Yes, there is an agreement, although not one that raises the debt ceiling. Left and Right are united in opposition to the McConnell Contingency Plan!
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the Mitch McConnell proposal, and am pleased to see Steve Benen struggled with it also. However, Brian Beutler figured it out —
The plan is designed to give President Obama the power to raise the debt limit on his own through the end of his first term, but to force Democrats to take a series of votes on the debt limit in the months leading up to the election. This would stave off the threat of defaulting on national obligations, but keep the charged issues of debt and spending at the center of political debate for months.
Here’s the juicy part —
The plan would require Congress to pass a bill allowing Obama to raise the debt limit on his own, contingent on a series of steps: Obama would have to notify Congress of his intent tor 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’d give himself. Only then would the Treasury be allowed to issue new debt.
McConnell proposes rolling out 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.
However, the Right rose up and shouted its opposition as soon as word of this got out. John Boehner approves, however.
A lot of details of this scheme remain fuzzy. Needless to say, Democrats would be insane to agree to this.
Update: Rachel Maddow is calling this a surrender on the part of the GOP.
Well, by that description, it would leave designing the plan completely to Obama, and it would require 67 votes in the Senate to stop him. Of course, if that’s correct, the House R’s will never pass it.
I’m more inclined to interpret this as Grammy McConnell (and Boehner) crapping their pants (Wall Street has begun applying pressure, I believe). Boehner can’t control his loonies and the leadership is getting scared.
I think the one thing that is clarified by this is that the the sole purpose of all the Repugs actions was political advantage. They are opportunists and nothing more. You know who else were opportunists, don’t you? … I’m not mentioning any names.
Yes! They don’t have the votes in their own caucus to pass the looney crap they come up with, they are scared.
My brain hurts just trying to understand this proposal, much less trying to figure out if Obama should say yes to it. Seriously, Turtle-man, could you come up with something MORE kabuki-inspired? I doubt it.
So, I try to walk it through. Obama says “I want to raise the debt limit, because otherwise on Thursday I’ll have to stop sending Social Security checks to Grandma, and stop sending paychecks to the guys at Forward Operating Bases in Kandahar province.” Then what, some Teabagger introduces a Resolution of Disapproval?
And then they vote on it, right? And everyone who votes FOR the Disapproval can be painted as voting AGAINST Grammie’s check, and AGAINST the troops. Well, OK, I can understand that Turtle-man might doubt that the Democratic message machine could manage to make hay with that, given how lame it is, but still. Nice opportunity.
So, if we imagine it still manages to pass, because the Tea Partiers spew enough nonsense, do we imagine it passing the Senate? No, because by and large Democrats don’t want to be seen stopping the checks, and have no ideological upside.
So, then, the Resolution of Disapproval fails, Obama raises the debt ceiling, and all is well until we repeat this two more rounds? How many times does Mitch WANT to vote against Grammie’s checks?
Sure, it keeps the issue of the debt in the news, but that would happen anyway, and it sets the GOP up to be voting against the single most popular government program multiple times before the election. What am I not getting?
Maybe a blink by McConnell, maybe not. Believe when I see.
Somebody needs to tell McConnell that Elvis has left the building. I suppose you can’t really can’t blame him for trying to squirm out of a checkmate but Obama has already stated he’s not going play their default games..
I liked the part of Obama’s speech where he singled out Bachmann without naming her by citing those who have dug in their heels on a position solely based on playing to an uninformed and emotional audience. I don’t remember his exact words, but I knew he was referring to the Tea Party morons and their “I will not be moved” mentality.
First, let me say how much I love this blog, and second, I’m also giving props to Zandar Versus the Stupid in the following cut-and-paste which includes a link to an idea that may just be the next logical step in Lawrence O’Donell’s analysis of Obama’s gaming the Republicans:
“And once again Obama is the baddest mofo in the room. Brian Beutler argues that the real target is Grover Norquist’s hold on the GOP:
Right now, whether he knows it or not, President Obama has a chisel resting at the most vulnerable point of contact between Grover and the GOP, and, if he’s willing to commit, a hammer hovering threateningly above it.
He knows Congress has to raise the debt limit, and he seems to truly believe Obama won’t let them do it without offering up new tax revenue — and that would mean forcing Grover into early obsolescence. Taking that as a given, would he rather see the GOP cave in a way that renders him meaningless, or cave in a way that preserves the power of the “pledge.” I totally understand his thinking here.
The second the GOP breaks Grover Norquist’s no taxes pledge, he is through. And nobody knows that more than Grover Norquist.
Well, except for one Barack Obama, it seems. Once again, Obama has the GOP right where he wants and needs them.”
I hope I have not offended anyone’s internet propriety sensitivities with this quote, which includes a link to Beutler that I don’t know how to indicate.
My guess is that the repugs will quietly raise the debt limit with just a clean bill and then move on to the pressing matter of illegal aliens…Them Mexicans are swarming over our borders, destroying our economy and draining our resourses. Oh, and dropping anchor babies in record numbers.
I hear that the Congressional dining hall will be serving crow on their August menu.
Bill,
“I hope I have not offended anyone’s internet propriety sensitivities with this quote…”
Uhm, have you ever read any of MY sh*t?
And I certainly hope you’re right about Grover. That pledge that he has has been toxic for this nation. And stupid. And that’s why it’s a Conservative pledge.
And what is it about Conservatives and pledges? They seem to have one for just about everything. It’s like they know they are back-stabbing cretins who’ll turn on one another in a nano-second, so they have to put it down on paper and sign with blood that they won’t.
On first glance, I’m glad Yertle blinked, but ‘m going to read up more on the what’s happened.
Just because the lunatics on the right seem to be howling like crippled wolves doesn’t mean it’s a good deal. They do that whenever they don’t get their way 100%.
MM is a toad, but he understands politics. Threatening the country with insolvency, if it gave the GOP leverage over the Senate and the president. ACTUAL insolvency is a disaster which voters will blame on the GOP. Mighty Mitch sees the handwriting on the wall.
To quote Any Rand, “A person who won’t be blackmailed can’t be blackmailed.” Obama has called the bluff – the career politicians see the political rollback, and the tea party does not. The only people now who can avert the crisis is the engineers of the blackmail. Norquest & Kotch.
C U N D, I always enjoy your comments. I was just unsure of the “netiquette” of dropping in such a large chunk of another blog complete with a link to yet another location. I figured Maha would know I was just trying to contribute, but didn’t want to seem pushy, which is too often a product of my goal-oriented nature. I take my politics too personally to be polite, sometimes. Then again, why waste perfectly good manners on ‘baggers or Norquist?
A person writing a letter to the editors at the NY Times a few days ago suggested that the people who sign Grover’s toxic pledge be called “Norquislings.”
I LOVED that!!!
“Needless to say, Democrats would be insane to agree to this”
I agree. This really does show how corrupt our media is that the repugs can so blatantly play politics with the health of our economy and still be treated as legitimate. McChinless floats this thing out, it is such an obvious attempt at political gamesmanship. They don’t even bother to disguise it anymore?