So it’s official: The Senate has canceled a scheduled recess for the July 4th holiday, and will return to work next Tuesday in an effort to kick-start stalled negotiations over the debt limit. “We have important work to do,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) told reporters Thursday. “We have to be here.”
Reid and Senate Democratic leaders held a press conference to lay out the agenda for next week. The majority leader said he planned to hold “a series of meetings” with the entire Democratic caucus. On Wednesday, Democrats plan to meet with President Obama, he said, and would meet with the White House economic team on Thursday.
Sometime next week, Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) will introduce a budget resolution that has been approved by every Democrat on the committee. Conrad told reporters he intends to brief the entire caucus on Tuesday night, but likely wouldn’t make his proposal public until Wednesday or Thursday. Either way, he does not intend to bring the resolution before the committee, and said he was unsure how the debate would play out next week.
The biggest obstacle to a deal, Reid argued, was the Republicans’ “stubborn instance on protecting taxpayer-funded giveaways to corporations and individuals who don’t need the giveaways.” Significant tax increases must be on the table if Democrats are going sign off on a deal. “If we can’t bring revenue to the table, we’re not going to have a serious conversation,” said Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.).
Reid continued to attack Republicans for “protecting” tax credits to owners of corporate jets, even though they account for a laughably trivial amount in the context of the federal budget (about $3 billion over 10 years). “We Democrats know that we have to do a job of working toward a balanced budget, we have to reduce our deficit,” he said. “We know that, but we need some help [from rich people].”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said it was “really important” that GOP leaders announce publicly that taxes are on the table, and pointed to statements from several Republican Senators — Cornyn, Johnson, and Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), for example — which seem to indicate a willingness to consider getting rid of certain tax credits as part of a deal. He said McConnell’s “rigid position” on taxes was not in line with the rest of his caucus.
“It seems Senator McConnell has ventured out on a limb and many in his own caucus are sawing it off,” Schumer said. “It seems like Leader McConnell is willing to tank the economy for the sake of protecting tax breaks for oil companies, yachts, corporate jets.” Reid later suggested that he would hold test votes on specific tax credits in an effort to embarrass Republicans.
Meanwhile, GOP senators spent the day attacking President Obama for his “astounding lack of leadership,” in the words of Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas). “I think the president has diminished that office and himself by giving the kind of campaign speeches that he gave yesterday,” Cornyn said in reference to the president’s Wednesday press conference, where he blamed Congress for failing to reach an agreement, and angrily chastised lawmakers for acting like a bunch of teenage girls. “Maybe if he would just take a Valium and calm down and come down and talk to us it might be helpful,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R., Kan.) told reporters at a press conference.
Speaking on the Senate floor earlier, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) extended a same-day invitation to the president to meet with Senate Republicans at the Capitol to discuss his insistence that hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases be included in any deal to raise the debt ceiling. “That way he can hear directly from Senate Republicans . . . why what he’s proposing will not pass,” said McConnell. White House press secretary Jay Carney dismissed the invitation as “not a conversation worth having.” Obama, meanwhile, was scheduled to attend a campaign fundraiser in Philadelphia.
Freshman Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), who led the GOP effort to prevent Reid from adjourning the Senate for recess next week, initiated a colloquy on the Senate floor with freshman colleagues Rand Paul (R., Ky.), Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), Mike Lee (R., Utah), and Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) to attack the president’s failure to lead. Rubio even likened Obama to “a leader of a third world country.”
Some Republicans worried that Reid’s threats to hold “show votes” on tax increases, along with Conrad’s refusal to bring his proposal before the budget committee, was an indication that next week would not yield much progress on the issue. “I doubt Harry Reid’s got much constructive for us to do,” Cornyn said. “The American people need to be spared this sort of brinkmanship and gamesmanship in the run-up to the 2012 election.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, reiterated his concerns regarding the “closed doors” nature of the debt-limit negotiations, urging the debate to take place in a public forum where the American people can see what their elected officials are proposing. “I want to see what Chairman Conrad has proposed,” he told NRO. “Budgets are complicated documents, they need to be properly analyzed. It worries me that he doesn’t seem to want to share it with us.”
