Lindsey McPherson at Roll Call does a nice job of laying things out for you so you can begin to get a sense of the challenges Donald Trump and congressional Republicans will be facing when they return from vacation. As of now, there will be only twelve days in September when the House and Senate are jointly in session. The Senate has a few more legislative days on their schedule than the House, and they’ll surely need them.
I’ve written a lot about the debt ceiling, which needs to be raised by September 29th to avoid a default, and the appropriations bills, which need to be passed by September 30th to avoid a government shutdown. Twelve legislative days in the House and a few more in the Senate might be adequate to handle those two pressing issues, but Congress also has to reauthorize spending for the Federal Aviation Administration, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the National Flood Insurance Program before they expire on September 30th. As I’ve mentioned, if they want tax reform, they need a new budget resolution. Somewhere in all of this, they need to figure out if they can reset the sequester so that they can fund Trump’s larger navy or get some funds for the border wall Mexico is supposed to be financing. Any change in the sequester’s spending caps would require a separate bill to amend the old Budget Act.
If you think the Republicans have a plan for accomplishing this all in the time allotted, you’re quite mistaken. If anything, their plan is to ignore the committee work that has been done on the FAA, CHIP and Flood insurance and just punt by just passing short-term reauthorizations. The same will probably be the solution for the appropriations bills. Some kind of continuing resolution will be attempted that buys them time, although it’s uncertain that they could succeed in passing one. Weird, desperate ideas are cropping up:
Since the Republicans’ failure to repeal and replace the 2010 health care law, some lawmakers have discussed using the CHIP reauthorization as a vehicle for policy changes needed to help stabilize the health insurance market.
Some Senate aides have said CHIP could be used as a medium for raising the debt ceiling.
Maybe Paul Ryan can scare up some Republican debt ceiling votes by tying it to children’s health?
The Republicans are completely unprepared to deal with any of this. Their members and surrogates aren’t even using the same hymn book as their leadership:
“The debt ceiling increase needs to be accompanied by reforms to address the problems that cause it,” Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker said in an op-ed earlier this month in The Washington Examiner. “We can’t afford to kick this can down the road. Otherwise, Republicans lose credibility the next time we point out (as we often do) that the national debt is a serious problem.”
Walker said a clean debt ceiling increase appears to lack the needed support, increasing the likelihood that “congressional leaders load it up with even more increased spending and must-pass legislation to attract the necessary votes.”
“Historically, this is done by reaching across the aisle to produce a bill that is as unsavory politically as it is fiscally,” the North Carolina Republican added.
Outside conservative groups are also opposed to a clean debt ceiling increase.
Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs for FreedomWorks, said his group is still formulating specific asks but noted that any increase should be paired with “spending reductions or some sort of re-prioritization of payments.”
They still won’t accept the fact that the leadership can’t accomplish any of this without Democratic votes, either because of the Senate filibuster or because the Republicans in both the House and Senate cannot agree among themselves. As for the leadership, they are also in denial:
Given the conservatives’ position against a clean debt limit increase, GOP leaders would need a lot of Democratic support if they tried to push one through.
A House Democratic leadership aide said there’s been no outreach from the Republicans or the White House on the debt ceiling or an appropriations package for funding the government.
A total lack of preparation combined with completely unrealistic expectations and an incredibly small number of legislative days all adds up to a complete shipwreck. We shouldn’t particularly care or sympathize about much of this since it stands to politically benefit the left. But a needless default on our credit rating could cause a global recession that will hurt millions, and even a partial and temporary government shutdown will be costly and dangerous for some of our more vulnerable citizens. A non-functional FAA is a perilous thing, and a disruption of the flood insurance market is not something we should want to see. Kids who lose access to health care, even if for only a few days, will be put at risk.
Moreover, at the end of all of this, even if it goes better than expected, there will be no tax reform, no infrastructure bill, and no spending authorized for a border wall. There will be no Obamacare repeal.
