I've always been astounded at the near-complete lack of historical memory regularly exhibited by both Washington politicians and the "journalists" who purport to cover them. Nothing I've seen in the past few weeks has caused me to change this opinion, either, as the fight over raising the federal debt ceiling has played itself out.
While it's certainly understandable that subjects such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or the Greenback Party would be considered so obscure and so removed from living memory as to be ignored, there is simply no excuse for ignoring a direct parallel to today's political news, which happened only two presidents ago. Because we've been here before with the debt ceiling. Well, not precisely where we find ourselves at in 2011, but close enough to the government shutdown in 1995-96 that multiple parallels can easily be drawn.
Back at the end of 1995 and the beginning of 1996, we had a Democratic president in the White House, and a Republican House of Representatives. Then, as now, we had a huge political showdown over not only the issue of the federal budget, but also over raising the debt ceiling. Then, as now, the two separate issues had been locked together legislatively, at the demand of the Republicans. Then, as now, the president would have much preferred a "clean" debt ceiling bill. Then, as now, the biggest threat was the United States defaulting on its debts. Then, as now, one of the biggest bones of contention was proposed Republican cuts to Medicare. Then, as now, we had a bunch of radical Republican freshmen in the House. Then, as now, a presidential election was right around the corner, and both sides were jockeying for political position.
Of course, the situations are not precisely the same. Back in 1995 and 1996, a government shutdown actually happened -- twice. The debt ceiling was not raised during these shutdowns, but the country did not default on paying its debts. President Clinton actively used his veto pen, as the Republicans sent him bills which (among other things) wiped out whole Cabinet departments -- in other words, bills which the Republicans knew Clinton would not sign. The president strongly fought to avoid steep cuts to Medicare.
The biggest difference between then and now was that in 1995 the two crises happened at the same time... sort of. The immediate crisis in November and December of 1995 (and then again in January of 1996) was the fact that the federal budget for the year hadn't yet been completed. It had been due at the beginning of October, but since that point the government had been funded under a Congressional "continuing resolution" -- the same way they had always avoided passing a budget on time. But the continuing resolution had an end date. At the same time, the debt ceiling needed raising because the government was technically going to be out of money. But the deadline back then was the budget resolution -- whereas now the deadline is the debt ceiling.
The other important difference is that Clinton played his cards differently than Obama. Faced with a similar situation earlier this year, Obama did a deal for an omnibus budget bill which would get us through the end of this fiscal year. By doing so, he avoided a government shutdown. Clinton chose to have his showdown (and his shutdown) earlier in the process. What this meant was that Clinton's Treasury Secretary had some latitude in paying the bills. There are accounts which can be shuffled around in order to keep the government checks coming, and Secretary Robert Rubin did so. For which, it's interesting to note, the Republicans threatened to impeach him -- for not allowing America to default on its obligations.
President Obama, however, put the threat of an immediate government shutdown behind him earlier this year -- so that "non-essential federal employees" wouldn't be sent home, and the National Park System wouldn't close down (as happened in the 1995-96 shutdowns). But he punted on the debt ceiling due date, before the fact. Earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner initially told Congress (and the public) that the federal government would hit the debt ceiling on May 16. Geithner later declared that he could do some similar account-shuffling to what Rubin had done, and so could extend this deadline to July 8. He was forced to amend this as well, as the economy picked up and more tax revenue than projected came in. Which left us with August 2 -- the deadline staring us in the face right now.
But what Obama and Geithner have stated is that the new deadline is the ultimate deadline. There will be no more room to maneuver. No more Rubinesque tricks up their sleeve to shove the money around. This is a big difference from the Clinton-era crisis, because Rubin was actually able to keep things going for a few months by this sort of sleight-of-hand. Geithner will not have this option, because he has already been doing so since May.
However, even with all the differences between the Clinton shutdown and the current political fracas, how much of this have you heard discussed either in the media or in the halls of Congress? There are more similarities from the past than you might think. For instance, it's hard to tell (at a glance) which Speaker of the House made the following statement: "I can't imagine going to our [Republican House] membership and saying, 'We have this obligation to let [the president] have a wide-open credit card. No matter what he does he always gets to have more debt so he can borrow more from our children.' " For the record, that was Newt Gingrich, although it just as easily could have been John Boehner.