Sessions has been sounding the alarm about the possibility of an emergency “eleventh hour” scenario in which lawmakers are pressured to support a mysterious package, negotiated in secret, without time to properly assess it, under threat of a “national calamity” if they don’t vote yes.
Despite the huge disparity in their positions, senators on both sides agree on a couple things: 1) that no progress has been made since House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) pulled out of the negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden, and 2) that a short-term debt limit extension is all but out of the question.
As such, there is a palpable tension on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers seem to have realized that they are much farther from a deal than many people had thought. Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) told reporters “the alarm bells have gone off” in Congress. “I tell people back home, no matter how irresponsible they think Congress is, believe me, it is far worse than that,” he said. “I can’t believe the markets are this calm.”
“I’m discouraged,” Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio) tells NRO. “The president has clearly shifted his position from trying to get to yes to a political approach, where he’s attacking the Congress and pointing fingers, which is not a good sign.”
Corker indicated that the White House was not taking the negotiations seriously, and it was now up to individual groups of senators to get together and work on a new way forward. “Everyone is focused on how do we get a deal that’s acceptable,” he said. “Obviously the best deal is having the president involved but it appears that that’s not going to happen at this moment.”
Schumer said both sides would have to share the pain. “We all know that raising the debt ceiling isn’t popular and no one side wants to own it by themselves, but we’re going to have to hold hands and do this together,” he said.
Negotiators will have a long way to go in order to bridge the gap between the two sides. A breakdown of what each side is demanding:
Republican position:
-
No tax hikes.
-
Significant spending cuts.
-
Significant spending caps and budget reforms.
-
A balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
-
Significant entitlement reform (Medicare and Medicaid).
Democratic position:
-
Tax hikes.
-
Tax hikes.
-
Tax hikes.
-
Go easy on the spending cuts.
-
In fact, let’s have billions more in “stimulus” spending to “create” “jobs.”
-
A “deficit” cap, which would impose automatic tax hikes.
-
Tax hikes.
-
Balanced-budget amendments are irrelevant because Bill Clinton is a Democrat.
-
No cuts to Medicare whatsoever (Just git rid of all the waste, fraud, and abuse!)
-
Massive tax hikes.
So Harry Reid has "important work do to"? That obviously doesn't include passing a budget, something he and his minions have avoided doing for 2 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI personally can't wait to see this democratic budget "that every committee has approved." Particularly in light of the known fact of 2+ years without a budget by the democratic majority.
And as Administration parrot Jay Carney has famously quipped regarding "...A conversation not worth having."
Many of us agree - an adult, rational conversation cannot and will not take place regarding the unsustainable debt our country is in until children such as Mr. Carney, the curent administration, and Democrat-disabled senate are removed and replaced by patriots with sanity and rational thought.
2012 cannot arrive quickly enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf by "important work" they mean mugging for C-SPAN cameras and trying to look busy while the country's finances collapse into unmitigated ruin, sure they have "important work" to do. If you mean actually making any agreements with each other on any sensible policy to do anything useful - not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...The biggest obstacle to a deal, Reid argued, was the Republicans’ 'stubborn instance on protecting taxpayer-funded giveaways to corporations and individuals who don’t need the giveaways.'”
To a Democrat a "giveaway" refers to somebody keeping his own money rather than having it confiscated via taxation.
No, we don't "need" most of the money we earn. The Democrats have far better uses for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo sympathy, let congress feel cranky! :-P
Democrat position #9: "No cuts to Medicare whatsoever (Just git rid of all the waste, fraud and abuse!)"
Anytime a politician uses that line, you know they are not being serious. Just like "reducto ad hitlerium" -- let's call this one "reducto ad eliminate-waste-fraud-and-abuse" (it means you automatically lose the argument.)
Because of course (I hope NRO readers would know this already) -- if it was that easy to wring money out of the system "eliminating waste fraud & abuse" then it would have been done already. Doesn't every CBO and similar estimate always come to the conclusion that this NEVER works? (Or at least, it means a few hundred million on the margins when TRILLIONS are needed: it's the 0.1% "solution.")
