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 »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×