GOP Plan Would Address Debt Ceiling, But Keep Government Shutdown Going
Republicans appear to be uniting behind a short-term plan to deal with the debt ceiling, but seem okay with keeping the government shutdown going forward.
House Republicans appear to be uniting behind a new proposal that would offer a short-term, relatively “clean” increase in the debt ceiling as a means of buying time for opposing parties on Capitol Hill and at the White House to attempt to come to terms on a longer term fiscal deal:
The partisan logjam that has paralyzed the capital showed signs of easing Wednesday, as conservative Republicans warmed to the idea of a short-term increase in the country’s borrowing limit and House GOP leaders prepared for their first meeting with President Barack Obama since the government shutdown began.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, outlined a plan Wednesday to fellow conservatives to extend the nation’s borrowing limit for four to six weeks, paired with a framework for broader deficit-reduction talks, according to lawmakers briefed on the proposal. The greater the spending reduction the talks produced, the longer the next extension of the debt ceiling would be under Mr. Ryan’s plan.
Top House Republicans prepared to head to the White House Thursday to discuss the issues underlying the standoff that has resulted in the nine-day partial government shutdown and that now threatens the country’s ability to borrow.
The White House said the session isn’t a negotiation, in keeping with Mr. Obama’s demand that lawmakers raise the debt ceiling and fully reopen the government without conditions before policy talks are held. But the meeting may allow House Republicans to say they had a policy conversation with the president, which they have been saying is a condition of resolving the impasse.
Mr. Ryan’s proposal for a short-term debt-limit increase drew broad support from conservatives at the Capitol Hill meeting, according to lawmakers who attended. Republicans leaving the closed-door session expressed support for a short-term measure even if it doesn’t address the 2010 health-care law. Conservatives’ efforts to curtail the law sparked the shutdown.
“It may make more sense to avoid back-to-back financial crises,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), referring to the government shutdown and debt-ceiling deadline. “We may need some extra time to pull the right package together.”
There are similar reports of such a proposed deal coming this morning From The New York Times, National Journal, and The Washington Post. There are two things that are notable about these reports. First, much like Paul Ryan’s proposal, which I wrote about yesterday, it completely ignores the Obamacare issue that had set off the events we’ve been dealing with for the past three weeks or so. Indeed, Erick Erickson reported that his sources are saying that the House GOP Leadership is essentially giving up on that fight for now. Second, it appears from all reports that the plan that the GOP is looking at right now, which obviously won’t be presented either privately to Democrats or publicly unless it ends up getting endorsed by the GOP Caucus later this morning, only deals with the debt ceiling and would basically leave the government shutdown going forward as if it were an issue that would have to be discussed either separately or as a part of the longer term negotiations that this reported plan contemplates. This last point is important because, while the White House has hinted over the past 24 hours that the President would be willing to sign on to a short-term increase in the debt ceiling as long as it was “clean, it’s unclear how they’d react to a plan that focused only on the debt ceiling and allowed the government shutdown going.
Assuming Boehner and the House GOP Leadership get sufficient backing from the caucus in their meeting today, this is presumably something that will be presented to President Obama during their meeting with him late this afternoon. Originally, the White House had invited all 232 Republican Congressmen to attend this meeting, but Speaker Boehner apparently decided that only the leadership and the heads of the relevant committees (i.e., Budget and Appropriations) would be attending. While some in the media have interpreted this is some kind of a snub of the President, or an effort to control the debate, I actually think its kind of wise. To the extent that such a meeting is going to accomplish anything productive, it does no good for people like Louie Gohmert, Steve King, and Michele Bachmann, all of whom have expressed nothing but contempt for the President, to attend. If anything productive is going to come out of this today, it’s best to leave it in the hands of the adults.
As is always true with this matter, the devil is in the details. However, taken in context with yesterday’s Ryan Op-Ed, it’s clear that the GOP is doing the best it can at this point to get shake off the “defund Obamacare” albatross that Ted Cruz hung around them when this whole mess started. What’s unclear to me, though, is whether even a short term deal can happen if it doesn’t also include something to deal with the government shutdown.
The Republicans are damaging themselves with a plan of the day, and a leader of the day.
And this:
Does not look terribly attractive as a “negotiation.”
Four to six weeks of steady as she goes, during which sensible compromise may emerge?
Pull the other one.
The extortionists seem to be negotiating with themselves.
A sure sign of weakness.
