JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 29, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are trying to strike a debt ceiling compromise:
But as long as Boehner struggles with his own members, the balance of power will shift back to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has been negotiating with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“There is no question who would own a default after this episode, and that weakens the speaker’s position,” said a Senate Democratic leadership aide. “Reid now has [the] upper hand in pushing ahead with his Senate plan — possibly with a couple tweaks to get McConnell on board, but nothing that compromises our bottom line. Boehner, in turn, has little choice but to acquiesce to relying on Democrats to pass a bipartisan Senate plan through the House.”
Reid announced Friday that he will move forward with his proposal, which calls for just one vote to raise the debt limit, about $2.2 trillion in spending cuts and savings, and the creation of a special legislative committee to recommend a broader deficit-reduction package.
Reid invited McConnell to craft a deal.
To win Republican support, Democrats are considering adding stronger trigger mechanisms to move forward the joint committee’s recommendations. If the committee cannot reach agreement, one fail-safe under discussion could be directing Congress to cast an up-or-down vote on the Senate Gang of Six proposal, a $3.7 trillion package, according to Democratic officials.
The really weird thing about this negotiation is that Reid's bill is to the right of McConnell's. McConnell does require two extra votes to embarrass the Democrats. But Reid's plan requires $2.5 trillion worth of spending cuts, only half of which are the Afghanistan drawdown. Theoretically, Reid could "compromise" with McConnell by reducing his spending cuts in half.
I don't expect that. Both Reid and McConnell have signaled a willingness to accept a broad range of outcomes that ends the debt ceiling crisis. They're going to try to craft something that can pass the House and avoid deposing John Boehner. Still, I would like to see Reid propose a compromise plan that consists of accepting McConnell's proposal in toto.
10 comments
Everyone's moved so far to the Right, no one even knows what's Right anymore or even just what's right. The Democrats should hang their head in shame for their, at best, criminal incompetence.
- IggyPop
July 29, 2011 at 3:14pm
right on Iggy pop. They all need be replaced asap_ All Repubs, Blue-Dog-Dems, and BHO. The only way to do so is to have Progressive challengers strongly espousing solutions supported by FDR,LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Nixon, Truman-- hell, even Dewey!! The only way to have any hope of such a result is for the debt crisis talks to fail--and voters to blame those responsible: It starts with the Repubs, but is enabled by BHO and Blue-Dog-Dems. And that ain't gonna stop... no matter how much Blue-Dog Obamaphiles like libref and others wish it to be.
- drofnats1
July 29, 2011 at 3:27pm
Why doesn't Reid draft something with revenue increases in it? Is it really going to get filibustered? And voted down by the Democrats +24 Republicans?
- subterran
July 29, 2011 at 3:32pm
No, that's not going to happen. What we need is immediate re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine, so that Fox News will have to have some balance on their show and can't continue the unrelenting drumbeat of Conservative propaganda. I mean, I know Fox News runs the propaganda to produce a balance -- but it all needs to be on the same show. As long as Obama, as long as anyone, is saying "the problem is Congress", then the correct solution "vote out the Tea-Party" will not be obvious.
- AllanL5
July 29, 2011 at 3:39pm
I'm with iggy on his Right vs. right analysis. I am not sure whether the Democrats are doing something wrong now. The time to have done something was long ago when the media kept asking the Republicans, "How are you going balance the budget without raising taxes? Can it possibly be done?" The Democrats should have built on that before we got the: "We have a spending problem not a taxing problem," after that we got to where we are now.
- Nusholtz
July 29, 2011 at 3:47pm
The ever-amusing dro is a Platonist par excellence. Left and right are immutable categories to him. One never lacks for laughs arriving at this circus. Though the right takes the cake for nutters, what with their epistemic closure and all, the left makes a good run at it. Ten years ago. in 2001, federal outlays were somewhat over $1.8 trillion. This year, 2011, they will exceed $3.8 trillion. Only in nutland could you believe that our politics have run off the rails on the starboard side. This is the left form of epistemic closure.
- liberalref
July 29, 2011 at 4:00pm
All cuts, no pony (as in pony up with more taxes). Chait's been right about this for several weeks. Agree to cuts to get through 2012 and the leverage shifts to the Democrats (who will have control over the Bush tax cuts). It's so obvious that even Harry Reid can see it. Well, maybe not Harry, but somebody besides Chait.
- rayward
July 29, 2011 at 4:07pm
All cuts, no pony (as in pony up with more taxes). Chait's been right about this for several weeks. Agree to cuts to get through 2012 and the leverage shifts to the Democrats (who will have control over the Bush tax cuts). I agree with this, but my concern is that theoretical leverage on tax cuts will not translate into a favorable outcome. If Obama wins re-election, he will likely want to cut some kind of deal on the tax cuts to preserve them for those making less than $250K. If he loses re-election (which seems likely at this point), President Romney and the Republican Congress will just pass them anew after they expire. They can use reconciliation as they did last time.
- RerunStubs
July 29, 2011 at 5:10pm
I normally don't like paying attention to liberalref, but I also don't like invalid numbers being passed as fact. Use properly adjusted numbers, and you see that spending has gone from $2.6 trillion to $3.6 trillion: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/AppropsTable.jpg That's still a 38% increase, but it's nothing like the 110% increase liberalref's numbers suggest. And of course, the cause of the change makes all the difference in the world, too, but I'll leave that argument to others.
- nr124831
July 29, 2011 at 5:20pm
Since you have done the heavy lifting, nr124831, in calling to our attention the ignorance of our resident economics dunce, let me take the baton and fill in the blanks you left. The causes of the spending increases are almost entirely: 1. Bush's war/defense/security increases. 2. Exploding medical costs generally. 3. Anti-recessionary spending in response to the Bush economic meltdown. 4. The entirely predicted and predictable demographic effects of baby-boomer retirements starting. Does any of this have to do with the left? Is the left the cause or even the advocate of any of it? Of course not. Proving that our resident economic dunce is just as ignorant of everything else as he is of economics.
- roidubouloi
July 29, 2011 at 11:24pm