Funny, every time the Senate, the Prez and the House gets together, it's the House and the Right Of the Right wing that pull out and storm off in a snit. But again, the R's aregoing all or nothing. It failed on ACA, and it seems to be failing here too.

Those who do otherwise would be turning their backs on their constituents.

I can't help but notice that the Reid plan doesn't seem to have (according to summaries at least, damned if I've read the full text of any of 'em) the tax increases that were all the rage previously.

If that's the case, seems like the R strategy is working pretty well so far. Hell, at the rate things are going, we might even end up with a D plan that's acceptable.

While it lacks any tax increases, it also lacks any real and meaningful spending reform.

In the past few weeks, we've gone from plans that raise the limit and includes real tax and spending reforms to plans that raise the limit and do nothing to fix the long term underlying deficit problems. Unfortunately, this is seen progress by both sides.

+1 to Masked post.

Jon: The GOP should really take the tax deal from Obama. It's considerably less in increases than letting the Bush rates expire, which will almost certainly happen in 2012 and the Dems will almost certainly have at least 40 votes in the Senate to filibuster a full extension in 2013.

It's sad. Like I said, I was for the Boehner + Obama plan of all the ones that have been trotted out so far. There were some painful cuts, some decent tax hikes, and a pretty substantial hit to the debt. I was hoping for more of a debt hit like $4T-$6T but I probably wouldn't have been happy with what was being cut at that point even with some tax hikes.

SI

One of the things I hadn't considered until I read it elsewhere, but Boehner is putting his speakership at risk on a vote that will die in minutes in the Senate.

I can't believe we are this far into a situation where we could default on our debt. This is unbelievable.

3 Options. I think it comes down to the 14th Amendment.

3 ways Obama could bypass Congress - CNN.com

A tax increase is beneath dignifying with a legislative response, and certainly not when the response is a surrender. But I don't blame you for asking ;)

Frankly, the only thing response a tax increase deserves is armed insurrection.

I haven't seen this even suggested anywhere else today, so maybe I'm just missing something but ... feel free to explain to me why this hypothetical situation doesn't seem likely.

1) House eventually passes something that has Bonehead's fingerprints on it
2) Senate passes Reid's version (or something extremely similar)
3) The "competing" plans actually look pretty similar at this point except for the amount of ceiling increase (basically the timing of doing this all over again) the two sides appoint a joint committee to reconcile the difference
4) Obama, citing how close together the two sides are, approves a bi-partisan two week mini-increase sent up from Congress (he's already opened that door previously)
5) The two sides parse the few dollars difference & then haggle over the timeline, eventually settling on an increase that'll run out after the elections but before inauguration. Both sides figuring quietly that they'll have "a mandate from the people" and control of the White House, eventually passing a temporary fix in mid/late November while the other side fights a losing battle to stall the measure.

Okay, ya'll love to fuck with my stuff, so where are the flaws in that basic outline?

Yeah, it's great to have gone from talking $4 trillion in defect reduction to $985 billion. Great to see the Republicans are really serious about fiscal responsibility.

Sadly, sounds a lot like what's going to happen

SI

You forgot the part where, in the middle of all that, some special interest group manages to get a rider/amendment put in that shovels some pork their way and we don't all discover it until after it is too late to do anything about it. Of course, you also forgot the part where the sun rises in the East tomorrow, so maybe you just thought it went without saying :-)

Yeah, the Clinton tax rates were such an impediment to liberty.

I was listening to a Republican congressman on NPR the other day, and he was talking about how he was glad this whole debt ceiling thing has gone the way it has, because it will mean that now every future debt ceiling negotiation will be more of the same. I'm not sure I can stand all this Congressional wailing and gnashing of teeth every year or two - how would they get anything else done?

I've never understood conservative rappers.

They better get their shit together. I earn in $, and it is slowly but surely diving.

I thought that whole section 4 of the 14th amendment was to avoid this...officials holding the government (and people) hostage for their demands.

The Reid plan calls for cutting all the Republican-pet projects (Defense, the Wars, etc) without touching entitlements. It's not really workable either and is a thumb-your-nose-at-the-Repubs, we-can-be-hardliners-and-not-give-anything-up-too plan.

Great...now we'll have a couple of trillion dollar coins for some super villain to steal and hold for ransom if he doesn't get his demands...wait...

That's the fun part if you read through this: we won't be defaulting, that's illegal. The government will continue to fund the debt, they'll just stop paying all their other bills. So this has nothing to do with default, and everything to do with keeping the other functions of government running. Functions that seem to shut down with regularity when we can't pass a budget in time...

Almost all the savings in the Reid bill are counted in the Ryan budget. How is that thumbing his nose at Republicans? And if they want changes to entitlements that offer was put forward, but they wouldn't go along with relatively modest tax increases to get it.