So, all the essential workers currently on the job without being paid will continue to not be paid. Meanwhile, we get to go through this circus again right around Thanksgiving?
It might be the only way to get the ball rolling, but boy is this ugly.
4 to 6 weeks? Seriously?
“Ok, ok, ok. We agree to hold off shooting the hostage for a month or so.”
I see what they’re trying to do, obviously. The debt ceiling issue is much more objectionable than the government shutdown (though I object to both).
Also, note that the purported objective is deficit reduction talks, with no mention of what the Democrats might get. In his op-ed, he at least floated the possibility of increased spending today in exchange for cuts tomorrow (which is something the Dems might accept). I don’t see that here. If the Republicans are actually serious about negotiation, they have to be willing to accept something the Dems want… beyond just having the government open and not defaulting (for now!). I’ve been supportive of the
Great White WhaleGrand Bargain idea in the past, and I’m not exactly opposed now, but I don’t see how it can work without a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Can anyone in the GOP – Boehner, Ryan, whoever… commit to a deal that includes more revenue?As they should. That fight was never winnable anyway.
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” Sun Tzu wrote that over two thousand years ago.
A surprisingly good call from the Speaker.
It’s actually comical at this point. No Obamacare? White House meetings, despite all the “Obama won’t negotiate” spin. A deal on the debt limit? You gotta hand it to the GOP.
They can be nothing but a bucket of fail but you’ll never see them admit they got “shellacked.”
I’m a little confused…this started out to be about denying sick people health care. The whole Ted Cruz 21 hour Phony-buster and all that.
Now it’s about something else?
WTF?
Do the Republitards even know what it is they want?
And Ryan is now the leader? Ryan has put an end to every negotiated deal so far…Simpson Bowles, the Gang of 6, the Grand Bargain. He’s the one who has stopped them all. Now he’s ready to deal? And anyone should believe that, why?
I know Doug takes Republicans at their word by blind faith…but rational people shouldn’t.
@Jen:
Remember, the real absurdity is that furloughed workers will be paid later, for work that they aren’t doing now.
So let’s “shut down” and “save money” by paying anyway and getting nothing.
(I suppose some things like overtime not worked will never be paid, or national guard exercises not run.)
I think some of the GOP struggle to master the narrative stems from the fact that they’ve been doing this since (arguably) Reagan or (inarguably) Clinton; and the novelty is long gone. They’ve jumped the shark.
Along with this: they’ve lost their lead stars, and their replacements aren’t cutting it – particularly because the average citizen isn’t “getting ahead” like they were in the ’90s. It’s a bit like doing schtick from the late 1920s in a 1934 environment.
Another “no compromise” compromise.
They want to keep this show going for soundbites and photo-ops.
Every day this story is turning more and more into “The Ransom of Red Chief.” Give it another two weeks and the Republicans will be paying us to turn the government back on…..
The Plum Line:
Sargent seems pleased that default is off the table, but tired of the fact that it is “always on the table” for Republicans.
As C. Calvin says, negotiating with themselves:
@john personna: True, and good point. I will admit I do feel the worst for those deemed essential, who are working and not getting paid now. Showing up for work every day and yet not having the money to pay the rent or mortgage based on an IOU that who knows when is coming–would not leave me in a very good mood at all.
The whole thing is just so appalling.
Mike Lee’s numbers are taking a pounding in Utah
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-obamacare-defunding-leader-mike-lee-sees-his-popularity-dip-sharply-at-home
It’s amazing in a way. Not too long ago – a month, two? Mike Lee put out what appeared to be a non-crazy tax reform idea (though it was, as is often the case, a little short on some important details). But on the ACA he’s full metal wingnut.
So now they finally admit it. This is a GOP/Tea Party shutdown after all.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/08/gyms-for-congress-deemed-‘essential’-remain-open-during-shutdown/
Raising the debt ceiling is the right thing to do, although the short 6 week extension indicates to me that the GOP are petulant whiners and may retake the hostage if they don’t get what they want.
@David M:
Of course. The whole thing is farcical. The Dems may have to go along so as not to be seen as unreasonable, because most people either don’t know the background (the past ~7 months of ratf*ckery) or are consumers of alternative reality media.
In six weeks, we’re probably going to be right back here.
The question is this: Will the President take this as the start of some kind of negotiation? I don’t think he should take the bait. However, if he does, then he needs to set the initial position as far away as possible form the Republicans. Such as: eliminate the debt ceiling, immediate reopening of the government, etc. He said he would never negotiate over the debt ceiling again. He needs to keep that position.