It will be very difficult to blame these failures on the Democrats. Trump will blame Congress which is led by his own party. If the Democrats are brought in to save the day, that will cause a massive rupture on the right with messy infighting led by a newly liberated Steve Bannon. If we default and/or the government shuts down, the blame for the consequences will fall squarely on those in position of powers who happen to all be Republicans.
Most of all, though, Trump will take the blame. And while he might win in a fight with an even more unpopular Republican congressional leadership for sympathy from the base, that won’t put any genuine wins on the board for him. In fact, it will only make Republicans in Congress more eager to be rid of him.
It’s going to be a meat-grinder, and let’s just hope we don’t have natural disasters or foreign policy fiascos to add into the mix.
Matthew Karp (This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy) has an insight into what is practical politics and what isn’t at a critical juncture.
In a moment of realignment, ordinary politics loses and loses big.
It is going to take some major political (emphasis, political) confrontation with serious arguments to blow away the right-wing fantasy that will conquers all.
I hope there is some small group of an opposition party in Congress up to this task. (And yes, do read his book. It’s that good.)
“In a moment of realignment, ordinary politics loses and loses big.”
That sounds right, except it appears longer than a moment. Obama faced it in 2011 and 2013.
A CNN Money article has this to say:
If we dodge this one again, it would be a smart idea to do away with a debt limit law. But, wait, some folks already said that. There doesn’t seem to be good options once you run out of money- pay your military or your debt. Take ur pick.
No new taxes.
OR
Make America Great Again (MAGA)
OR
Raid the seniors.
I know where the GOP is heading.
>> OR Raid the seniors.
the essential arithmetic here is: what fraction of Republican voters really would rather die than vote Democratic?
I’m guessing it’s a good solid 85% nationwide.
Ryan and McConnell can take their social security and they’ll stand up and cheer “Freedom!”
That will exact its own punishment.
The problem is that the GOP has been vowing to Raid the Seniors for decades and over those same decades Democrats have been warning that once in power Republicans will do it, and since it has never happened, Republican voters are assured that it’s just political speak on both sides that they can safely ignore.
The moment of complete catastrophe is exactly what any nihilist is shooting for. The Republicans have been aching for a complete train wreck for the government since Gingrich got the upper hand on Wright.
These Republican demons are a combination of spoiled children (the Koch crew), the apocalyptic religious nuts/Randite worshippers (Ryan), and the outright evil (McConnell).
The Civil War was a choice as to time, place, and means by the nihilist slavers. The coming train wreck will again be a choice as to time, place, and means by morans who have no concept of the greater public good nor a conscience.
Not every evil person is a Republican but every Republican is mostly evil. It’s impossible to conclude otherwise.
Preemptive strike — first look at Kelly’s President Trump: reads the script in praise of the US military and service members and announces that after sixteen long years, the US will prevail in Afghanistan.
Okay — I only made through the first five minutes, my stomach and heart aren’t strong enough to take more of this garbage. Is there anything more disgusting than politicians and other public figures extolling war and more war that had “better things to do” when they were military age?
Like fusion energy, SDI will be operational and the war in Afghanistan will be won in another twenty years. As long as the national funding remains intact (preferably increased).
Phillip Rucker
Yeah, because make-overs when things get tough are supposed to work. Except when they don’t.
21 Aug 2012 – Donald J. Trump
Might be viewed as unseemly, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea for Barack H. Obama to give Trump tweet taste of his own medicine.
The Hill – Trump shown photo of Afghan women in miniskirts: report
Don’t know which is more pathetic:
A POTUS that is swayed by photos of women in mini-skirts (bikinis would have been even more persuasive to this bozo).
OR
A US general that stoops to using such an image to get his way. (I’m sure, not, that Mattis got all hot under the collar in the 1990s when the Taliban took over and decreed that all women would wear chadris. In the real time, only the real left press and real feminists reported on this outrageous development.)
