a new rule prior to the vote tomorrow.  If that’s the case,  we’ll have to do this all over again tomorrw.   I’ll try to set the table in the morning.  See  you then….

Is Obama Planning to Invoke the 14th Amendment to End the Debt Crisis?

           In an earlier post that received not a little attention, I made the case for why arguments that  Obama should invoke the 14th amendment to settle the debt impasse were not just constitutionally dubious – they were politically stupid, not least for Obama.  As the default deadline looms larger, however, the crazy talk won’t die. House Democrat James Clyburn  is the latest public figure to make the case for invoking the 14th amendment.  As the pressure to do something to settle the impasse intensifies, will Obama take the plunge?

In this guest post  cross-listed at his EducationNext website, Harvard political science Professor Paul Peterson explains why he just might:

How Obama will End the Debt Crisis on his Own Hook: The NCLB Precedent

            If the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) stalemate provides a precedent, President Obama will use an executive order to raise the debt limit, invoking the 14th Amendment as his constitutional bedrock. Though never done before, that action will, in an instant, give him the “Clean Bill” he requested from Congress—an increase in the debt limit through election day, with no cuts in spending, no nothing.

Here is the relevant clause from the 14th Amendment: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.

            The language is ambiguous. The context for these words  refer to the immediate Civil War situation, as the amendment makes clear that the United States refuses to honor the debts of the seceding states  insists that its own debts are inviolable.  But the amendment’s language is broad enough that a president could claim those words give him authority to raise a debt ceiling by executive action. It might take the courts years to say he was wrong.

The New York Times, whose articles often reflect Obama Administration thinking, has run at least two stories suggesting that the 14th Amendment allows the president to raise the debt ceiling on his own. Already, at least one Democratic member of Congress has insisted that the president should take such action. And it should be noted, above all, that Bill Clinton has told reporters that there is no doubt in his mind that he would have invoked 14th Amendment authority had he faced this situation.

            Obama already had shown he is more than willing to use executive power when faced with opposition on Capitol Hill.  With presidential backing, Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, has announced that states can get a waiver from NCLB requirements should they agree to  Obama Administration’s Race to the Top guidelines.  Substituting presidential preferences for explicit laws passed by Congress is an extraordinary invocation of executive power, but Duncan says it is necessary to take such actions because of the legislative stalemate.  Well, that NCLB stalemates is small potatoes compared to the debt crisis agonizing the nation today.

So if President Obama is willing to gut NCLB on his own hook, there is no reason to think that he will hold back once the debt crisis reaches its 11:59th hour.  Indeed, a plan to invoke such authority is a likely explanation of presidential actions thus far.

            So far the president has made no explicit publicly presented proposals to resolve the crisis other than calling for a “Clean Bill,”—that is, no spending cuts whatsoever—which is exactly what the executive order would achieve. At one point Obama and Speaker Boehner were alleged to have come close to a “grand bargain,” but at the last minute the president killed that supposed deal by demanding a 50 percent increase in tax revenues, an extraordinary last-minute demand that implied the president did not take the negotiations seriously. Most certainly, they brought the negotiations to an end, as Boehner no longer trusted his negotiating partner.

As strange as that perverse presidential action was, it is understandable—even predictable, if he–from the very beginning–sought a crisis that would force executive action to save the nation from bankrupty.

Nor have the president’s Democratic allies in the United States Senate shown any desire to bring the crisis to an end.  From Harry Reid, there is talk of possible legislation, but, as of now, no bill has yet been brought to the floor for action. Is this because Reid has been unable to get the super majority he needs, or is it part of the plan to create the crisis requiring the invocation of the 14th Amendment?

Assume Speaker Boehner in the House of Representatives manages to rein in the Tea Party and gets his bill through the House.  Assume the Democrats in the Senate refuse to agree to the House legislation and are unable to pass any legislation on their own. At that point, if the president wanted to solve the problem through legislative action could publicly ask the Senate Democrats to reach a compromise with Boehner.  He would very likely succeed, as their future is tied to his.

But perhaps the president wants a stalemate, so he can invoke his executive authority. At that point he says nothing other than to blame the Republicans for the crisis. Then, if the Senate does not act, the president can say he is left with no choice but to invoke the ambiguous language in the 14th Amendment.  He can issue an executive order raising  the debt ceiling—despite the fact that no president previously has ever dared to do just that.

            There is a risk.  The public could become outraged at such a usurpation of legislative power.  Certainly, the Republicans will say that he has become a modern-day Caesar, seizing the powers of the legislative branch for his own purposes.  But the president, whose poll numbers currently are falling, may gamble on the fact that such an exercise of presidential authority could solidify his image as a strong president.

            There is nothing in Obama’s presidential history that suggests that he is unwilling to make such a gamble.  Remember stimulus, remember Obamacare, remember the election of 2010.  In each and every case, Obama went “all in.”  He is not a compromiser; he plays his hand carefully but he is not afraid of trying to run the table.

            I am not saying this will happen. But if Obama’s handling of the NCLB stalemate provides any precedent, then debt limit lifting by executive action is as likely as any other outcome the prognosticators are forecasting.