There Is Only One Debt-Ceiling Outcome That Could Save the Economy

It’s not a last-minute deal. And it could have bipartisan support.

McConnell: Promises Republican "alternative" on payroll tax.
National Journal
Matt Berman
Oct. 10, 2013, 2 a.m.

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id has a plan to get us out of the debt-ceil­ing crisis. He in­tro­duced a bill Tues­day night that would lift the lim­it un­til Dec. 31, 2014. If that passes, a glob­al eco­nom­ic melt­down would be aver­ted.

Un­til Dec. 31, 2014.

House Re­pub­lic­ans are work­ing on a plan, too. That plan, Na­tion­al Journ­al’s Tim Al­berta re­ports, could be a clean, four-week ex­ten­sion of the debt-ceil­ing to help pro­long fisc­al ne­go­ti­ations. That too would pre­vent eco­nom­ic chaos.

Un­til Novem­ber.

Wheth­er it’s four weeks from now or in one year, there’d be even less reas­on to put faith in a last-minute deal next time the U.S. is up against the debt lim­it.

There’s only one fool­proof way to avoid a fu­ture crisis: Fun­da­ment­ally change the way the debt ceil­ing works. 

This ap­proach isn’t all that rad­ic­al. Sen. Bar­bara Box­er, D-Cal­if., pro­posed a re­form in Janu­ary that would change the debt-ceil­ing mech­an­ism so that Con­gress would vote to dis­ap­prove of an in­crease, as op­posed to ap­prov­ing one. Such a change would lim­it debt-ceil­ing ne­go­ti­ations to a veto-proof ma­jor­ity, while still leav­ing Con­gress with some power.

The most in­ter­est­ing part of this pro­pos­al? It was ori­gin­ally floated in 2011 by Re­pub­lic­an lead­er Sen. Mitch Mc­Con­nell. The po­ten­tial for a bi­par­tis­an deal here that fixes the debt-lim­it prob­lem is real. Sen. Box­er con­tin­ues to ad­voc­ate for the change. Right now though, Harry Re­id’s of­fice says the sen­at­or is not con­sid­er­ing any dis­ap­prov­al mech­an­ism. But that could change as this pro­cess moves on.

Such a plan would be ob­vi­ously good for Demo­crats, as they can get the im­me­di­ate grat­i­fic­a­tion of not hav­ing to risk de­fault in or­der to fully im­ple­ment the Af­ford­able Care Act. But it’d be good for Re­pub­lic­ans too, who could not only avoid the stigma of blame for a de­fault, but also pre­sum­ably reap the rul­ing-party re­wards in fu­ture Con­gresses and pres­id­en­cies. It would also put an im­me­di­ate polit­ic­al tar­get on Pres­id­ent Obama, and Demo­crats by as­so­ci­ation, for be­ing the sole en­tity re­spons­ible for rais­ing the debt lim­it by over a tril­lion dol­lars. That op­por­tun­ity has got to sound pretty good to Re­pub­lic­ans ahead of 2014.

Wheth­er or not a deal is reached this time around, there’s every reas­on to think the na­tion’s next brush with the debt ceil­ing will be more dif­fi­cult. Just look at the most ob­vi­ous op­tions for a more long-term solu­tion to this round.

Op­tion One is that Obama re­lents and gives House Re­pub­lic­ans enough of what they want (likely on Obama­care or spend­ing cuts) to get them to raise the lim­it for more than a month. If that hap­pens, Re­pub­lic­ans would be right to as­sume that, with the pre­ced­ent solidly set, next time they’ll be able to ex­tract more from the pres­id­ent, in­clud­ing on Obama­care. The pres­id­ent, on the oth­er hand, would likely then be even more de­term­ined not to ap­pear his­tor­ic­ally weak.

Op­tion Two is that Boehner re­lents either this month or next and puts a long-term, clean debt-lim­it in­crease on the floor, pos­sibly vi­ol­at­ing the in­form­al “Hastert Rule” and tor­pedo­ing him among the House tea-party con­tin­gency. If that hap­pens, who­ever the speak­er is next time (and it cer­tainly could still be Boehner) will likely be un­der even more party pres­sure from the right not to cave to a lame-duck pres­id­ent this time, es­pe­cially around a midterm elec­tion.

And of course, there’s a third, non-ne­go­ti­ation op­tion aside from de­fault: us­ing the 14th Amend­ment to uni­lat­er­ally raise the lim­it, which poses its own host of po­ten­tial leg­al and eco­nom­ic prob­lems. The pres­id­ent has all but ruled this op­tion out.

