The fiendish brilliance of Mitch McConnell

[Pryderi]

http://www.salon.com/news/budget_showdown/index.html?st...

Did Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just drop a bomb on the debt ceiling negotiations? Details are sketchy, but the apoplectic reaction coming from the hard-line conservative camp suggests the news trickling out is well worth paying attention to.

Here's what we know, from the Associated Press:




At a Capitol news conference little over an hour before the latest round of negotiations was set to begin at the White House, McConnell described a plan that would allow the debt ceiling to be raised in three separate stages through the end of next year, for a total of $2.5 trillion. The plan would place the political burden of raising the debt limit on President Obama and congressional Democrats, rather than on Republicans.


On each of these three occasions, Obama would request a raise in the debt ceiling and propose offsetting spending cuts. Congress would then get to vote to approve or disapprove the president's proposal.

However, in the event that Congress did disapprove, which seems almost guaranteed, at least insofar as the House of Representatives is concerned, Obama would still have the option of vetoing the "resolution of disapproval." Since it would be well nigh impossible to overcome such a veto in the Senate, McConnell's proposal essentially would allow Obama to get a debt limit increase (or two, or three!) without any spending cuts at all!

[aquart]

1. And why would McConnell want that?

[Zen Democrat]

7. Because his buddies in the bond markets DEMAND it.

[SharonAnn]

9. 3 more times before the 2012 elections and they do a ""resolution of disapproval" each time.

That would make it look like it's all Obama's fault and the Congress is helpless to stop him and they obviously need a Republican president and a Republican Senate majority to stop him!

Sounds like a big old fat political trap.

However, I do think that the Wall Street masters have probably made it very clear to McConnell that there had better not be a default.

[msongs]

11. because there will be no tax increases to vote against? hmmm nt

[creeksneakers2]

2. It gives Obama the power to select the spending cuts

but it would require Obama to cut an amount equal to how much he lifts the ceiling. I'd love to see Obama use the opportunity to cut $2.5 trillion from the military, but Obama isn't into that.

[Pryderi]

3. Cutting tax breaks would be cutting spending, right?

[creeksneakers2]

5. ROFL! I'd love to see him submit that!

[notadmblnd]

6. The way I understood it, is that Obama would be required to suggest spending cuts

but would in no way be required to implement them. Now, what I'm wondering is will this tactic also work if Obama still wants to raise revenue?

Can he take MM's deal and then when he does submit his request for approval to congress, can he have suggested revenue generators in there that he can choose to implement? If all the congress has to do is approve or disprove- keep in mind that if congress disproves, Obama can veto it and raise the ceiling and taxes on the rich?

[Historic NY]

8. Wow is this is almost the line item veto Presidents dreamed of.

[JohnnyLib2]

4. ..."a year or more of unending political chaos.."

Good read.

[SugarShack]

10. Obama needs to understand, the people demand that he strengthen soc sec and medicare, no cuts!

[Cereal Kyller]

12. You're welcome

[BlueMTexpat]

13. I would have K&R'ed if the headline had stopped at

"fiendish." Nothing about McChinless is brilliant.