Can’t we just forget about Charlottesville and all get behind something all white people can agree on – let’s bomb some brown motherfuckers!! Who’s with me? Who will get my approval back up to 40%??
And don’t give me any shit about how, who, or when. I’m gonna let my generals throw a lot more than $100M in cruise missiles at some symbolic base, trust me. We’re gonna mow these brown bastards done in volume and waterboard a bunch more. I’ve got some folks working on some war crimes that will turn this whole Afghan thing around.
So no more whining about the Confederates and Nazis – let’s vent our anger the American Way – make life miserable (or just end it) for brown Mooslims in Asia.
At least the fuckers that lead the Pakistani military mostly deserve it.
I highly doubt Pakistani military leaders are the ones who will be bombed.
If Congress passes appropriations that go over the debt limit, its implicitly authorized it. The idea of a hatd limit is illusory and the US can operate like every other normal country that doesnt have one.
Except the Constitution is pretty clear that Congress can’t just implicitly authorize appropriations and payments from the Treasury. Or at least that’s been the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution for 220+ years.
I don’t understand. Are you saying congress cannot authorize spending?
The debt limit was established by federal statute in the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, so no, exceeding that limit can only be done by Congress approving an increase in the allowed amount.
It’s not a unique constraint; for example, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative act that forbids the appropriation and use of federal funds for abortion.
More relying on the SCOTUS distinction between explicit and implicit as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Congress can create any program it wants to do pretty much anything it want’s but if it wants to spend money on that program it has to actually say it’s spending money on that program and say how much and for how long it will spend on said program.
Essentially SCOTUS says Congress can in fact make unfunded mandates, unfunded programs, and/or play kabuki theater with the public (Usually by saying it’s for something, creating a vast network of responsibilities and guidelines, but not actually giving the program a tenth of the funding it would need to actually do any of the stuff the program is supposed to do. If implicit funding were a thing, those projects would be fully funded just because Congress made them.) but until Congress explicitly authorizes the spending in exacting amounts and over a definitive time period, the Constitution says that no money can actually be spent.
“The idea of a hatd limit is illusory” — incorrect; it is in fact the law.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statutory-debt-limit.asp
Congress has the power to change that law as easily as it has the power of raising the debt limit.
The idea that that there is a legal gun being held to the head of Congress is illusory. So is the idea that it will act to restrain spending and balance the budget.
The real limit is the tolerance of bondholders. And because they use the federal bond rates as a statement of a “conservative investment”, messing with that creates instability in the bond market and not much more. How much more depends on what alternative investments are available with equal or less risk. Blowing up that risk calculus does not force financial discipline on anyone nor does it restrain spending; Congress will still waste money on wars and military contracts–massive amounts of money.
Congress has the power to deal with the country’s finances through raising taxes. Or directly authorizing the release of funds for particular purposes. For example, the Congress could authorize the Treasury to print enough money to pay off all war debts still on the books. That would at a minimum make safe $3 trillion of Social Security Trust Fund assets. It would also end the use of the national debt to generate compound interest that adds to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Congress has blown through other laws, but somehow the debt limit being sacrosanct will allow a world of hurt for a large number of ordinary people. That is not a practical approach at all; it is a sadistic approach. Punishing the poor and the weak.
Well, of course they can change the law, duh. Will they? Will this Congress abolish the debt limit? Will this Congress vote to raise taxes? Will this Congress be fiscally responsible? Pointing out how things ought to be does nothing to resolve the very real crises we face in this world, not in the illusory but-for world.
Oh, and “instability in the bond market” thanks to crappy mortgage-backed securities tanking is what kicked us into the last Great Recession, you may perhaps recall.
I fall on the side that sees the 14th amendment as making this law unconstitutional. Thats why I call it illusory. I understand Chemerinsky and Balkin are not on my side but I believe the courts are pragmatic enough to interpret the law in this way in light of a true emergency. Precedent is followed, until its not.