It's much different than a government shutdown. First, some of the "essential services" of the government that continue in a shutdown won't be funded if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Second, there is no legal way for the President to pick and choose what gets funded. If we hit the ceiling and Obama doesn't use the 14th amendment we'll have a legal crisis because the President will be both legally bound to spend what Congress has appropriated and not spend over the debt ceiling. Third, their may be enough money to cover the debt if you look at monthly receipts, but the picture isn't as clear if you go day by day. From what I have read it's at best an open question as to whether we can cover bond rollovers every day in August. Finally, the lack of a deal will almost certainly lead to higher interest rates among other problems. That's going to add to the national debt.

All of this for a procedure that merely says we'll pay the bills Congress has authorized. All of the budget fight belongs with the budgeting process not used as leverage to hold the economy hostage.

With regards to the debt ceiling - am I incorrect in my presumption that this is just posturing on the parts of the politicians with absolutely no real connection to the words coming out of their mouths?

Or to put it another way - the debt ceiling only has to be raised because these same politicians approved a budget which caused it to need to be raised .... as such its a bit like signing off on buying a house and then complaining that you have a debt around your neck because of it?

(and if this is so then why the heck doesn't Obama just come out and say 'well you jolly nice GOP chaps approved us spending this money why are you now saying we can't?').

Long term yes this needs to be addressed - but doing so by effectively fubaring the countries economy just as it is struggling to recover from a crisis is incredibly moronic imho ...

A little more (politcally) complicated than that when you consider the 2011 budget vote in the house (260-167) had nays that ranged from Paul Broun (R-GA) on the right to Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on the left.

Those nays, an odd coalition to be sure, came from a mixture of "doesn't cut enough" to "cuts too much".

Listening to. Obama speak. is like. reading. a message. from. someone. who. uses too many periods.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Hmm ... interesting approach, might be the eventual route to the eventual solution.

Guaranteed amendment to go to the states (which could take years to ratify, if ever), let that be the trigger for the 2nd phase of the cap increase & remove most of the additional guaranteed cuts for the trigger in the meantime (which passes the actual buck down the line to another Congress, which would certainly have appeal for plenty of pols on both side of the aisle).

considering it still needs 2/3ds. It's DOA

He's got to pull 50+ House Democrats and 20+ Senate Dems to pass anything with a constitutional amendment. Given that Boehner is by far the least competent Republican leader I can recall seeing, I wouldn't hold my breath. Worry about getting to 218 and 51 before you think about 290 and 67, genius.

The catch would seem to be that he can't get the 218 without the amendment provision (or some other substantial change).

No way the Dems can vote that amendment through. It's one of the worst written pieces of legislation in this or any other congress. If it were to actually be passed to the states there's a decent chance it would be a part of the Constitution, thereby fucking all of us for years.

But, hey, anything for Six Flags Over Galt's Gulch.

Seems like it's just moving the goal posts, though. If he's 30 short now, adds it and gets say, 80 more votes he'd still be 22 short.

Lord only knows we can't have the Constitution working exactly as intended, which is precisely what an C-amendment would allow it to do.

Are we seriously in a position where a bunch of uneducated idiots who thinks the laws of economics don't apply are going to prevent the debt ceiling being raised? This is surreal.

There was never a unified intention to keep the government always on a balanced budget.

His primary responsibility would be to get the legislation through the chamber that he is a part of. What happens after that really is beyond his control.

This actually presents an interesting possibility though, that it may actually be impossible to craft anything that is bulletproof enough to get 2/3rds in the House.

Of course not. No band of idiots like those currently in charge would EVER think that would be a good idea.

There is, however, a clear intention for a process that would allow pretty much anything as a possibility through C-amendment.

At least I understand your line of thought.

But, just because there is a process doesn't mean it's a good idea. Hell, you can theoretically pass all sorts of crazy amendments.

Hey, that's all I can ask. It's (what I feel is) probably the ultimate in being a Constitutionalist: recognizing that anything is possible, and that seems to be by design.

And that's coming from someone who isn't really a Constitutionalist in the sense the the word is used today. As I've said before, it's a means to an end afaic, no more & no less.


We've already done so more than once IMO. But if you buy into the theory of "consent of the governed" doesn't that extend into their right to do batshit crazy stuff? And if you limit that right then the notion of consent just went out the window.

You of all people should admit that popular will often is full of the stupid.

{I thought I already acknowledged that}

Question is, does the public have the inalienable right to do X if that's the majority will of the public?

Which, just to save you the trouble, I'll go ahead & mention points to the question about the definition of "the public". Is it individual voters or is it the 50 states? Constitutionally, it's the states (since the amendment process doesn't call for a national referendum).

At least something good happened today.


Hopefully no GOP House member will kill this via amendment the way they tried with light bulb standards.

Of course, perfect preparation for the next step: government regulations that require all cars to be made of balsa wood & powered by rubber bands.

And then we're free from ever caring about mid-east oil!

So the House has FINALLY passed the bill, and the Senate will reject it as they already said, so, hopefully the negotiations will start shortly.

There was a time when we required safety features too that seemed to workout quite well.

USA! USA! USA!