Tag House Republicans Debt Ceiling

A Few Republicans Are Crazy But Consistent

Danny Vinik 1 Comment

When I read National Review reporter Jonathan Strong’s piece this morning that some House Republicans weren’t happy with their first offer to President Obama in return for raising the debt ceiling, I was shocked. The offer is basically everything House Republicans could ever want and they weren’t happy with it?! But as I’ve thought it over, it actually makes a bit of sense. From Strong’s article:

“It definitely has a lot of goodies in it – things that arguably would grow the economy and arguably would generate revenue. But still you have to address the spending problem,” said Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama.

“The reason that we have to raise the debt ceiling is because we have deficits. The reason that we have deficits is because we spend a whole lot more money than we bring in in revenue. And this debt-ceiling package does not fix the underlying cause of the problem, which are the deficits,” he added.

Other House Republicans expressed similar sentiments. This is actually consistent with what House Republicans have been screaming about for years: more spending cuts in return for raising the debt ceiling. Now, our deficits are falling fast and the long-term debt has decreased significantly so it’s absurd to be cutting spending more. But this makes more logical sense then the christmas tree list of demands in the Republicans first offer.

The ironic thing is (and always has been) that by having the U.S. risk default, it actually drives up our borrowing cost and increases our debt. If we were to breach the debt ceiling, it would likely increase our long-term interest payments by nearly a trillion dollars. So it makes absolutely no sense to use the debt ceiling as leverage to extract spending cuts or anything else from the president. It’s a crazy, irresponsible tactic. The debt ceiling should be forever abolished.

But at least some House Republicans haven’t lost sight of the fact that their original reason for using the debt ceiling as an extortion device was because of the long-term debt. Business Insider’s Josh Barro wrote today that all of this shows that “the pretense that debt limit fights are about the public debt is over.” For most Republicans, that is certainly the case. But Strong’s article demonstrates that there are some who are still sticking to that principle. They are reckless, rash and stupid for holding the debt ceiling hostage, but unlike the rest of their colleagues, they are also consistent.

Fiscal Cliff v2.0

Danny Vinik 1 Comment

Just a quick post with my thoughts on Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s announcement today that by mid-October the U.S. will only be able to make payments with the cash it as each day. In other words, we’re hitting the debt ceiling a couple of months early. Kevin Drum posits that this means negotiations over the budget are going to be lumped in with the debt ceiling:

If mid-October really is the drop-dead date, it means that budget negotiations in late September and debt ceiling negotiations in early October pretty much run right into each other. It’s Fiscal Cliff v2.0.

I don’t quite know what this does to John Boehner’s fragile attempts to keep the lunatic wing of his party under control. Nothing good, probably. I’m also not sure what it does to President Obama’s promise not to negotiate over the debt ceiling. If all of this stuff get munged together, then everyone’s going to get mighty hazy mighty fast about what exactly is being negotiated.

The budget negotiations and debt ceiling running into each other will hurt President Obama and Democrats on both those issues. Raising the debt ceiling should be a technicality that no American would consider holding hostage. We know that House Republicans don’t believe that though. We also know that most Americans don’t follow politics closely and asking them to differentiate between Obama’s willingness to negotiate over the budget, but refusal to do so over the debt ceiling is difficult. Most aren’t going to understand the difference. and will expect Democrats and Republicans to compromise since there are two issues.

If the two were separate, Democrats could bargain with Republicans over the budget and come to a deal (or a continuing resolution). Then, a few months later, they could refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling and explain to the public that this isn’t debatable. We don’t debate paying our bills. The two issues running into each other just muddies the water. That will allow Republicans to escape some blame on both topics and give the GOP more leverage in negotiations. It may even force the President to bargain over the debt ceiling (or do so subtly). Either way, Republican elites should be pleased with this outcome. It may make their party a bit harder to control during the process, as Drum points out, but the increased leverage they have over the President is a worthwhile tradeoff. As for Democrats, there’s nothing good about this at all. Get excited for Fiscal Cliff v2.0.