Note this, from this AM's Washington Post:
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is working with McConnell on this approach. Aides said the two are discussing a strategy that would pair McConnell's debt-limit proposal with at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts identified through bipartisan talks that Vice President Biden has led in recent weeks.
Recall that Republican Senate Leader McConnell has a plan to allow the president to raise the debt limit without binding spending cuts -- he has to recommend them, then Congress gets to vote on them.
While this may be a (cynical and convoluted) way to avoid default, House Republicans don't like it because they want binding spending cuts -- and, of course, no revenues (other R's like the McConnell plan because they can vote against the higher ceiling but since they won't have the votes to veto the president's request, it will still go up, but without their fingerprints... not exactly bravery in battle, but there it is.)
So what I take from the quote above -- and I'm not sure I'm right -- is that Senators Reid and McConnell are considering attaching $1.5 trillion in binding spending cuts to the McConnell deal to get the House Republicans on the deal.
I say: don't go there.
If we must have McConnell, it should be "clean McConnell." To attach spending cuts with no revenues probably loses Democrat votes and gets you right back in the turgid soup were in already. Not to mention it's imbalanced, lacking the revenue contribution needed to offset deep spending cuts that have the potential to do a lot more harm than good.
You could get whiplash trying to follow the twists and turns of this crazy debate. But stay tuned and I'll try to sort this out throughout the day.
This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.
In Washington D.C., imperial capital of the world, this failure to find solutions is rewarded. Encouraging further sycophantic behavior which seeks to make opaque the actions of these merchants of self promotion in the service of oligarchs, not those to whom they, these legislators, have sworn an oat, the people via the Constitution. As we are now more than cognizant of, oaths sworn by public officials have no weight or worth, and are subject to revision.
Oh, but you poor plebe, break not an oath nor sworn statement, or you shall be punished by the full force of the law. Do as they say, not as they do.
I am afraid, Jared, that Democrats just don't have what it takes to win for the American people. Republicans want the American people (most of them) to lose. What does that leave us? Seems as if we need a new party, I'd call it "Main Street Party", and take it from there.
And Reid is painting the President into an impossible corner. There will be a commission on spending cuts. The PResident will have to raise the debt ceiling himself, in the future, by vetoing disapprovals. Moreover, once the ink is dry on this disaster, McConnell will not live up to a single bargain he has made.
And, all the talk will be about deficits and debt, guaranteed, until Nov 2012. Nothing about jobs.
And then, NEVER DO THIS AGAIN. America MUST always pay her debts on time, no questions.
NO actual spending cuts--just a blueprint for tax increases. That is the REAL Dem plan.
It is why Mr. Obama has articulated ANY specific "spending cuts"--just the limpid-pledge to cut some spending.
Speaking of Profiles in Cowardice...
Now is not the time for this discussion.
But have no fear, the budget will continue to be discussed.
It is PRECISELY the time to discuss ACTUAL cuts--which is precisely why the President won't do it.
To ACTUALLY discuss specific cuts would oblige him to HONESTLY discuss, instead of demagogue--and THAT is not in his nature.
The discussion of the budget should never have been part of the decision to raise the debt limit or not. NOT was never an option.
It's time to SEPARATE the threat of economic crash caused by not raising the debt ceiling from negotiations to reduce the debt. It's time for the media to ask if it's OK to put a gun to Americans head as Republicans are doing. If the parties cannot agree on a formula for debt reduction, the solution should not be an economic crash but an election. I bet "Do you support ruling out an economic crash as a consequence should the parties fail to reach a debt deal?" polls a heck of a lot better than "Raise the debt ceiling?" but it's the same damn thing. Where are the Democratic messengers framing this debate? Raise the ceiling CLEAN.
Separately, spared a calamity, if the parties reps still can't agree on a compromise formula to reduce debt, we need not a deeper recession but an election. Voters can THEN decide between (a) gridlock that allows debt to grow (b) the GOP way (c) the Democrats way.