Here's another one: "reducto ad call-for-an-investigation-into-price-gouging" whenever the price of something goes up (means politicians are looking for a scapegoat to distract attention away from themselves.)
Or the evergreen: "reducto ad form-a-bipartisan-commission-to-study-the-issue" argument (means they want to punt on the issue but still look like they're "doing something"; whatever the commission recommends will inevitably be ignored.)
And these are not just things Democrats do! Republicans as well . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat if Obama were to simply say "Republicans do not wish to raise the debt ceiling. I strongly urge them to reconsider. In the meantime, we will by law have to suffer through their vision of America. August 3rd Social Security checks will not be going out until new borrowing authority is established, nor will the paychecks of any person working for the United States or any contractor. If the public does not like the resulting Republican vision for America, I strongly encourage them to call their Congressperson."
How long does anyone here think it would take Republicans to capitulate at that point? Does anyone seriously think it would be longer than two weeks?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it does come to that (and the way the President demagogues everything it might), the Republicans should draft a narrow debt limit increase that mandates the spending be used to pay out Social Security checks through Jan 21, 2013 so that issue can't be used in the election unless Congress passes a budget that supersedes it.
Then, every Republican who makes a public appearance in the next three months should talk about how the GOP rescued the American people's money from a political party that would hold it hostage. After all, SS is based on payroll taxes so there is a pretty sound argument that if the people paid in, they should get the benefits they are by law entitled to at this given moment.
Then, and only after that point is driven home, do they fall back on the fact that the Democrats have not passed a budget for the last two years and apparently the Democrats are hell-bent on giving us a government shut down.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat you seem to be forgetting is that money is fungible. If Congress raises the debt ceiling by X billion but only authorized the debts to be used for SS, then the Treasury secretary would use the new borrowing authority for SS and the existing revenues for other programs.
Congress has a choice. They can raise the debt ceiling officially or de facto, or they can not. If they don't, the public will see for the first time just EXACTLY what Republicans mean by "cut spending" and "small government." The result will be seared into their memories for a generation. If Republicans wait too long to cave, they won't even be around in Washington in 2013 (at least in sufficient numbers to be the slightest bit relevant). They won't even be around in 2023 for that matter.
If you think you can blame the results of this on Obama, you are dreaming. People think that Democrats want "big government" and more spending, and that Republicans want "small government" and less spending. This has been drilled into them from the cradle. Even if people know nothing else about politics, they sure as hell know that. They wouldn't believe Democrats wanted to stop all spending even if it were TRUE. They certainly won't believe it in this case, where it is demonstrably false, and Democrats are forced to by the Republicans.
Republicans thought they could wage total war on Obama. They just forgot the little fact that he is the chief executive and the commander in chief, that he has the entire enforcement apparatus at his command, and that he can use this to run rings around them. This is precisely why Republicans caved so completely in 1995, and why they will cave again.
What Obama ends up getting in these negotiations will ultimately be a function of what Obama wants to get. Republican preferences will have little to do with it. Don't want to raise the debt ceiling? Bring it on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEric - what you fail to forget is that such crises are ultimately laid at the feet of the chief executive. Obama will be blamed for any failure of the US economy that occurs as a result of his inflexibility on the issue of tax increases. He already capitulated on the "Bush" tax cuts, BEFORE the Republicans officially took power. What makes you think he won't blink again? He knows the stakes, and know that his re-election is doomed if he fails to raise that debt ceiling. He'll go along with what Republicans want, eventually. He has too much to lose not to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust like in 1995? When Gingrich et al threatened the SAME thing (not raising the debt ceiling), and Clinton walked all over them? The reason Gingrich/Armey/etc capitulated so completely was that they knew that they could never convince the public that shutting down the government and SS benefits was the fault of the big-spending Democrats.
The reason Obama went along with the Bush tax cuts is EXACTLY why Republicans will capitulate to Obama eventually (notwithstanding your contrary prediction). The public knows that Republicans like to cut taxes and that Democrats like increasing taxes. So when taxes go up, they blame Democrats (even if Republicans cause them).
