McConnell waves white flag on debt ceiling?

[ProSense]

McConnell waves white flag on debt ceiling?

by Hunter

Politico:

Desperate to get out of the political box they helped to create, Senate Republicans are actively pursuing a new plan under which the debt ceiling would grow in three increments over the remainder of this Congress unless lawmakers approve a veto-proof resolution of disapproval.

In effect lawmakers would be surrendering the very power of approval that the GOP has used to force the debt crisis now. But by taking the disapproval route, Republicans can shift the onus more onto the White House and Democrats since a two-thirds majority will be needed to stop any increase that President Barack Obama requests.

Details are very fuzzy, but here's how it would apparently work. The Republicans would agree to make a series of three debt ceiling votes this year, but the default on each of those votes would be that the debt ceiling would get raised unless the House and Senate denied the move by a 2/3rds vote. And that isn't likely to happen, which means they all go through.

This is structured such that McConnell and the other Republicans can vote against debt ceilings from now until the next elections, but not actually have those votes matter. Because, presumably, there would always be enough Democrats voting for debt ceiling increases to block the Republicans from actually coming up with a 2/3rds majority. The Republicans want this to save face, and because they think they'll be able to use it as a club against Democrats. Hey, consequence-free votes against raising the debt ceiling! Look at us, we're responsible and stuff!

<...>

Now, though, they may be willing here to abandon all spending cuts, rather than risk having to vote for closing any corporate tax loopholes, any increases taxes on the wealthy, etc. Just bail on the whole thing, grant the debt ceiling increase largely unencumbered, rather than be forced to make those votes. (As another face-saving measure, there's some language in this about Obama having to "propose" cuts later. I assume that's so that we can all keep pretending this is about the deficit: I note that there's nothing in there saying Congress actually has to act on those cuts.)

<...>

The GOP has backed itself into such a corner that it's not even clear what they can agree on, at this point.

Steve Benen

<...>

So, what does this mean, exactly? It struck me as a bad sign that I asked a few folks on the Hill to help walk me through this, and their explanations were far from identical.

As best as I can tell, McConnell’s proposed scenario, which would avoid default, is an elaborate scheme to pass the buck. President Obama could raise the debt ceiling, effectively on his own, with McConnell setting up a series of votes going into the 2012 election intended to put Democratic lawmakers on the spot. (McConnell’s top goal, other than defeating the president, is becoming Majority Leader in the next Congress. If he can make vulnerable Dems cast awkward votes, McConnell will do this as often as humanly possible.)

Brian Beutler unwraps the proposed solution.

The plan would require Congress to pass a bill allowing Obama to raise the debt limit on his own contingent on him taking a series of steps: Obama would have to notify Congress of his intent to raise the debt limit — a high-sign to Congress that would be subject to an official censure known as a “resolution of disapproval,” and which Obama could veto. If he vetoed the resolution, and if Congress sustained the veto, then Obama would also have to outline a series of hypothetical spending cuts he’d make, equal to the amount of new debt authority he gives himself.

McConnell proposes extending this process in three tranches, to force Obama to request more borrowing authority, and to force debt limit votes in Congress, repeatedly through election season. <…>

The legislation would not give Obama unilateral authority to cut spending or reduce deficits. And as such, it represents a big policy cave by Republicans, who’ve long insisted that they will not raise the debt limit without enacting entitlement cuts, long-sought by the conservative movement, on a bipartisan basis. But, if Dems buy into this option, it will keep the potent debt issue alive, and central to politics, for much of this election season.

Garance Franke-Ruta http://twitter.com/#!/thegarance/status/90868090077851648">described this as “one of the clearest statements of legislative cowardice I’ve ever seen.”

<...>