Democrats should take a page out of the Republican playbook: Fashion their own debt-ceiling bill in collaboration with the White House, pass it in the Senate under reconciliation, and then put the House under enormous pressure as the drop-dead date approaches.
The strategic problem with the debt-ceiling 'debate' is that there are too many groups of actors to focus the issue, the solution, and the blame if it does not result in a successful conclusion. Today, there is the White House, House Republicans, House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and, among the Republicans, the Tea Partiers. That is 5-6 different buckets and perspectives that get constantly reported and participate in the jabberfest.
Six needs to be reduced to 2. At that point, there would be one group with a passed bill that can be signed and become law; the other is the obstructionist. The inevitable whining will not command sustained attention because there is too much at stake. Indeed, the Democrats ought to say explicitly that bipartisanship requires adults on both sides. All eyes will be on the House.
The next step, therefore, in the debt-ceiling kabuki dance is for the Democrats to agree among themselves on a total plan, and pass it in the Senate under reconciliation, with the president indicating he will sign it, and the House Democrats announcing their support. Instead of negotiating with Republicans, the Democrats can do this all by themselves.
Strategically, that move eliminates Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jim DeMint (R-SC) et al. as players and shifts all the pressure onto House Speaker John Boehner. Facts, public opinion, his own prior statements and media will be pushing Boehner from one side to act, and his Tea Party will be threatening him from the other. It will be enough to make him pale.
The bill need not begin with what Republicans might agree to, we know the answer to that. Rather, it can be the best the Democrats can agree upon among themselves, with due regard for the optics if Boehner triggers a default. That is, the Democrats need to have a budget whose total deficit comes under that created by the Ryan Plan. That should not be difficult, especially since Ryan handed his wealthy paymasters a $2.5 trillion tax cut.
Kent Conrad (D-ND) hinted he had a bill to which all Democrats on his budget committee, including Bernie Sanders (I-VT), had agreed*. If true, then the Democrats can act quickly, and let Speaker Boehner know that about 30 Republican House votes stand between America's solvency and default.
Although one assumes Senator Sanders would have ensured that this measure does not hurt the vulnerable, and protects Medicare and Medicaid, one would also hope that immediate infrastructure spending were a key part of the bill. If not, it ought to be layered in.
Nor should the Democrats compromise. They will have a bill (Conrad's or some other) that they all agree to support. It will have passed the Senate. House Democrats say they will vote for it. The president indicates he is willing to sign it. Finally, the Democrats would have drawn their "line in the sand", and with something concrete and ready to be passed.
At that point, Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce will be able to focus 100% of their attention on a smaller group. Economists and other experts can line up behind something concrete. The president can bring a large group of experts to the White House to endorse the bill. The Senate can hold hearings. No one remotely responsible will balk, knowing the alternative of inaction.
It will then be, "Your move, Speaker Boehner".
*This article is not meant to be an endorsement of Conrad's plan. I do not even know what it is, and, other than Conrad's suggestion, one does not know if Bernie Sanders has signed on. Rather, the point is that they should ignore the Republicans (with the one exception noted in the text), write the most rational bill that gets the necessary Democratic support, and pass it in the Senate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of comments have wondered whether Article I, Section 7, indicating that all revenue bills must "originate" in the House, would preclude this approach. It does not. The House passed the Ryan Budget. The bill described in the article can be offered in the Senate as an Amendment to the Ryan Budget, as the Senate's Constitutional role in these matters is to "Amend and Concur".
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Richard (RJ) Eskow: When a Socialist Speaks for Most Republicans, Who Speaks for You?
Jared Bernstein: Yet Another Debt Ceiling Rant: Political Theater Can Be Expensive
Geithner Predicts 'Political Theater' Before Congress's Debt ...
As Debt Limit Reached, Agreement Still Far Off - WSJ.com
The Debt Ceiling, Explained : Planet Money : NPR
What's the debt ceiling, and why is everyone in Washington talking ...
