Verbal Volleys Yield No Agreement — and No Solution

None

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 08: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on October 8, 2013 in Washington, DC. Now in the eighth day of a government shutdown, Obama and his Democratic allies have reiterated to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) that they will negotiate but only after Republicans vote to approve a clean extension of government spending and authorize an increase in the debt limit.
National Journal
Billy House Michael Catalini
Oct. 8, 2013, 5:28 p.m.

There was plenty of back-and-forth, but no break­through — and cer­tainly no sur­render — as con­gres­sion­al lead­ers and Pres­id­ent Obama ar­gued be­fore the cam­er­as over re­start­ing gov­ern­ment and pro­tect­ing the na­tion’s abil­ity to bor­row.

Obama said that if Con­gress were to pass a tem­por­ary bill to open gov­ern­ment, he’d be will­ing to ne­go­ti­ate on a range of con­ces­sions de­man­ded by Re­pub­lic­ans, in­clud­ing those touch­ing on health care. “The bot­tom line is either you’re hav­ing good-faith ne­go­ti­ations in which there’s give and take, or you’re not,” Obama said at a Tues­day news con­fer­ence.

But Obama as­ser­ted that con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans in­stead have “de­cided to run out the clock un­til there’s a gov­ern­ment shut­down or the pos­sib­il­ity of de­fault, think­ing that it would give them more lever­age…. And that is not how our gov­ern­ment is sup­posed to run.”

Soon after, House Speak­er John Boehner, R-Ohio, gave re­port­ers his in­ter­pret­a­tion of what Obama meant: “What the pres­id­ent said today was, if there’s un­con­di­tion­al sur­render by Re­pub­lic­ans, he’ll sit down and talk to us.”

“That’s not the way gov­ern­ment works,” Boehner ad­ded.

But ex­actly how gov­ern­ment will work to re­solve the fisc­al im­passe re­mained the ma­jor un­answered ques­tion Tues­day.

Sen­ate Demo­crats have not moved from their pub­lic po­s­i­tion, hop­ing that Re­pub­lic­ans will get so much pres­sure from bey­ond Wash­ing­ton they’ll be com­pelled to ac­cept the Demo­crats’ debt-ceil­ing le­gis­la­tion, leav­ing the con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion to re­start gov­ern­ment as an open ques­tion.

“I think in the next week you are go­ing to hear the busi­ness com­munity, Wall Street and the busi­ness com­munity, really come down hard on this place,” said Sen. Chuck Schu­mer, D-N.Y. “They won’t have an ef­fect on the tea-party people, but they’ll have an ef­fect on main­stream Re­pub­lic­ans.”

House Re­pub­lic­ans, mean­while, de­cided Tues­day to push an idea that would out­right scrap the nor­mal le­gis­lat­ive pro­cesses in fa­vor of cre­at­ing a spe­cial bi­par­tis­an, bicam­er­al com­mit­tee to sort out these fisc­al is­sues. A bill to cre­ate such a com­mit­tee passed in a 224-197 vote Tues­day night.

The pro­posed “De­fi­cit Re­duc­tion and Eco­nom­ic Growth Work­ing Group” would have 10 House mem­bers and 10 sen­at­ors, and would work to make re­com­mend­a­tions on how to re­form spend­ing pro­grams, change the na­tion’s stat­utory pub­lic-debt lim­it, and re­com­mend over­all levels of dis­cre­tion­ary spend­ing for fisc­al 2014. But con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats and Obama quickly panned the idea. Some dubbed it as a scary rep­lica of the su­per com­mit­tee formed in 2011 that failed to find $1.2 tril­lion in sav­ings, lead­ing to im­pos­i­tion of deep se­quester cuts that both parties de­plore.

“Not again. Oh, my gosh,” said House Demo­crat­ic Caucus Chair­man Xavi­er Be­cerra, D-Cal­if. Be­cerra re­minded re­port­ers that he had been a mem­ber of that first su­per com­mit­tee, and re­called “there was noth­ing su­per about it.”

In the Sen­ate, Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, D-Nev., used a rare live quor­um call to sum­mon mem­bers to the cham­ber to hear a speech out­lining his po­s­i­tion: House Re­pub­lic­ans should ac­cept the Sen­ate con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion as well as the Sen­ate’s clean debt-ceil­ing meas­ure, which is ex­pec­ted to hit the floor later this week.

Re­id also poun­ded the point that he com­prom­ised with Boehner on the top-line budget fig­ure in the Sen­ate CR. (Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, R-Ky., re­jects it be­cause the Budget Con­trol Act caps re­quire lower spend­ing levels.)

“It’s the biggest com­prom­ise I ever made in my ca­reer as a mem­ber of Con­gress, some 31 years,” Re­id said. “It may not sound like much to some people, but it was really big.”

Re­id also in­tro­duced a meas­ure to ex­tend the debt ceil­ing, a move that aides say set up a likely vote on the le­gis­la­tion later this week, and he in­sists his caucus is united be­hind his strategy.

Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans have said they ex­pect to see some kind of con­ces­sion over the debt lim­it, per­haps en­ti­tle­ment re­form or long-term budget cuts. The point, they say, is that there must be something.

“I’ve been in pub­lic of­fice my en­tire adult life and when you learn this stuff, one of the first things they teach you in Poli-Sci 101, al­ways, al­ways leave the op­pos­i­tion a door to get out,” said Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho.

Asked wheth­er the Sen­ate may be mov­ing a clean debt-ceil­ing meas­ure this week as a way to in­ocu­late Demo­crats from pub­lic blame if the coun­try does go bey­ond Treas­ury’s dead­line, Sen. Chris­toph­er Coons, D-Del., said it’s a way to com­pel law­makers to get on board.

“It would put great­er pres­sure on those sen­at­ors who re­cog­nize that de­fault is an un­ac­cept­able op­tion and gives them a vehicle to say “˜I’m still op­posed to the Af­ford­able Care Act, I’m still op­posed to fund­ing its im­ple­ment­a­tion, but I’m gonna vote for a clean debt ceil­ing be­cause that’s the re­spons­ible thing to do,’ “ Coons said. “We may — we may — see a num­ber of sen­at­ors break with the Re­pub­lic­an caucus on this.”

But Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans, even mod­er­ates and those will­ing to work across the aisle, are skep­tic­al that the clean debt-ceil­ing ex­ten­sion will have any real ef­fect in de­fus­ing ten­sions.

“Sup­pose we passed it,” said Sen. John Mc­Cain, R-Ar­iz. “It would go over to the House and go nowhere. It’s all Ka­buki theat­er. What’s the point? The point is to try to gain some pub­li­city lever­age. That’s not really deadly ser­i­ous be­cause Harry Re­id knows what’s gonna hap­pen when it goes over to the House, just like the House people know what’s gonna hap­pen when a bill comes over here.”

But, as Mc­Cain sees it, Con­gress and the White House have to and will find a way out of the cur­rent crisis. Why?

“None of us like to see the con­dem­na­tion of the Amer­ic­an people,” he said.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 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
3 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
3 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’
3 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
2 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:
×