Writing about continuing resolutions and debt ceilings makes me want to claw my eyeballs out. But there is one thing worth talking about. The Democrats have two main choices in how they proceed. They can pass a so-called “clean” continuing resolution to keep the government operating until December 15th at sequestration levels, or they can pass a bill that is more to their liking that increases funding in certain priority areas.
The administration seems to favor the first approach, and the reason is kind of obvious. If the government is going to shut down, the administration wants all the blame to fall on the Republicans. They don’t want the Republicans to be able to argue that the Democrats were trying to defy the Budget Control Act of 2011 or make unreasonable demands. They want it to be clear that the government shut down solely because the Republicans oppose ObamaCare.
But a lot of progressives want to fight for more spending now as leverage for the battle that happens after the government shuts down. It’s partly a fight for principle and partly a strategic judgment.
Which side do you think has the better argument?
Imo – while letting Republicans take the blame may seem desirable – even optimal – in many ways, we’re a country, not a couple who’s arguing, pointing blame at one another.
Letting the government shut down, will directly and negatively affect a lot of people.
Some, catastrophically.
If my Mom doesn’t get her SS payment (which I’m sure even the Republicans, a good chunk of whose base is seniors, won’t put anywhere near the top of the list), we’re up sh*t’s creek, with only hand paddles.
And what about paying our military?
It was one thing doing this in the 90’s, when the economy was on the upswing, with nearly full-employment.
And while letting Republicans get the blame for shutting the government down, I’m not ready for what the consequences will be.
Is anyone?
I don’t think it is possible to avoid a government shutdown.
Trying to avert one at this point seems kind of ridiculous since it would require Boehner to go with his hat in his hand to the Democrats. If he is going to have to do that after the government shuts down, the question is how best to prep the field for that.
Is it better to set our terms now, at the cost of taking some blame for the shutdown, or is it better to maximize the pain the GOP feels now so that they are weaker later?
Two different approaches that each have pros and cons.
Where’s the ‘lady?’
All I see, is ‘tigers!’
This is good question. On the one hand, if you don’t think it’s possible to avoid a government shutdown, then pass a clean bill and demand a pound of flesh when the House shits the bed and needs Democratic support to save the country. This isn’t just about clarifying things for the country; it’s about clarifying things for the Republicans in the House. Make it clear to them that screaming and throwing their own feces doesn’t increase their power. Reality needs to smack them as hard in the face as possible. I’m worried, though, that the end result wouldn’t include that pound of flesh, although since it involves Nancy Pelosi, there’s still room for hope.
On the other hand, I’m inclined to think that the White House is thinking too much in worrying about Republicans muddying the waters over who is to blame for shutting down the government. No matter what the reality is, President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate will be 100% at fault on Faux News and company, but as Gingrich found out, the one thing that people aren’t going to believe is that the “big government party” wanted to shutdown the government. So don’t make it any easier for them. Don’t timidly offer the status quo. Make them deal with the normal legislative process. It’s not like it’s unreasonable for the Senate to offer its own bill; indeed, expecting the other house to just pass your bill is unusual, traditionally speaking.
I guess I lean towards option #2. Don’t play the crisis game. Pass a better bill if it can pass the full Senate (which means overcoming a filibuster, so there will be not-insignificant Republican support) and let the Republican House stew in its own mess. The only way #1 is better is if you think it can actually cause the House Republican caucus to go into full-scale civil war, and I just don’t see it happening. Happy to be wrong.
First of all, no-one gets blame for a shutdown that never happens, so your strategy falls apart if the Republicans don’t take the bait. Second, Democrats are sharing the blame for the austerity budget, right now. If you want the blame for that to fall on Republicans, Democrats need to act to get rid of it. Right now, Republicans swing between loving the austerity budget and decrying “Obama’s sequester”. Having the Republicans threaten to shut down the government unless sequestration continues is an objective in itself.
Honestly, I just don’t see the “con” in pushing a budget bill with Democratic policies embedded in it. Democratic policies are popular.
It’s negotiating with terrorists or kidnappers. Once you start paying you never stop.
Obama gave up the Bush tax cut expiration to get a temporary six month extension of unemployment benefits. I shudder to think what he will give up this time.
The ONLY thing to do is hang tough. Just like with Gingrich people will know who is at fault. Wall Street knows who is at fault. I might be wrong, but I think we may be at the cusp of the great schism that Booman has predicted for the Republican Party.
At this point it’s all about 2014, if we don’t win in 2014 it means more years of this nonsense.
Eight. The point is to convince more people who are not yet convinced that the Democrats are right. That’s why I think Obama’s strategy is the correct one. Sure it’s rhetoric over substance. But we have to win hearts and minds.
Can you show me any evidence that undecideds are becoming more convinced that Democrats are right? Or better yet, show me record turnout among Democratic constituencies since this has been going on.
It may not be so much about independents coming to the conclusion that “Democrats are right” as it is “Republicans are dangerously crazy!”
Baby steps.
Anything other than a clean bill is a lifeline to the GOP. I agree with the President on this.
However, should Boehner find himself needing 200 Democratic votes that strategy changes.
Which leaves the other side of the equation entirely: So in pushing for a clean bill, do you release Dem votes to push it over? Or allow Republicans to hang out to dry initially? The President believes we should not even allow the Republicans to hang whatsoever, and just pass it ASAP.
Well, he wants to win on the ACA first and foremost because that will be a bitter defeat for the GOP base.
House Dems shouldn’t go for the clean CR pre-shutdown unless it dispenses with the debt ceiling. That won’t happen, so it should end with Senate passing clean CR, and Boehner failing to be able to pass it without Dem votes.
What?
Shouldn’t Senate Dems at least try to include a CR that dispenses with the debt ceiling first? You realize that they’re allowed to go more than one round in this debate, right?
Don’t spending bills need to originate in the House?
The spending bill has already originated in the House, been vote on and sent to the Senate.
The blame-game of a government shutdown is still a toss-up; although the bulk of the country would blame Congress (republicans as well as democrats) the President will get blamed as well, albeit it not as much.
With gerrymandered congressional districts, a government shutdown could have little impact on 2014.
Instead, the best thing that the Democrats can do is:
Republicans haven’t just double-down against the ACA, they have gone “all-in”. Let’s prove them wrong.
For decades the Right has railed against blacks, illegals, homosexuals, unions, etc… and one-by-one the Democrats have been proving that the right is full-of it. As a result, the Conservative scare tactics keep getting more-and-more extreme, thereby alienating more moderate conservatives who then side with the rational Democrats.
The President’s proper political stance in this regardless of the Congress’s strategy is to call for a clean CR.
I’m not sure I agree with you regarding the blame-game. Sure, the Village will vomit out their standard “both sides are terrible” crap, but when it comes down to it, who (other than the certifiably crazy people who can argue about how great the shutdown is in one breath and blame it all on the Democrats in the other) is going to believe that the “big government party” wanted the government to shut down?
Increase the funding now. I don’t trust Obama and his deficit hysteria, and agree with Kevin Drum: overall, Obama is ok with the sequester so if we have to keep it, he’s not going to fight very hard to reverse it.
Put simply, we wait, and it won’t change. Maybe some people think it’s worth taking sequester level funding for another year to possibly win the House in 2014. I just don’t see this making that much of a difference to swing the pendulum.
Increasing the funding makes the shutdown about spending. Right now it’s about de-funding Obamacare. if they insist on going all in to de-fund the ACA, then it’s time to settle this once and for all. At this point, they own the shutdown.
The clean resolution would only be part of the administration’s strategy. The president always presents a kind of false bottom just before he makes his final deal, making it appear that he’s willing to settle for a lot less than he intends and inspiring fury and dread among the more excitable progressives. See especially 2010 budget negotiations. Obviously it hasn’t been working as well as it used to as the Republicans grow more and more demented, and it didn’t avert the sequester. But I think the administration will be prepared equally well for shutting down or not, and the clean resolution will turn out to allow higher levels of spending anyway.
When the sequester is ended, the economy is going to get a substantial boost of 1-2%. If it ends with the return of a Democratic trifecta, that’s going to produce a substantial increase in our chance of permanent Democratic rule. So not only does pushing a clean bill improve our chances in 2014, it improves our chances afterwards as well. So I’m with the President’s strategy. That said, having somebody push for improvement reduces the ability of the Republicans to slip in something non-catastrophic but still objectionable, like a funding shift towards defense.
In addition, the “fair” way to address divided government is to not push for big or unilateral changes. So, theoretically, we should only expect de-sequester by giving up something worthwhile, which kind of diminishes the desirability for me. Obviously the Republicans don’t play fair on this but there are still political benefits if we do.
I don’t understand your argument. We have to end the sequester for the “substantial boost to the economy” to happen. But a clean CR doesn’t end the sequester. It explicitly continues the sequester.
So if I read your argument correctly, the plan is:
Did I get that right? Because that seems like a terrible strategy.
There’s an old saying, something to the effect of when your opponent is busy beating himself stay out of his way. Pass a “clean” resolution and invite the Republicans to “please proceed” as is their wont…
This focus on blame-casting is a wrongheaded idea that only partisans could love.
Senate Democrats need to pass a bill that they think is in the best interests of the country. What you are referring to as passing a “clean” CR is leaves the Democrats in the position of simply reacting to House Republican demands. Boehner would still be setting policy, even if he doesn’t get 100% of his wishes. The House Republicans have made their position known. Senate Democrats should now do the same. The two sides are then supposed to negotiate to an agreeable compromise. That’s the way the government is supposed to work. The only way the government shuts down is if Republicans decide to shut it and blame would still fall on them in the end.
The GOP wants to cut more than the Budget Control Act of 2011. Start with that reality.
And the situation is not Democrats, but “liberal Democrats” who want more. And it is Democrats in the House, who essentially are meaningless in the current round of votes who are speaking out.
If there are liberal Senators who agree, I think they should focus on cuts to boondoggle programs in the military and some discretionary domestic boondoggle programs to offset the total of funding those priority areas so the total comes in about the same. And pick expansion of programs that are popular with the public, like HeadStart, Food Stamps, Community Health Care Clinics, and National Park maintenance, US Forest Service summer jobs. Stuff like that. And maybe some riders in the bill that undo previous harmful rider legislation.
From a procedural standpoint, I’m in the “strip and stuff” camp when it comes to the Senate. So what the House receives for reconciliation is the shit sandwich that they will have to take. But a shit sandwich that clarifies to the public very well how far out on the fringe the House is.
One thought I had is to put in a poison pill phrase that legislates “Medicare for All” in states that have refused Obamacare and takes the funding for it out of state block grants in toto, including local tax offsets for federal facilities. It gives something that the GOP can vote against that makes it very plain what the issues are.
Another thought is to write into law that any shutdowns in future start with Congressional salaries and benefits and then move to Congressional staff salaries and benefits. Then hit the Department of Commerce first. The debate on that should be good for some campaign clips.
The reality is that there will not be bigger budgets (except for military) with the current GOP situated as they are. But just pinning the Obamacare issue on the GOP’s shutdown mania allows them to set the frame. They need to get slapped with responsibility for the loss of local services that people are experiencing so that the politics of the federal budget affect state and local elections in 2014 as well.
But given that folks like McIntyre and Matheson voted to cut Food Stamps and the DCCC is still pitching for their elections, I don’t think this is much of a real strategic question for the folks in Congress. They are just going through the motions and pulling down their pay.
—– “But a shit sandwich that clarifies to the public very well how far out on the fringe the House is.”—-
How is the public going to find out? The media won’t do it. They’ll just muddy the waters on it and blame both parties. And the Democrats are such pathetic, weak, feckless losers(including Obama) that they don’t even pretend to play politics. Especially populist or hardball politics.
I’m with the President on this one. There should be nothing to muddle the waters. This shutdown IS all GOP.
The President can run a strategy of demanding a clean continuing resolution without individual members of Congress following the same strategy.
The Senate bill must have something to trade away without the House running away with the process. It’s the result out of reconciliation that must be the clean continuing resolution.
Members of Congress who are running have to use this moment of high drama that the Republicans have created in such a way that they differentiate themselves from Republicans by getting the support of more folks in their districts. McIntyre and Matheson have already failed to do this. Miserably. That means that they have to try (and fail?) to get increases in popular (relative to their districts) parts of the budget or decreases in unpopular parts of the budget.
All that matters in the end for the President is that he gets to claim victory in keeping the government running (even if the GOP causes a shutdown).
You realize that you’re making a big assumption on what the president’s stand is on this issue. Remember the key line from Booman’s post is:
“The administration seems to favor the first approach.”
How often has the administration not favored granting concessions to republicans?
More spending on what? If you are going to push for more spending, you might as well use the opportunity to try to move the debate in a different direction. Climate and energy are always the first issues that come to my mind. I mean, the Republicans are still trying to get the damn Keystone XL pipeline, so why aren’t the Democrats pushing some kind of ambitious energy project of their own that actually makes sense in 2013?
So I don’t know, just an example, you say, “In addition to continuing funding at present levels etc. etc., we also want $X billion dollars to start putting solar panels on every available surface.” Or whatever it would be. Maybe you’d be willing to bargain it away and settle for a clean CR, but meanwhile the demand for clean energy would cause the right to freak out in the most disgraceful and entertaining manner, which is not I think to their long term political advantage.
I think the main argument is that the current CR embraces the sequestration targets, which cuts spending on everything. Democrats want to kill sequestration.
Letting the blame fall on republicans hasn’t provided dividends so far. It’s not like Dems can take the House and might not hold the senate. So what has happened is largely sacrificing ground for little gain. It’s not republicans need even more help to be loathsome.
Question – can the Senate add language to the CR that requires Congress to raise the debt ceiling in order to appropriate the funds?
Sure they can; the only hard requirement is that spending bills originate in the House, but the CR is a spending bill, that originated in the House…so is fair game for Senate modification.
They can eliminate the debt limit, reverse the sequester, add a federal death penalty for cavorting in diapers with prostitutes, whatever.
The constraint is politics.
They can strip everything out of the House bill, stuff it with totally Senate-written language, and send it back for reconciliation with the House version.
The Senate can repeal the debt limit entirely, which is what really should happen.
But the House must agree to the final language in the bill.
Why is this even a question? The issue is not what Obama should do, it’s what the Senate should do. Boner is already starting to whine about “concessions”, meaning cutting even more from already wounded social programs and/or funneling even more cash to the undeserving rich.
Obama can stay above the fray and argue for a clean bill. The Senate can go its own way and add popular riders like restoring funds for education, pre-school, vet healthcare, municipal wifi, effective food inspection, or any number of issues that they can not only propose but fight for. It would be refreshing to see them stand up for something beyond campaign contributions, and would strengthen the party by tempting the disaffected to try just one more time. Otherwise we could just lose the Senate, too.
If they then have to negotiate away the demands, at least they’ve stood for something even if they had to sactrifice them to keep the Reps from further destroying America. How is that not the better story? Do Dems have the gumption or the imagination to try such a thing? That’s the real question.
Even with a CR, come December 15 many, many Federal Government employees will be looking at the Christmas holidays with no pay, possibly no benefits, etc. These employees are real people like you and me. They have rent to pay, bills to pay, food to buy to feed their families. But, now they are just sacrificial lambs being used by rich politicians like gladiators willing to feed these lambs to the lions. The fact that few people ever even give the slightest thought to how the “employees” of the Federal Government will suffer with a government shutdown makes me feel that it is not only the politicians who have become heartless.
Bonnie, I care. I was a DoD civil servant for 12 years. Right now I’m USPS so maybe pay will continue, maybe not. We have always been sacrificial lambs. That’s why I quit in 1979.
Still I argue for hanging tough because if we submit to extortion, we will be slaves to the Tea Party forever.
I agree with you about the extortion; but, I wish there was more discussion about the real people who are the pawns of the extortionsists. Then, when the Republicans get the blame, it will go much deeper.
This is why I disagree with the argument that Democrats need to pass a “clean” CR. There are real problems in the country that need to be dealt with by the federal government. Nobody’s arguing that Senate Democrats should include language that creates the The Barack Obama Legacy Project. We’re arguing that the Democrats should include language to end the austerity budget and to avert another showdown over the debt limit. Neither of these involves Democrats sharing blame for shutting down the government. It simply sets a marker for where the Democrats stand on the issues. The final legislation will get worked out in reconciliation talks, regardless.