Can Boehner Pass His Debt Ceiling Proposal?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 05:30:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

While Speaker John Boehner rolled out a debt ceiling proposal, it's not clear that he has the votes in the House to pass it. Here's the proposal:

House Republican leaders pushed for a vote Wednesday on a two-step plan that would allow the federal debt limit to immediately be raised by about $1 trillion and tie a second increase next year to the ability of a new joint Congressional committee to produce more deficit reduction.

Boehner's the Speaker, why do they need to "push for a vote?" Here's the more interesting question to me, does Boehner have the votes to pass it? I saw Cantor was with him, but did Cantor bring the Tea Party votes? (Not Bachmann for sure.) I assume Dems will vote en masse against it.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Open Thread: Colorado Joins IKEA Country | Obama Addresses Nation on Debt Proposals >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Can Boehner Pass His Debt Ceiling Proposal? | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The insanity, (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 04:47:45 AM EST

referred to as the "budget debate," was predestined to be the 3-ring circus its become for one reason: The Democrats lost the debate before it even started when they agreed to the Republican ground rules....facts, reason, and common sense were DOA, or, as they like to call it, "off the table."

Think about it. The filthy rich, creating nothing of value for the country, caused the Great Recession. Instead of being forced to make restitution they were "punished" by being given even more money, and more power. By virtue of much of their competition being wiped out, or bought out by these criminals, they ended up having a much greater percentage of our economic resources and wealth than before the crash.

Just imagine what could have been accomplished had a "real" Democrat been elected. When historians tally up the damage this moral cretin imposed on our country I don't think even GWB would compare.

Obama sure has (none / 0) (#22)
by observed on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 07:56:02 AM EST

"compromised"...our future that is.


: How crazy is it? (none / 0) (#25)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 05:51:21 PM EST

Just for jollies, go into your neighborhood bank tomorrow, and hand the teller a slip demanding all their money. After he/she pushes the alarm button, and the police arrive, tell them that you want the manager arrested. Why? Simple, you were expecting a million dollars and they only had a few thousand on hand.
Now, if the bank was run by Geithner, Paulsen, and Bernanke, you would get an apology for your inconvenience, and the million dollars would be promptly wired into your account.
Crazy? Please tell me how this is any different than what has happened in our banking fiasco. The victims are punished, the criminals are rewarded, and just to "send a message" as to how things are done, the perpetrators were made richer and more powerful than before.
Go, tell me where I'm wrong.

Must read article from the Nation (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by suzieg on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 07:56:26 AM EST

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162252/report-debt-democrats-rebel-against-compromiser-chief

snip

Instead, the president has shown the opposite instincts on both temperament and policy. Why? Drew reports damning allegations from "someone familiar" with Obama's internal deliberations--almost certainly a White House official or senior, trusted Democrat--who argues that Obama has now traded unpopular but necessary Keynesianism for swing voter posturing.

"If the political advisers had told [Obama] in 2009 that the median voter didn't like the stimulus, he'd have told them to get lost," says the source. But by January 2011, the State of the Union address didn't even propose spending to address unemployment, and the other shoe dropped in April, when Obama first outlined his plan to cut $4 trillion from the deficit.

"It was all about reelection politics, designed to appeal to this same group of independents," Drew reports, and the same politics drove Obama to put Social Security on the table. "[It's] consistent with that slice of the electorate they're trying to reach," the source explained, although "there's a bit of bass-ackwardness to this; the deficit spending you'd want to focus on right now is the jobs issue."

Then Drew moves from insiders to electeds. An anonymous Democratic senator recounts the caucus's mounting frustration with Obama, Drew reports, and his slow-motion acquiescence:

Because of the extent to which the President had allowed the Republicans to set the terms of the debate, the attitude of numerous congressional Democrats toward him became increasingly sour, even disrespectful. After Obama introduced popular entitlement programs into the budget fight, a Democratic senator described the attitude of a number of his colleagues as: "Resigned disgust at the White House: there they go again. `Mr. Halfway' keeps getting maneuvered around as Republicans move the goalposts on him."