On the other hand, when spending ceases, they blame the party that constantly complains about too much spending and wants to cut spending and government. As I said, the people wouldn't believe that Democrats wanted to stop all spending even if it were TRUE. They certainly aren't going to believe it if it were FALSE.
This isn't my argument; this is the general consensus among most of the players in 1995 (and is precisely why they caved back then).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStop being so pessimistic. The GOP can get ahead of the SS story and, with help from Americans coast to coast, warn seniors 3 weeks in advance that Obama is going to play games with their social security checks. This preemption will result in the stunt boomeranging on Obama.
Second, the House will pass a bill directing Treasury to pay interest, military, and Social Security, in that order, on all revenue that comes in. Then send this legislation over to the Senate. Reid cannot hold the dam; there are too many Dem senators from red states who will bolt, because their constituents will be irate.
If this legislation makes it through the Senate and Obama vetoes it, the entire handiwork is at his doorstep.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNone of these arguments are going to work for people who don't follow this stuff. The one constant that everyone knows is that Republicans want to cut spending. So when they see spending cut to zero, they blame the Republicans.
Ironically, this is precisely why Obama had to cave to Republicans in the tax cut debate. The country knows that Republicans want lower taxes. There was nothing Democrats could do to convince the country that Republicans would be at fault if their taxes went up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Eric:
Oh please. Could you possibly add a bit more hyperbole?
People will still get their SS checks, government will continue to function, the world will continue orbiting the sun.
A little research on your part would spare you a lot of grief and anxiety over a subject you clearly know nothing about.
I suggest you begin by reading NRO on a regular basis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTalesin, you are completely wrong. You should look at history.
The same thing happened in 1995. Newt Gingrich kept threatening to not raise the debt ceiling. Clinton said "Ok. On this date, SS checks will stop until Gingrich raises the debt ceiling." The Republicans caved long before the date in question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Maybe if he would just take a Valium and calm down and come down and talk to us it might be helpful,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R., Kan.) told reporters at a press conference.
Uh,oh. Senator Roberts will either get a call from the nanny press secretary, or a stern look by Senator Harry "Hang Dog" Reid and the time-out chair. Unfortunately Dear Leader cannot interrupt either his fundraisers nor his tee time for the budget, which is below his pay grade. Unfortunately, other than golf and travel at our expense, what is his job description again?
Right on, Senator Roberts. Someone is a bit wee-wee'd up these days...
GOP: hold their feet to the fire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndrew
Seems like you are doing exactly what Obama/Dems hoped republicans would do i.e. defend corporate jets in this current economic climate.
The danger for republicans is although you mention tax hikes as being the Democratic position- the public, when they hear that these in fact mean getting rid of tax breaks/subsidies for corporate jets and oil companies are going to be on the Dems side- guaranteed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGiven a choice between tax breaks for corporate jets and scholarships for needy students, I'll take the tax breaks. To hell with the scholarships. And to hell with medicare - even though I happen to be 64.
Corporate taxes should be eliminated entirely. As should all personal deductions. Oh, and the roughly 50% of US citizens who pay zero taxes should pony up at least 10% - more likely 15% of their gross income to the Fed.
Until everybody pays, and I mean everybody, government will be out of control. Make everybody pay, government will get smaller and there will be unemployed Democrats by the thousands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republicans were unforgiveably irresponsible spenders when they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. Yet they were still an order of magnitude better than the current Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Taxpayer funded giveaways". You mean like the Earned Income Tax Credit?
Letting us keep our money isn't a tax giveaway. The problem is, they are showing that they believe they have "first dibs" on our money and they will grant us some of it back to live on.
They don't want to cut spending because they can't do with less. Have they ever noticed that when they raise taxes we are required to do with less?
They want to increase revenues? JFK (and Reagan) showed us how to do that. Lower taxes!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept that Reagan also raised taxes, if you remember. People act like taxes are the worst thing in the world. We in America have more disposable income than most countries in the world, and we whine about every tax increase. Republicans have gotten us into this mess just as much as Democrates (and don't forget a huge financial crises). This piece doesn't seem to recognize at all that Obama's budget was 83% spending cuts and 17% taxes increases - which was close to the initial 85%/15% deal Republicans wanted.
This is a really sad debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse