The debt-ceiling debate
McConnell's retreat
THERE'S not all that much to say about Mitch McConnell's plan to end the impasse over the debt ceiling, because there's not a whole lot to it. The plan would require President Obama to submit three requests for raising the debt ceiling over the next year. Each request would have to be accompanied by a menu of spending cuts at least equal to the amount of the debt-ceiling increase. But Congress would vote separately on the debt limit, and even if they rejected the increase, via a "resolution of disapproval", Mr Obama could simply veto the resolution and the debt limit would go up. As Kevin Drum says, "The whole thing is so patently, ridiculously political that it's breathtaking."
The idea, from a Republican perspective, is to saddle the president with full responsibility for the unpopular move of raising the debt limit and back away from fomenting a new economic crisis (always a smart move). It was likely that the debt ceiling would be raised, but under Mr McConnell's plan Republicans would be able to avoid casting an embarrassing vote to that effect. They could then vote against increasing the ceiling with the comfort of knowing it will rise anyway. In addition, they would get some politically-useful press releases out of it as the elections approach and Mr Obama is forced to ask for a higher allowance. Yet it's hard to see this as anything but a retreat. As former Senator Phil Gramm is purported to have said, you should never take a hostage you're not prepared to shoot. Under the McConnell plan, the Republicans will not only let the hostage go, they will have won no concessions in return. And, as Jonathan Chaitpoints out, the president is actually getting a pretty good deal:
It appeared that Obama blundered into a hostage crisis he didn't need, and then wound up offering Republicans an absurdly generous deal, trading away major entitlement cuts in return for a pittance of revenue -- no higher than what will be raised if the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule.
So those were the options as of last week: A massive policy giveaway that won Obama some centrist credibility at immense substantive cost, or else let the economy get killed. Instead, Obama has reestablished credibility on the deficit at zero substantive cost. (He can always cut a deal without a gun to the economy's head.) Either the administration is run by pure political geniuses, or they're the luckiest sons of guns who ever lived.
Predictably a number of conservatives have lashed out at the plan, largely agreeing with Mr Drum as it were. Erick Erickson at Red State has compared Mr McConnell to Pontius Pilate, while a Republican Senate aide called the plan "a full surrender, white flag approach." Our favourite presidential candidate tweeted, "McConnell's plan is an irresponsible surrender to big government, big deficits and continued overspending." But the Wall Street Journal has come out in favour, as has Grover Norquist (sort of). John Boehner seems to almost be on board, while Eric Cantor has gone silent for the first time in weeks. Still, it's unclear whether the plan has enough votes to pass.
Personally, I like the plan, if only because it ends a cynical political game that never should have been started. One hopes it will prove the futility of using the debt ceiling as a tool to bludgeon your political opponents into submission. If the reward for holding the economy hostage is merely blatant political bum-covering and posturing potential, then perhaps hostage taking on this scale will become less appealing in the future and battles over the budget will be mounted when the budget is actually being debated.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/debt-ceiling-debate-0&fsrc=nwl
No comments:
Post a Comment