All they seem to want, (none / 0) (#1)
by lilburro on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 05:44:50 PM EST

at this point, is to make Obama look bad.

It's too bad McConnell didn't reveal his original "give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling blah blah blah" plan today or over the weekend. It accomplishes the same apparent GOP goal. But methinks the Dems actually are afraid of taking full responsibility for raising the debt ceiling, esp. as the election draws closer.

If he brings it to the floor, he needs (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 05:49:17 PM EST

almost all of his members to vote for it, or it will be deader on arrival than it would have otherwise been.

An interesting question: what do the Dems offer as a motion to recommit?

: BTW, if he has even about 200 votes for it, (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 05:50:40 PM EST

his negotiating leverage is reduced. He wants everyone to think that he's having a real problem cobbling the votes together.

One of those infamous pledges (none / 0) (#4)
by christinep on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:08:50 PM EST

About 59 or 60 House Repubs signed a pledge not to raise the debt ceiling, for any reason. Boehner's problem is to help them extricate themselves from their corner. He needs them, obviously.

Also: the part two of Boehner's proposal is more than a committee whatzit...it provides for a second bite at the apple of the balanced budget amendment that those characters just got out of the House. A poisoned apple by Dem definition.

My question: How does Boehner extricate himself from his captive Tea Party corner since the ultra severe cuts in part 2 would not get by the Senate?

Reid's plan has the same (none / 0) (#5)
by BTAL on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:21:22 PM EST

committee and rules. That's the answer to your question.

Now a question for you. If the balanced budget amendment item is a dem poison apple; how can dems praise Clinton as fiscal hero for balancing the budget?


You seem to hold the simplistic view (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:27:44 PM EST

that it is always appropriate to balance the budget. It is not.


No, just find it comical that the standard (none / 0) (#7)
by BTAL on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:41:01 PM EST

Dem card on spending is to tout the brilliance of Clinton but never want to grasp the nettle.

Also, a balanced budget amendment could/would be written in such a way to allow for extenuating circumstances.


When a Republican is in the White House (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:53:54 PM EST

you can propose a balanced budget amendment. I'm sure it will pass and that it was just an oversight that it didn't come to a vote under Bush.


You are asserting through the core (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:44:33 PM EST

of my point. Deficit reduction was right in the 90s, but not today. You do not need to have an "extenuating circumstance" to recognize that you are in a situation where it is inappropriate to balance the budget.


: It wasn't right in the 90s (none / 0) (#11)
by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:49:48 PM EST

either because the US was running a trade deficit. If you balance or reduce spending while running a trade deficit you cause a net drain of money out of the private domestic sector. Clinton thought he was doing the right thing because he had bad advice.
Debt reduction in the 90s caused the large increase in private sector debt that ultimately triggered the 2000 stock market crash. I'm not defending that bubble, but there are better ways to deflate a bubble than to withdraw large amounts of money from the economy thereby forcing a crash.

The Repub "balanced budget" (none / 0) (#15)
by christinep on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 07:48:35 PM EST

by the junior Repubs et al has an immediate cut approach--unlike even any of the feel-out negotiations earlier--that would not provide any glide path, but immediately cut at the heart of Social Security & Medicare. You do a disservice, BTAL, to try to equate the Repubs "balanced budget" draconian approach (per all earlier analyses of the recently-passed House position) with Clinton's approach or with any approach even in early talks. And, guess what, I think you know that...it's called "playing politics."

BTW, from early reports, the approaches to the so-called later committees--in terms of status, prerogatives, & votes--appear to be different as well. But, that gets in the way of...here it comes...politics!


: Sigh. (none / 0) (#17)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:09:16 AM EST

Balancing the budget has zero effect on SS because SS is outside the budget.

Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#21)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 07:17:34 AM EST

apparently was smarter than any of the Republican presidents we've had since Ike then.


Venn Diagram (none / 0) (#8)
by dandelion on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:41:48 PM EST

In the Venn Diagram where Democratic party members and Modern Monetary Theorists overlap -- there is the belief that Clinton was wrong to balance the budget, that extracting the money out of the economy to do that set us up for the 2001 recession.

MMT: extracting money from the economy when it's in trouble is going to make things worse. The time to extract it is when the economy's overheating -- and we are nowhere near that, not by a long shot.


Where do you get (none / 0) (#18)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 04:21:16 AM EST

that Clinton "extracted" money from the economy? The economy was running on all cylinders, creating 22 million new jobs, and the resulting high tax revenues balanced the budget.

I don't get your logic.


please please please (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by dandelion on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:38:06 PM EST

please progressive, please read up on Modern Monetary Theory -- Bill Mitchell, Randall Wray, Warren Mosler.

Taxes and bond sales do not fund the government when the govt. is sovereign in its own currency and debts are denominated in that same currency (true for us and not for Greece.)
Government funds itself by spending money, creating money into existence by pushing money. As Mosler says: money comes from the same place points do on a football scoreboard.
The government creates X amount of money and it holds some, the private sector holds the rest. If the government taxes too much out of the economy, the private sector, which cannot create money, must compensate by taking on debt.
This is why the debt ceiling and deficit discussions are so much theater: even Bernanke admitted that, by definition, the US, sovereign in its own currency and with its debt denominated in dollars, CANNOT go bankrupt: it is functionally impossible.
In a deflating economy, the govt should spend more money into existence. In an inflating economy, the govt can extract money out of the economy.
The solution is right there. The Fed created $16 trillion to bail out banks all over the world: it did so by pushing a button. It could create that same $16 trillion to spend on job creation.
This means that the wealthy clearly understand how money works in a fiat economy -- and progressives need to as well.
The means to lift us out of this Lesser Depression exist. Only the will is lacking.

Having (none / 0) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 07:15:51 AM EST

the will to balance the budget is not the same as having an amendment which is entirely stupid simply because congress has been talking about this nonsense for years. An amendment to the constitution on this subject is never going to pass but I think that it would be ironic if it did because George W. Bush would never have been able to pass tax cuts and go into Iraq. A lot of GOP sacred cows would have to disappear into the wilderness with a "balanced budget" amendment.


It is difficult at this juncture to (none / 0) (#10)
by KeysDan on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:47:51 PM EST

predict with any level of certainty just what Boehner wants or can do. I think the timing is ripe for the president to say enough is enough--the national interest demands that, as president, he balance two competing statutes (spending authorizations and debt ceiling) or to invoke the fourteenth amendment.

Coupled with that action he should announce his "White House Alone" plan to cut spending (of the nature set forth by Mrs. Pelosi in which we capture the "savings" from Iraq and Afghan drawdowns) and refer other ideas to the Congress for committee reviews and deliberations. Moreover, he should announce, at this time, that he will let the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire for the top brackets as well as bring the estate tax thresholds down to $3 million while maintaining the estate tax rates.

President Obama should be able to convey (a) his efforts to go the extra mile(s) to no avail and (b) the need to prevent the nation's default and its global consequences. The president has said he is willing to jeopardize his election standing by cutting social safety nets, so, if there is jeopardy in such bold action as proposed here, it would be in the service of the nation. But, he would not lose, it would be his Clinton moment when Gingrich shut the government down over not getting a good seat on Air Force One.

Nope (none / 0) (#13)
by RickTaylor on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 07:25:26 PM EST

If he could do it, he would have done it already. Everything leading up to this, holding a vote on cap and balance, talking how Republicans need to stick together, has been him trying to bring his fellow House Republicans together, and evidence it wasn't happening. If the government defaults, and the Republican majority in the house doesn't even pass a proposal to lift the debt ceiling (except for one that requires a constitutional amendment, there will be no ambiguity which party is responsible for the outcome. I think he knows this and he's trying to get something passed, but he's not able to, even when he frames it as a way to stick a finger in the President's eye.

intransigence (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by dandelion on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 07:41:06 PM EST

Odd that the Tea Party's intransigence has given them such leverage with Boehner.

I wonder what would happen if the Progressive Caucus tried similar tactics with the Blue Dogs.

Or if progressives as a whole tried similar tactics with the Democratic Party.

Just a thought.


: Now you're just talking crazy :-) (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by ruffian on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:38:40 PM EST