Right now, we’re not even clearly near one of those op­tions. Part of that is be­cause the cur­rent debt fight is prov­ing that each suc­cess­ive battle is more dif­fi­cult than the one that came be­fore it. A big reas­on for that is that the 2011 tussle con­firmed what many people already be­lieved: For­get the noise, at the last minute Con­gress will do the right thing and make a deal.

That at­ti­tude is rampant on Wall Street and the world of fin­ance, where the man­aging dir­ect­or and chief United States eco­nom­ist for Mor­gan Stan­ley said that the U.S. “is not go­ing to de­fault, ever,” and War­ren Buf­fett said “we’ll go right up to the point of ex­treme idiocy, but we won’t cross it.” An Aus­tin, Texas, money man­ager at a firm that over­sees $11 bil­lion ac­tu­ally sees a pos­it­ive here, telling Bloomberg that “the dys­func­tion in Wash­ing­ton just makes the Fed more likely to be sup­port­ive of the mar­ket,” and that we shouldn’t “worry about 72 hours in Wash­ing­ton.”

Fin­an­cial ex­perts, and any­one else, could be for­giv­en for their op­tim­ism. That’s how it worked out in 2011, when we went right to the brink of de­fault be­fore strik­ing a deal. But, polit­ic­ally, that’s look­ing way more dif­fi­cult now, and these ex­perts are largely tak­ing a view that as­sumes way more in­di­vidu­al power for Boehner and Obama than they really have. Since tak­ing the House gavel, a debt-ceil­ing ransom has been the GOP’s only real shot at a some form of policy win, from 2011 to the fisc­al cliff. Nearly everything else Boehner’s House has done have been mes­saging bills that died in the Sen­ate. Why would a polit­ic­ally weakened and right­wardly stretched Boehner give that up now?

Obama, on the oth­er hand, is de­term­ined not to firmly es­tab­lish the debt ceil­ing as the bar­gain­ing chip for House Re­pub­lic­ans after his ori­gin­al sin of ne­go­ti­ations in 2011.

The re­l­at­ive sense of calm in the fin­an­cial mar­kets is just help­ing to prop up this polit­ic­al stale­mate. As The New York Times‘ An­drew Ross Sor­kin wrote Tues­day, “the more Wall Street is con­vinced that Wash­ing­ton will act ra­tion­ally and raise the debt ceil­ing, most likely at the el­ev­enth hour, the less pres­sure there will be on law­makers to reach an agree­ment. That will make it more likely a deal isn’t reached.”

If we get an el­ev­enth-hour deal this year, fin­an­cial mar­kets would have reas­on to com­pletely write off the threat next time around, mean­ing mar­ket pres­sure a year from now could be nearly nonex­ist­ent.

The lack of ob­vi­ous mar­ket pan­ic right now is also help­ing to make some Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers of Con­gress skep­tic­al about the im­pacts of a debt-ceil­ing breach. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., said this week that “I think, per­son­ally, it would bring sta­bil­ity to the world mar­kets.” Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said he’s “not as con­cerned as the pres­id­ent is on the debt ceil­ing, be­cause the only people buy­ing our bonds right now is the Fed­er­al Re­serve.”

Amer­ic­ans as a whole, and Re­pub­lic­ans in par­tic­u­lar, are sus­pect of how ser­i­ous a breach would be, with 39 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans say­ing they don’t think there’d be ma­jor prob­lems, in­clud­ing 54 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans. The more the U.S. teeters on, just barely avoid­ing calam­ity, the more likely it is for Amer­ic­ans and politi­cians to think that the threat of calam­ity is over­blown to be­gin with.

The al­tern­at­ive to the doom cycle: Change the law.

If this wasn’t already com­pletely ob­vi­ous, the debt-ceil­ing fight makes every­one in Con­gress look stu­pid. Most likely, most mem­bers of Con­gress would rather be fo­cus­ing on something else. Re­pub­lic­ans are start­ing to ac­know­ledge this now as they pivot to­wards a short-term raise and a big fight over the CR. As Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said on the Sen­ate floor Tues­day, “no one wants to be here.” Re­mov­ing the rolling dead­line from Con­gress’s ar­sen­al should be a win-win.

This is the coun­try’s second lap on a dan­ger­ous — and dan­ger­ously ac­cel­er­at­ing — debt-ceil­ing ca­rou­sel, and un­til there’s a change in the way the law works, no one­time deal is go­ing to al­low the coun­try to get off.

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:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×