How Dangerous Is the Rift Among Democrats?

Congressional Democrats have denied Obama twice in as many weeks, and that bodes poorly for a White House prepping for fiscal fights.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, left, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speak outside the West Wing of the White House following a meeting between President Barack Obama and Congressional leadership to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
National Journal
Nancy Cook
Add to Briefcase
Nancy Cook
Sept. 17, 2013, 8:29 a.m.

Re­mem­ber that split among con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans on fisc­al strategy? Well, now it seems the Demo­crats have the mak­ings of a sim­il­ar prob­lem.

In re­cent weeks, con­gres­sion­al D’s have been un­char­ac­ter­ist­ic­ally in­de­pend­ent, break­ing with their lead­er­ship and the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion. First they op­posed mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia, warn­ing the pres­id­ent they would deny his re­quest to strike. And then came Larry Sum­mers, who was brought down by a hand­ful of Sen­ate Demo­crats who let the White House know they would not con­firm him as Fed chief.

All this bodes quite poorly for Pres­id­ent Obama (and Harry Re­id and Nancy Pelosi) as the spend­ing and debt fights ap­proach.

If Obama’s ad­visers take any­thing away from the Syr­ia and Sum­mers epis­odes, Cap­it­ol Hill aides and law­makers sug­gest it should be the mes­sage that Demo­crats are not go­ing to get in line with a budget deal that com­prom­ises their lib­er­al po­s­i­tions. No longer should the White House feel free, as it has in the past, to con­sider tweaks to pro­grams like Medi­care or So­cial Se­cur­ity, for in­stance (un­less, of course, Re­pub­lic­ans agree to ex­tract more money from tax­pay­ers).

Re­id and one of his primary depu­ties, Sen. Patty Mur­ray, con­tin­ue to op­pose the “chained CPI” pro­pos­al that would change the way gov­ern­ment be­ne­fits are cal­cu­lated and make them less gen­er­ous — one of the ideas the pres­id­ent offered up in past budget ne­go­ti­ations. House Demo­crats largely are not in fa­vor of one of the pres­id­ent’s oth­er pre­vi­ous budget of­fers — to cut Medi­care by $400 bil­lion.

These con­ces­sions would be an in­cred­ibly hard sell to Demo­crats dur­ing a year where the coun­try’s an­nu­al de­fi­cit con­tin­ues to fall, says a House Demo­crat­ic lead­er­ship aide.

“A lot of our mem­bers were con­cerned about the drift of the ne­go­ti­ations dur­ing the fisc­al cliff,” the aide said. “Our sense is that any deal this fall would not be as large so there is not as much of a ne­ces­sity to of­fer up those items.”

The White House hasn’t ruled those items out though; it’s not really even en­ga­ging in the dis­cus­sion at all yet. If law­makers start to draw lines in the sand, the pres­id­ent will have few­er tools to use and few­er levers to pull to score a deal that keeps the gov­ern­ment run­ning and the United States cur­rent on its debt.

Demo­crats hope it doesn’t come to that — and many think it will not. The pro­spects for a ma­jor budget deal are so slim, they say, that the pres­id­ent will not get to the point of of­fer­ing any deal-sweeten­ers that con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats dis­like, like Medi­care cuts or chained CPI.

Demo­crat­ic Rep. Chris Van Hol­len says the White House, for weeks, has prom­ised House Demo­crats that it would only of­fer these cuts as part of a ma­jor budget deal. Now, that elu­sive grand bar­gain seems un­likely, giv­en the short time frame of the fall’s fisc­al battles and over­all budget fa­tigue. “It’s all a moot point,” says Van Hol­len, a close ally to the White House on fisc­al mat­ters. “The Re­pub­lic­ans have re­fused to raise one penny of rev­en­ue for the pur­pose of re­du­cing the de­fi­cit. They are not even talk­ing about it.”

In the end, that may be the greatest force unit­ing Demo­crats. While they don’t agree on the par­tic­u­lars of budget polit­ics, they can come to­geth­er around their dis­dain for the House Re­pub­lic­ans and their at­tempts to cast them as ex­treme lead­ing up to the debt ceil­ing fight.

“I think the pres­id­ent con­tin­ues to en­joy broad-based sup­port on our side of the aisle,” says House Minor­ity Whip Steny Hoy­er. “I think there is nobody in the Demo­crat­ic Party who wants to shut down the gov­ern­ment — the pres­id­ent cer­tainly does not want to shut down the gov­ern­ment. I think we’re talk­ing about tac­tics to make sure we don’t do that.”

What We're Following See More »
Chef Jose Andres Campaigns With Clinton
5 hours ago
White House Weighs in Against Non-Compete Contracts
6 hours ago

"The Obama administration on Tuesday called on U.S. states to ban agreements prohibiting many workers from moving to their employers’ rivals, saying it would lead to a more competitive labor market and faster wage growth. The administration said so-called non-compete agreements interfere with worker mobility and states should consider barring companies from requiring low-wage workers and other employees who are not privy to trade secrets or other special circumstances to sign them."

House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
7 hours ago

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”

No Lobbying Clinton’s Transition Team
10 hours ago

Hillary Clinton's transition team has in place strict rules to limit the influence that lobbyists could have "in crafting the nominee’s policy agenda." The move makes it unlikely, at least for now, that Clinton would overturn Obama's executive order limiting the role that lobbyists play in government

Federal Government Employees Giving Money to Clinton
10 hours ago

Federal employees from 14 agencies have given nearly $2 million in campaign donations in the presidential race thus far, and 95 percent of the donations, totaling $1.9 million, have been to the Clinton campaign. Employees at the State Department, which Clinton lead for four years, has given 99 percent of its donations to the Democratic nominee.


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.