In fact, one of the most interesting dynamics in the whole fight right now is the power struggle going on between Speaker Boehner and the very-ambitious (and Tea Party favorite) Eric Cantor. There's even a hugely ironic parallel with today's situation that should be absolute catnip for the mainstream media to report upon (should they unexpectedly awaken from their collective stupor long enough to take about five minutes to do some basic research). Because back then -- as now -- the Speaker of the House had ambitious members of his own Republican leadership nipping at his heels politically. One of them actually came to Gingrich in private and let it be known that, while he had the utmost respect for Gingrich, the rank and file in the House (and other members of the Republican leadership) did not consider Gingrich conservative enough for their liking. An explicit threat was made: Gingrich needed to toe the Republican conservative line more reliably, or else there would be a leadership battle for his post.
The Republican leader who came to Gingrich with this ultimatum? His name was John Boehner.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Carl Pope: Can the Center Hold?
Finger pointing follows tense debt negotiations
Reid Criticizes Cantor as Debt Talks Stall
Lindsey Graham: On debt limit, GOP has "nobody to blame but ourselves"
Paul Ryan's misleading historical analogy in the debt limit talks
Moody's: Raising the Debt Ceiling Might Not Prevent Downgrade
Sarah Palin on debt ceiling: 'Reload,' don't 'retreat'
Debt Ceiling Will Be Raised Without Incident, Bond ETFs Predict
*sigh* Why can't the dems spin and gain control of the message as quickly as they do?
Those were the days! He (Clinton) did go along with NAFTA and did sign the death warrant for Glass-Steagall but, even so, was more of a partisan and a fighter than President Obama is.
Nice piece--indeed, necessary piece--about our ugly current reality. Thanks, Chris.
Thanks for the kind words, both to you and to everyone else who registered their approval here in the comments -- for the radical notion that journalists could get off their keisters every so often and do five minutes of basic research. Context is important, and they are (theoretically) supposed to be providing it to us.
-CW
Oh, forgot to mention, I've posted multiple excerpts from the 95-96 articles I used to research this one, in today's column at my site, if anyone's interested in the "footnotes":
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/07/14/memory-lane-footnotes-from-yesterdays-article/
-CW
High paying union jobs, for people with negligible skills, won't be back.
Our enormous manufacturing base will never return (to the same degree).
Our outright technological leadership has been lost.
Couple these facts with the fact that parents are too lazy to ensure thier children are working hard in elementary school and the ludicrous cost of a college education means only one thing: GOING DOWN!
Sorry, Ithought that THEYwere (are) in charge and they signed the budget and paid the bills. . .
THEYspent the money that WE don't have
In 2009, President Obama himself said "[T]he last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up — take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole. "
Second, the President recently had the audacity to say we need to “eat our peas” when it comes to increasing the debt limit. I’d say it’s time for the President to eat his peas when it comes to getting federal spending under control.
Let’s not forget that in 2006, then-Senator Obama’s opposed an increase in the debt limit saying it was a result of “leadership failure.” Under the President Obama’s leadership, the national debt has increased about $3.7 trillion
(and since I am plagiarizing because I did not originally write the above but received it from Congressman jack Kingston my Representative)
Another columnist wrote:
Republicans control only the House.
Meanwhile, the Democrats control all other branches of our government: the Senate, the White House, and The New York Times op/ed page. What's their plan?
She cracks me up so thought I would share lol
1) Obama was speaking about taxes on the middle class
2) The "eat our peas" statement was in telling the House to do their job
3) Obama himself admitted in 2006 he made a political vote not one he thought or thinks is correct
4) Fiscal bills originate in the House, not the Senate or the White House. It's their job.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Et tu, John?
Here's the relevant excerpt, from a Washington Post article on 1/18/96:
===========
Boehner arrived with an even blunter message. Like the other members of the House leadership team, Boehner had enormous respect for Gingrich as the father of the revolution. He considered Gingrich the smartest of the group and the only one who could lead them. Yet true conservatives like Boehner and Majority Whip DeLay did not consider Gingrich a conservative. They thought of him more as a radical, a doer, someone who wanted to change things. That sometimes made him unpredictable.
All day long members had been going up to Boehner asking about Gingrich and Bosnia. On Tuesday night, Nov. 28, Boehner visited Gingrich in his office.
"You already have an image problem with the airplane," Boehner said. "And now this thing with Bosnia. It's probably going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. There are people out there wanting to question whether you ought to be speaker."
It was, Boehner thought, the toughest thing he had had to do all year, like punching a friend in the stomach.
Gingrich took a deep breath. "What do you think I should do?" he asked.
"Lay low," Boehner said. "And for God's sakes, when it comes to Bosnia, just don't say anything."
Gingrich took the advice.
========
-CW