Bottom line: What are the Republicans offering? As it stands now, nothing.
Have I not been saying from Day 1 that this was not about Obamacare? It’s not about any policy. It’s not about the budget at all.
It’s a cry of pure rage, fear, frustration and hate. That’s all it ever was.
Now the GOP has to beg Obama for some tiny little face-saving something, anything. Anything that will allow them to pretend they’ve accomplished something with their imbecility.
The Teahadist running against Cory Booker seems to have drunk some of the Unskewed coolaid: Lordy Lordy me….
We may be giving the GOP more credit than they deserve, as there are reports indicating the GOP hasn’t decided what other provisions to attach to the increase and their proposal may prohibit the treasury from taking extraordinary measures to avoid the debt ceiling as well.
If those two reports are true, then this proposal is meaningless.
@grumpy realist:
“Teahadist” was a harsh construction, but it seems very apropos this week.
@ Grumpy…
So…what does mean when he loses to Booker????
@C. Clavin: Obviously We Wuz Robbed!/Vote Fraud/ACORN/conspiracy of international communists, etc.
These nitwits are sounding more and more like the President of Venezuela, who is now wildly throwing out all sorts of conspiracy theories to distract Venezuelans from the fact that their economy is falling like a rock and that he’s an absolutely absymal leader.
It would be fun, if it weren’t for the whole economy in the wringer thing.
If Boehner screws this up, there will probably be a 500-700 point swing in the DJIA. That might get people’s attention.
@ JP…
Sullivan wonders if this is
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/10/kicking-catastrophe-down-the-road/
@john personna:
Sure, because when your party fails to accomplish the impossible it’s a good idea to start a new party demanding the impossible.
Current GOP ploy:
“Don’t like the terms of the previous ransom note? Here’s a new one.” That’s what counts as “negotiation” by the GOP.
IMO, a lot of this has been encouraged by Obama’s poor negotiating tactics. He has always posed as the “adult in the room”, always willing to “lead” by offering unilateral concessions upfront and eager to compromise at the slightest sign that the GOP is willing to moderate its demands. Now Beltway pundits love this and always praise the President for exercising “leadership” when he does this, but this rewards Republican intransigence. Republicans have been used to the President caving at the first sign of Republican orneriness , so now they don’t believe the President when he says he won’t negotiate. Indeed, why should they? He’s always caved in the past.
IMO, it was a mistake for Obama to even hint he would agree to a short term hike. Note that instantly the idea of a long term CR deal is gone. It’s just taken for granted by the press and the Republicans that the negotiation is now only about a short term CR.
I would suggest that the President after a couple of days, just say that the offer of signing a short term CR, which was meant to prompt the Republicans into actually negotiating, is now withdrawn. The President should go on to say that he is not participating in any further negotiations and that he is leaving further negotiations in the capable hands of the Democratic Congressional leaders, as envisaged by the Constitution. Frankly, as a liberal, I trust Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as negotiators in this situation much more than I do Obama. If there is going to be a knifefight, then you need a knifefighter in there , not a “responsible adult”.
The insanity of this, considering how long even regular order budget negotiations typically take (w/ the added duration of previous “Grand Bargain” panel negotiations) is this would essentially be the GOP saying, for no reason beside leverage, that they’re totally OK with precipitating what will likely be the longest government shutdown in history. The media has humored the Republicans with their bleating out evidence free conspiracy theories about the pain they’ve ordered being carried too far in a few places they’ve hypocritically decided to care about, but that same media is now so sanguine about the concept of that hardship extended a month, that they’re celebrating this plan as some wondrous “breakthrough.”
@stonetools:
You know, I get upset sometimes about Obama’s negotation tactics. I really do. But…
He’s operating under some constraints:
1) The public is a mixture of uninformed and misinformed, and even when he gives a tour de force press conference explaining things (like he did recently re: the debt ceiling), it doesn’t have much impact. The Bully Pulpit really is of limited utility;
2) The media is still largely addicted to “both sides do it” reporting;
3) He’s black and the FIRST so he’s gotta be extra careful (or at least I think he believes this to be the case); and
4) POTUS is expected – not just by dummy pundits, but by many in the public – to be the “responsible adult” whereas congresscritters are allowed to be bomb-throwers.
So yeah, I too worry about too many concessions. I always do. I’d worry about it with Reid too, really. Or any Democrat. My fear is lessening somewhat, as it really does appear that the Dems have rediscovered their spines. But the fear is always there somewhere.
