Part of understanding the dynamics of the government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis, is the acknowledgement of the fact that we are here because of a deliberate strategic decision that the Republicans took early in the year. They demanded that the Democratically-led Senate pass a budget resolution. When the Senate was successful in doing that, the ordinary course would have been for the House and Senate to appoint conferees to hash out the differences between their two respective budget resolutions. But the Republicans refused to appoint any conferees because they said the two parties were too far apart on their numbers to make a compromise possible. In reality, they didn’t want to spell out the cuts their draconian budget would make necessary. Instead, they wanted to force the administration to spell out those unpopular cuts by forcing a crisis that they felt the White House would feel compelled to avoid at all costs. Therefore, the plan all along was to refuse to agree to any budget numbers and use the end of the fiscal year on September 30th, and the need to raise the debt ceiling shortly thereafter, to win cuts they could not get in any other way. And this would allow them to blur the lines of responsibility for the unpopularity of the resulting budget.
In simple terms, this strategy depends on the Republicans being so immensely irresponsible that the administration would feel compelled to give in to avoid the damage they would cause to the country.
As Jonathan Chait explains, the administration believes that they cannot allow this kind of strategy to succeed on any level because it will perpetuate completely irresponsible behavior. The point is not that the administration is opposed to any particular demands that the Republicans are making. They are opposed to making any kind of concessions on principle.
But the bigger problem here is that conservatives are not acknowledging the Democrats’ belief. It’s not a pose. They genuinely think, regardless of the merits of the ransom demand, they can’t give in, both for the national long-term interest and on moral principle. Conservatives are acting like the problem here is that they asked for a bit too much to begin with, and want to start haggling down the price. The price isn’t the issue. If the conservative goal is to create the illusion of winning something for the debt ceiling, then they’ll come back next time to win more, and Democrats can’t allow that.
Congress needs to get back to passing budgets and marking up appropriations bills. Governing by arbitrary sequester levels, constant omnibus continuing resolutions, and debt-ceiling extortion schemes is more than dysfunctional. It distorts the separation of powers and hands way too much influence to the party in the minority. It cannot continue. And the only way to stop it is to deny the Republicans even a symbolic victory in the current impasse.
Defeating these tactics now will enable the president to have a productive second term, and that is why offering something face-saving to the Republicans would be counterproductive. They not only need to lose, but they need to learn their lesson.
Don’t know if is true, but I am hearing that 2011 was all Biden. That Reid wanted to jam them then, the first time they tried it. Knowing it would only encourage them to take a second bite at the apple.
Hoocoodanowed old Reid had DFH sensibilities. Another reason beside the Bankruptcy Bill to avoid Biden.
I doubt this. Obama does seem to be his own man. I’ve gotten no sense that Biden is swinging this kind of policy influence.
Yeah, I’m betting it was exactly the other way around- when Obama wanted to cut a deal he used Biden as his go-between.
Talking about Biden, what’s the story on him these days? He seems to be out of the picture altogether and others are commenting about it.
He’s going for walks:
President and VP take a stroll
very nice! love that “breaking news: pres. Obama goes for a walk”
He walks with regular people while the GOP hides out at the WW11 memorial trying to convince Vets Obama hates them.
he and v.p. Biden went to buy sandwiches at a place that’s giving % discount to furloughed gov workers. And Pres Obama paid for the sandwiches!
Hot off the press:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/joe-biden-health-care-iowa_n_4014721.html
Biden unfairly gets the blame for the Bankruptcy Bill. That was Carper’s baby.
They also don’t quite seem how ludicrous and extreme their demands really are. They’re basically threatening to destroy the government and economy if the Democrats don’t agree to … destroy the government and the economy.
I don’t know if this is in Hostage Taking 101 or Advanced Hostage Taking, but “Shoot the hostage or I’ll shoot the hostage” is not an effective pitch.
Oops. “They also don’t quite seem to realize how ludicrous and extreme their demands really are.”
Damn. And I was feeling so eloquent.
It’s the Grover Norquist “drown the gov. in the bathtub” school. However “Shoot the hostage or I’ll shoot
the hostagemyself” is more like what is playing out.Couldn’t agree more with this post. If Obama offers them so much as a White House tour, he’s through. They’ll run this racket on him every few weeks from then on. Whatever the cost, they have to be crushed, because the alternative is submitting to a bloodless coup d’état.
I disagree. I think there’s a variety of things he could offer them. For example, he could offer to name a remote airstrip in alaska after Michelle bachmann,, or give them all a tour of the federal laboratory that contains smallpox. Either of those would work for me.
There was an effort a few years ago in San Francisco to name a new sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush. Something like that.
Also, assuming the sequester allows that kind of extravagant expenditure, a few bucks to name a bloated, dying star in a remote part of the galaxy after Michele Bachmann seems appropriate.
Or a black hole…
iirc they didn’t carry through with the plan though
Politicians being politicians, they didn’t want to piss off the last 5 GOPers left in San Francisco for some reason.
It wound up on a ballot and voters turned it down by a fairly large margin. Still, over 100,000 voted in the affirmative.
I wonder if some of the noes voted that way because they didn’t want their sewage plant sullied by the name and reputation?
hah! that’s it!
I like the idea of shirts that say, “I closed down the entire government, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!” They can have those. Nothing else.
With the no-compromise GOP caucus, winning is not enough; they’re not satisfied unless the other side loses. Now they’ve forced that attitude on the Democrats.
I’m not sure “learn” and a pronoun referencing the Teahadists should ever be in the same sentence, unless it’s modified by a word like “cannot.”
The Tea Partiers won’t learn anything, but their enablers might learn that letting the TP run the GOP will cost them.
They are truly pissed off at Cruz.(Maybe this was already linked on another thread?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/mitch-mcconnell-ted-cruz_n_4041159.html
Republicans do not need to save face over this. They need to lose more than they would have gained through straight-forward normal order politics.
Starting with taking away the keys to the car–the debt ceiling law itself. And insisting that Congressional pay and pay of Congressional chief-of-staff be legally taken off the essential job list for future shutdowns.
Then passage of a continuing resolution that makes all the folks that they have hurt from this whole. Even if that means paying for stuff that was not previously budgeted. There might be some scientist out there whose experiments have been totally trashed by this shutdown, for example, and might require substantial funds to recover the experiment to the stage when the power at a federally-funded facility was shut off.
And there needs to be politically punitive measures that the public will like. My top ones are a financial transaction tax, increase in the minimum wage, and a stimulative increase in Social Security. Letting them betray their benighted “principles” as a condition of saving face. (If you want to go further, there always is restoration of the tax rates and brackets, adjusted for inflation, when Dwight D. Eisenhower took office. Bet some people would be surprise that lots of people would get tax cuts under that plan.)
I think the president’s position is exactly the same as yours, Boo. What he said is, he will be happy to negotiate with them, but only after they end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling. Period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/us/politics/congress-budget-battle.html?_r=0
Nice.
This just in:
House Democrats have a plan to get around the rule that a discharge petition cannot be filed on a bill that is less than 30 days old. The plan is to file a discharge petition on a March 2013 bill, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. If enacted, it would automatically continue funding the government at current levels should a budget or CR not be passed.
Sounds like a good idea on the surface of it. It would take away the shutdown threat for good, and — get this — it’s a Republican bill, co-sponsored by Paul Ryan no less. Way to turn the screws on the GOP “moderates” who say they want the shutdown to end.
Well, now Rep. Mark Meadows (who replaced Heath Shuler) is claiming that he doesn’t represent the country; he represents only his constituents and his constituents want him to shut down the government. The shut-down Great Smokey Mountains are in his district.
Can we now put up some strong Democratic opposition in NC-11?
So two NC GOPers have potentially catastrophic statements about the shutdown. Renee Elmers wants her paycheck (although she’s walked back enough to have House staff hold on to it until the shutdown is over). And Mark Meadows claims that he is doing what his constituents wanted (now, that’s high on the Koch supply he peddled in 2012).
I found this interpretation of Boehner extremely interesting.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2013/10/darkness-in-washington.html
But the comments are also very interesting, and a lot of them don’t agree with the piece. I’m not sure I do either: I keep going back and forth — either Boehner is a complete empty suit and is too scared to do anything; or he’s a cagey old pol that knows exactly what he’s doing and will eventually pull the plug on the lunatics and watch them circle down the drain.
As for being reviled from then on, yes he will be reviled by a small band of maniacs who by that time will have lost all sympathy and all credibility, but everybody else will breathe a sigh of relief.
He’s both, sort of. He’s leader of the House Republicans and he got there under his own power (he’s not a figurehead like Hastert). Of course he’s a cagey old pol. At the same time he obviously can’t figure out a way to handle the current situation. He’s tried a lot of plans, and they’ve all failed. I’m sure he is scared at this point, although he’s not an empty suit.
Thanks. I’ve now come to that conclusion too, especially after reading this excellent piece of reporting:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.html
Got a Democrat to run in NE-3.
Lee Terry:
looks like someone agrees with you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Terry
Boo, couldn’t agree more. Only hope O and HR and the rest have the spine to stick it out. Government by suicide bomber cannot be allowed to succeed.
But then O and the Dems have to stand up not only to the GOP hard core crew in the house but also the 25% of Americans fiercely on their side and almost every squeak of the right wing noise machine.
All the leading outlets of main stream Republican sentiment have got on board with the tea bag radicals on this.
They are all in.
The crazy is NOT just a faction.
About a quarter of the country and nearly all of the GOP have gone over to the radical right, giving very strong support to the madmen.
What supports the president and the Dems?