Conservatives Divided Over GOP’s Short-Term Debt Plan

Factions are forming, with plenty of fence-sitters and default-deniers waiting for specific language on the proposal.

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 19: U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) (3rd L) talks to, clockwise from lower left, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) prior to a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee March 19, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing on 'The Release of Criminal Detainees by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Policy or Politics?' 
National Journal
Tim Alberta
Add to Briefcase
Tim Alberta
Oct. 10, 2013, 12:48 p.m.

Fac­tions are form­ing with­in the con­ser­vat­ive wing of the House GOP, with like-minded mem­bers split­ting over a pro­posed six-week ex­ten­sion of the debt lim­it — and plenty of oth­ers sit­ting on the fence.

In this morn­ing’s closed-door GOP con­fer­ence meet­ing, lines were drawn as con­ser­vat­ive mem­bers rose to ar­gue both sides of the pro­posed deal. Rep. Raul Lab­rador of Idaho emerged as the lead­ing ad­voc­ate for the pro­pos­al, ac­cord­ing to mul­tiple law­makers in at­tend­ance. On the oth­er side, Rep. Tim Huel­skamp of Kan­sas was per­haps the most out­spoken op­pon­ent.

At the heart of the dis­agree­ment is a long­stand­ing cov­en­ant among con­ser­vat­ives — re­it­er­ated yes­ter­day by Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee Chair­man Steve Scal­ise — that they should nev­er vote for a “clean” debt lim­it in­crease, re­gard­less of length or cir­cum­stance.

“We’d prefer a long-term deal,” Scal­ise said Wed­nes­day, when asked wheth­er con­ser­vat­ives would ap­prove a tem­por­ary debt lim­it in­crease. “But if we need to do something short-term, we should have the cor­res­pond­ing re­forms.”

For months, con­ser­vat­ives have ar­gued that something — any­thing — must be at­tached to a debt ceil­ing deal. Their primary tar­get has been man­dat­ory spend­ing; Re­pub­lic­ans spent the sum­mer months draft­ing a “menu” of en­ti­tle­ment re­forms to of­fer the White House in ex­change for vari­ous ex­ten­sions. With the White House des­per­ate to avoid de­fault, the think­ing went, Re­pub­lic­ans would have lever­age.

But the situ­ation is far more com­plic­ated than they foresaw. The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is shuttered due to Re­pub­lic­an in­sist­ence on at­tach­ing an Af­ford­able Care Act delay to the fund­ing bill; at the same time, Con­gress is rap­idly ap­proach­ing next Thursday’s dead­line to raise the debt ceil­ing.

Pres­id­ent Obama is re­fus­ing to ne­go­ti­ate with Re­pub­lic­ans un­til both crises are re­solved. Some House con­ser­vat­ives think he’s bluff­ing. That group, led by Lab­rador, is con­vinced that if they tem­por­ar­ily raise the debt ceil­ing — al­low­ing them to dig in deep­er on the shut­down — they will break Obama’s no-ne­go­ti­ation stance. If that hap­pens, they think, con­ces­sions could be won on Obama­care that would solve the fund­ing fight and re­open the gov­ern­ment. Mean­while, they would still have Obama at the ne­go­ti­at­ing table to dis­cuss a long-term debt-lim­it deal fea­tur­ing the cuts to en­ti­tle­ment spend­ing that they have long de­sired.

But without any bind­ing lan­guage in the House pro­pos­al, Obama could eas­ily agree to sign that short-term debt-lim­it deal be­fore turn­ing around and de­mand­ing that a fund­ing bill must also pass be­fore ne­go­ti­ations be­gin. Should that hap­pen, con­ser­vat­ives would feel doubly duped — for­feit­ing what was left of their ne­go­ti­at­ing lever­age, and abandon­ing their debt-ceil­ing prin­ciples to boot.

This sense of un­cer­tainty, amp­li­fied by a deep dis­trust con­ser­vat­ives feel for the White House, has Lab­rador pitch­ing a pro­pos­al that some of his fel­low con­ser­vat­ives aren’t sold on.

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, who is per­haps Lab­rador’s closest friend in Con­gress, said he — like many oth­er con­ser­vat­ives — is on the fence. They have heard ar­gu­ments for and against the plan, but aren’t will­ing to stake out a po­s­i­tion un­til they see the lan­guage of the fi­nal bill.

“I’ve al­ways said that I would sup­port a debt-ceil­ing in­crease only if it’s coupled with ma­jor re­forms to gov­ern­ment. I had nev­er really con­sidered things like one-week debt ceil­ing in­creases, or one-month debt ceil­ing in­creases,” Amash said.

What We're Following See More »
ON THE CALL: “AT LEAST THAT WAS SACRED”
Gen. Kelly Rips Rep. Wilson for Criticism
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
GOP FORMER PRES V. GOP CURRENT PRES
Bush Slams Trump, Implicitly
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS
AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED CONSIDERATION
Senate Rejects Effort to Nix SALT Tax Changes
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Senate Democrats on Thursday failed in their first attempt to save the state and local tax deduction, which helps many residents of California and other high-cost states reduce their federal income tax bills. The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-47 to reject an amendment that would have prevented the Senate from considering any bill that repeals or limits the deduction as part of a planned tax overhaul."

Source:
MEETING WITH SENATE GOP
Trump to Hill Next Tuesday
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS
INTERPARTY FEUDING CONTINUES UNDER PEREZ
Longtime Progressive Members Pushed Out at DNC
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A shake-up is underway at the Democratic National Committee as several key longtime officials have lost their posts, exposing a still-raw rift in the party and igniting anger among those in its progressive wing who see retaliation for their opposition to DNC Chairman Tom Perez. The ousters come ahead of the DNC's first meeting, in Las Vegas, Nevada, since Perez took over as chairman with a pledge this year to unite a party that had become badly divided during the brutal Bernie Sanders-Hillary Clinton 2016 primary race."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login