Congress Must Stop Using Default as a Weapon

In this hostage crisis, a concession by Obama tied to the debt ceiling or CR would ensure that presidents would become regular instruments of extortion.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), listens to testimony during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 22, 2013.
National Journal
Norm Ornstein
Oct. 9, 2013, 2:43 p.m.

How do we get out of this mess? We know it won’t be easy, and we know that there is a tan­gible chance that we will de­fault. As a top House Re­pub­lic­an staffer told Na­tion­al Re­view’s Robert Costa the oth­er day, “It’s the House of in­de­cision. We don’t have the votes for a big deal, small deal, or short-term deal.” I will get to one pos­sible way out, but first I need to vent. To be­gin, this is en­tirely an en­gin­eered crisis per­pet­rated by House Re­pub­lic­ans with Sen­ate al­lies, hatched, as we now know, by out­side in­di­vidu­als and groups in­clud­ing Ed Meese, Her­it­age Ac­tion, and the Koch broth­ers. We know that John Boehner really did not want a shut­down, and that he had agreed to a clean con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion after Sen­ate Demo­crats ca­pit­u­lated in en­tirety to his party’s de­mands on ap­pro­pri­ations — mean­ing a con­tinu­ation of the se­quester and the much lower over­all spend­ing num­bers of the Ry­an budget (in­clud­ing high­er spend­ing for de­fense.)

But Ted Cruz and Boehner’s own rad­ic­al House fac­tion pushed the speak­er to renege on that deal and in­stead de­mand the de­fund­ing of Obama­care as a con­di­tion for keep­ing the gov­ern­ment open. Boehner did not ask that some por­tions of the gov­ern­ment — in­clud­ing the World War II Me­mori­al, death be­ne­fits for fam­il­ies of ser­vice­men and wo­men, NIH can­cer tri­als — be kept open. He and his al­lies made clear that his de­mands ap­plied to all gov­ern­ment covered by ap­pro­pri­ations. Try­ing to wriggle out of this un­ten­able situ­ation, Boehner tried to mol­li­fy his rad­ic­als by sug­gest­ing in­stead that their de­mands be tied to the debt ceil­ing — and we ended up with the worst of both worlds.

I have had some sym­pathy for Boehner, who is be­ing buf­feted by forces in his party bey­ond his con­trol, with any at­tempt at lead­er­ship thwarted by a lack of fol­low­er­ship. But my sym­pathy for him dis­ap­peared after his ut­terly disin­genu­ous press con­fer­ence Tues­day. The speak­er talked about how all he wanted was to have a con­ver­sa­tion and ne­go­ti­ation over spend­ing is­sues, and that the fail­ure to do so was un-Amer­ic­an — this from the same speak­er who, since the Sen­ate ad­op­ted a budget sev­er­al months ago, has stead­fastly re­fused to ap­point con­fer­ees to ne­go­ti­ate over the budget, after years of in­sist­ing that was all he wanted. The speak­er sug­ges­ted in his press con­fer­ence that a clean CR, as pro­posed by Pres­id­ent Obama, would mean total ca­pit­u­la­tion by Re­pub­lic­ans — ca­pit­u­la­tion to the num­bers he de­man­ded!

Boehner also sug­ges­ted that threats over the debt ceil­ing were routine. False. Be­fore 2011, as Tom Mann and I point out in It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, the use of the debt ceil­ing as a polit­ic­al tool was lim­ited to nar­row is­sues dir­ectly re­lated to budget pri­or­it­ies. The rank and reg­u­lar hy­po­crisy sur­round­ing votes on the debt ceil­ing — en­gaged in by Sen. Barack Obama — by which a pres­id­ent’s par­tis­ans de­fen­ded the need to pro­tect the full faith and cred­it of the U.S., and his ad­versar­ies talked about the need for fisc­al dis­cip­line (be­fore re­vers­ing roles when the oth­er party took over the White House), was seen by all as a kind of game. Nobody in a po­s­i­tion of in­flu­ence truly wanted a de­fault, and party lead­ers al­ways kept some votes in re­serve in case the threat be­came real.