I don’t think O can say what you want him to say. There will be far too much crying about him punting to Congress (yes, I know, I know, but that’s the narrative that will come out). Remember when he stepped back from the PPACA design? Oy.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/washington-inside-out/congress-must-stop-using-default-as-a-weapon-20131009?mrefid=HomepageRiver
…
I do like the idea of taking the debt ceiling off the table in perpetuity (or nearly so) – a lot. There are two problems I have with this:
1) This involves the Democrats giving concessions to get something both parties should theoretically want – and end to playing around with fire. So it’s still a bit of the adult placating the toddler with candy. That said, the suggested concessions are minor, which leads me to…
2) I think Mr. Ornstein’s suggested concessions would be viewed by Republicans as not *nearly* enough to surrender the hostage forever. The response would be “give us more” and now we’re – guess what! – negotiating over the debt ceiling.
So, in the end, no. Bad idea. I did like the opening venting though.
@Rob in CT:
Bring back the Gephart Rule at a minimum, although abolishing the limit would be better.
@David M:
How incredibly obvious (and arguably superior to just handing it over to the President). When did this die?
Oh, yes…
@Rob in CT:
Not Pelosi. The Republicans hate her for good reason. What ever else one may say about her, she knows how to twist the knife once she has found a vital organ.
If the House passes a clean bill raising the debt ceiling for six weeks, I think the Senate should pass it and the President should sign it.
I do not think the House Democrats should help the GOP pass the bill if it’s only for six weeks though. Long term, sure, but a six week extension isn’t worth it.
@David M:
I agree six weeks is absurd, but the Dems do have to be careful about maintaining the high ground (as viewed by a largely uninformed/misinformed public).
@john personna:
This is something you won’t hear me say often, but I really wish that Erick Erirckson ends up being right, and there really is true effort to form a Tea Party. Hell, I’d consider regsitering as a Republican if all the Conservatives had a place to call their own. I think that letting/forcing these radicals to split off would be good for the Republican party, and great for the country.
@Rob in CT:
I don’t disagree. The House Democrats shouldn’t kill the six week extension, but they shouldn’t provide the majority of the votes for a GOP bill either. If the GOP wants a mickey mouse extension, they need to be the ones to provide the votes.
I’m not entirely sure a six week extension is improvement over the current impasse.
@Todd:
Great for the country, terrible for the GOP at least in the short-term. Unless/until the Democrats also split, it would lead to landslide Dem wins. Which I’d like, at least at first.
@David M:
I’d worry, at least a little, about the “optics” of House Dems voting aganist a debt limit extension (yes, 6 weeks is absurd. But then they’d have to explain it, as GOPers brayed about how they were doing the responsible thing). Plus, if an extension passed via bipartisan vote, with a faction of the GOP against, you might see intensification of the GOP infighting. Bonus!
@Rob in CT:
Not necessarily even voting against the bill, just making sure that it’s passed with GOP votes. Passing a six week extension with primarily Democratic votes shouldn’t be an option.
Dragging the GOP back to reality isn’t nothing. Besides, if Boehner has to provide a lot of GOP votes, maybe they’ll see how having to do it again in 6 weeks is pointless and go for a longer one.
@john personna:
Yes, they could call themselves the “Death Panel Party” or, if they run into copyright issues, the “Stupid Party.”
@Rob in CT: I’m not so sure, in the very short term it would definitely be a boon for the Democrats. But I think there are a lot of people (like me) who really don’t feel like they have a party that represents them well. Right now I tend to support the Democrats more often than not, but that has much more to do with them not being temper tantrum throwing 3 years olds, than their policies necessarily aligning with my own views.
Without the radical absolutists, I think there really is a void in our country’s politics that a truly centrist, or even right-center Republican party could fill.
@Rob in CT:
Isn’t there an option where a member can just vote “present?” I think the Dems did this last year in an attempt to have the house pass (and own) a draconian Paul Ryan spending plan.
EDIT: Ah, here it is. Thanks, Google:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/in-surprise-move-house-democrats-vote-present-on-conservative-budget-forcing-republicans-hand/2011/04/15/AFAgKbjD_blog.html
Anybody seen the WSJ/NBC poll yet? This dog is clearly NOT going to hunt, if the poll is any indication. It’s brutal.
Here’s Daniel Larison’s take on it, from TAC.