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 »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
16 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
21 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days 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:
×