The idea of threat­en­ing de­fault in a real way — de­mand­ing out­land­ish con­ces­sions with a loaded gun to the coun­try’s head — only emerged in 2011. We es­caped de­fault when Mitch Mc­Con­nell swooped in at the last minute to craft a deal — but the fu­ture be­came clear soon there­after when a can­did Mc­Con­nell told The Wash­ing­ton Post about the fu­ture of the debt ceil­ing, “What we did learn is this: It’s a host­age that’s worth ransom­ing.” This year the host­age drama is more fright­en­ing. Mc­Con­nell is AWOL this time. And the fantasy be­lieved by many prom­in­ent GOP­ers about the con­sequences of de­fault make it easi­er for them to push to the brink and over in­to the abyss. It may have come as no sur­prise when Rep. Ted Yoho, a veter­in­ari­an, said that a de­fault would be great be­cause “it would bring sta­bil­ity to the world mar­kets.” But when Tom Coburn, who should know bet­ter, says that there is no debt ceil­ing and that if we fail to raise the debt ceil­ing “we’ll con­tin­ue to pay our in­terest, we’ll con­tin­ue to re­deem bonds, and we’ll is­sue new bonds to re­place those,” it tells us that there are way too many law­makers in a bubble of un­real­ity. In con­trast, there’s this from Bloomberg News: “Among the dozens of money man­agers, eco­nom­ists, bankers, traders, and former gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials in­ter­viewed for this story, few view a U.S. de­fault as any­thing but a fin­an­cial apo­ca­lypse.”

Enough vent­ing. The bot­tom line here is that we need some kind of agree­ment that will re­open the gov­ern­ment and stop a down­ward spir­al that uses de­fault as a genu­ine and fright­en­ing polit­ic­al weapon. Real­ist­ic­ally, qua Ne­go­ti­ation 101, it must provide the pres­id­ent, the speak­er, and the Sen­ate ma­jor­ity lead­er with the abil­ity to de­clare vic­tory or at least to avoid the per­cep­tion of ut­ter de­feat. The two houses, two parties, and the pres­id­ent will still have to deal with one an­oth­er on a myri­ad of is­sues for the next 40 months.

Ne­go­ti­ation now re­quires a cool­ing-off peri­od — a clean ex­ten­sion of the debt ceil­ing, and a tem­por­ary CR. Then a re­open­ing of the gov­ern­ment for the year, with the un­der­stand­ing that a new com­mis­sion will be es­tab­lished to dis­cuss big long-term debt is­sues, is feas­ible.

But any con­ces­sion by the pres­id­ent that is tied to a short-term CR or a short-term ex­ten­sion of the debt ceil­ing would be dis­astrous. Ba­sic func­tions of gov­ern­ment and the full faith and cred­it of the U.S. would be­come reg­u­lar in­stru­ments of ex­tor­tion in the fu­ture, res­ult­ing in peri­od­ic dis­plays of Amer­ic­an dys­func­tion and in­com­pet­ence to the world, with ser­i­ous eco­nom­ic con­sequences. But a con­ces­sion on a dif­fer­ent agenda — to take the debt ceil­ing per­man­ently off the table as a host­age — is well worth it. What Obama needs to of­fer now is a pro­pos­al to make per­man­ent 2011’s one­time “Mc­Con­nell Rule.” Un­der that pro­ced­ure, de­vised by the minor­ity lead­er, the pres­id­ent could uni­lat­er­ally raise the debt lim­it and Con­gress could have the op­tion of block­ing it by way of a res­ol­u­tion of dis­ap­prov­al. The pres­id­ent, in turn, could veto the res­ol­u­tion of dis­ap­prov­al; a vote of two-thirds of both houses would be re­quired to over­ride the veto.

In re­turn for that ac­tion, if the pres­id­ent agreed to re­move the tax on med­ic­al devices (and re­place it with an­oth­er source of rev­en­ue to help fund Obama­care), or agreed to some ad­di­tion­al mal­prac­tice re­form — neither ac­tion hit­ting at any es­sen­tial core parts of the health care law — it would be a win-win. If, in ad­di­tion, Boehner simply ac­cep­ted yes for an an­swer on re­open­ing the gov­ern­ment, at­tain­ing the Ry­an budget num­bers, we could all move past this em­bar­rass­ing crisis. At that point, maybe we could craft a pro­cess that man­ages the budget pro­cess in a less de­struct­ive way.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
1 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×