But on to the real topic. The only reason the financial markets are not already in turmoil is because they believe the Democrats will do something like this to force the Republicunning to cave in.
And I would really love to see Boehner skewered like this! It would be good for the whole country too, since his lying leadership has been so bad for the country ever since he ignored the call of his own party's president, fed chief and treasury secretary to come up with the cash to prevent a total financial collapse.
Indeed: the real apt name for the current recession is not "The Great Recession", but "Boehner's Bung Up"!
If not, the budgets will be big give-aways (using tax loopholes, subsidies and earmarks) to corporate interests once again; as payback for campaign contributions.
Here is a start to fiscal responsibility! We-ALL should end being patsies; with all sides having "their take" over- and under-the-table.
Eliminate the current 14 Trillion debt OVER A FIFTEEN YEAR PERIOD by:
Increase tax revenues: End loopholes, tax hedge fund income, etc and 0.1% tax on exchange-trades shares. Revenue raised 4 Trillion dollars.
Reduce military spending by 4 Trillion dollars.
Reduce SS and Medicare spending by 2 Trillion dollars.
Reduce remainder of federal spending by 4 Trillion dollars.
Eliminate the 40% budget deficits within 5 years, so we are not adding to debt.
Shared sacrifice that all can embrace. Above solution should end posturing from all sides and endless bickering from professional politicians and paid consultants.
Please note, budget figures are 15-year goals. It approximates annually 5% budget reduction. Balancing budgets and paying off debt, reduces interest on debt, which consumes more of the budget every year.
We currently have a right balance of power-sharing between two parties. Thanks to grassroots and other political momentum, country is serious about tackling budget-deficit; which adds to our fiscal burden.
Please forward to elected representatives and newspapers.
Since that has not been done--and the media have provided it scant attention even as the Progressive Caucus fans out to support it--it has no legs in the immediate future. I think whatever is passed, the Peoples' Budget (btw, exactly the WRONG name for it, as is the name for the Caucus) could serve as a counterfoil in the next elections, as people will probably not be terribly happy with the result. Then, if a wave of new Democrats, who campaigned on this budget as an alternative, comes into office, that would be its time.
President Obama will never stand up for something meaningful in the face of Republican threats. He will accept the tiniest, least little bit concessions on the most insignificant loopholes or subsidies and cave on nearly everything else. He will spare Medicare, but only because they vote; and he will slash Medicaid because they're too sick to vote - thus breaking his own State of the Union address promise not to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable. All this, of course, will be followed by: 'The mean Republicans were threatening. It was the best I could do.'
Sorry, but from what I've seen, President Obama is wimpy with everybody but his base, and then tries to pass it off as if caving is the noble thing to do. He's either really wimpy or a covert Republican, maybe both. Watch and see.
You may be "right", but you are certainly incorrect.
Democrats, even those opposed to Iraq, wanted it to be paid for. Democrats, even those supporting the prescription drug benefit under Medicare, wanted it to be paid for. Then came along Paul Ryan--his budget not only ended medicare, but it added $6 Trillion to the national debt.
Now, you are correct about one thing--I don't know what the Democrats' deficit reduction plan is. There have been various proposals, but this article was written to suggest a way-forward with all of this, if they would congeal around one plan.
However, that said, give me back the lower spending levels during the Clinton period and I will accept the higher tax rates of that period. We would still have to solve the problem created by the impact of baby boomer demographics on social security and Medicare, but at least we would be starting from level ground instead of in a deep hole.
My only hope stems from the recent recovery of the stock market. I suspect the Republican scoundrels have continued telling their Wall Street allies on the sly that they won't default on the debt. Of course there are other explanations for the unaccountable recovery of the market. (Interestingly, Eric Cantor is shorting treasury bonds). For instance, the pros could be squeezing the short positions in preparation for a crash. In general the specialists and market makers make sure of their own profits no matter what happens. They don't want a lot of shorts out there (other than their own) when the market crashes.