Trying to make sense of the McConnell debt-ceiling plan
Sly as a fox or sneaky as a weasel? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has offered a contingency plan for a debt-ceiling increase that is being viewed both warily and cheerfully on the right — and with shock, but early seeming delight, in some precincts of the left.
Let’s try to figure out what’s going on.
Rich Lowry at National Review Online seems to have the most details about what the McConnell plan would entail. It is a backward legislation process by which the president gets what he wants, even if neither chamber can muster a majority vote in favor of what the president wants, unless a super-majority (two-thirds) of both chambers votes to override the president’s veto of the disapproval of his plan. And this process would play out three times during the next 12 months, with the president making three separate requests in the amounts of $700 billion, $900 billion and $900 billion.
Confused yet?
The plan is being called an automatic debt-ceiling increase for President Obama, which isn’t technically true — but it is true for all intents and purposes, because veto overrides are fairly rare things.
There are two apparent catches where Obama is concerned. First, he can only get a $100 million increase before Congress votes. And those votes require him to submit a plan for cutting spending — there’s no mention of raising taxes — by an amount equal to each total request. That means a total of $2.5 trillion in cuts if he’s to get all three requests.
Second, by giving the impression that a debt-ceiling increase is there for Obama’s taking if further negotiations break down, McConnell is trying to kill the arguments that congressional Republicans are blocking a deal and risking a (technical) default of the federal government.
Yet, at first glance, I have strong reservations about each point.
On the first point: There is nothing in the McConnell plan, as far as I can tell right now, to allow Congress to direct where the spending cuts go (other than the potential, but highly unlikely, veto override). As far as I can tell, Obama could simply say he’s going to cut the defense budget by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years — which Republicans and, I suspect, even a lot of Democrats would find objectionable — and Congress would be virtually powerless to stop him. (To my friends on the left: Try to keep in mind that in future years, this arrangement could set a precedent for cutting Obamacare, Medicaid, welfare, etc. in the same way.)
Worse, there does not appear to be much of an enforcement mechanism for making sure the cuts actually happen. Congress would have to incorporate them in future appropriations bills. But what if, for instance, Senate Democrats filibustered those appropriations bills until the cuts were removed. Or, worse, what if Obama went back on his word and vetoed the appropriations bills, negating the cuts he promised to make? Those scenarios may or may not be likely, but in this kind of situation I think it’s worth examining such possibilities.
And still worse, this arrangement would seem to have the same problem that congressional Republicans have complained about regarding the cuts Obama already has proposed: That they’re back-loaded in a way that keeps deficits large now and makes future cuts less likely to actually be made.
In other words, this does not seem likely to produce good fiscal policy.
Now, on the second point: This may or may not be good politics — it’s not obviously good politics, imo — but it strikes me as too clever by half and too cynical by full. I think it could easily be seen, and rightly so, as an abdication of duty.
Let the House pass a debt-ceiling measure, and let McConnell attempt to bring it to the Senate floor. Or, let them say that they’ll approve a debt-ceiling increase if the Senate will approve and Obama will sign the Ryan budget plan for 2012. And if Senate Democrats won’t take up either measure and won’t propose an alternative, we’ll know who stood in the way.
The GOP doesn’t need to resort to this kind of gimmickry. Or can someone convince me that this is actually a good idea?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
185 comments Add your comment
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:07 pm
Time to eat your peas, parasites and Democrats. Oops, redundant!
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:08 pm
Obozo would be a progressive, if he weren’t so far left. He’s more accurately described as a liberal fascist.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:09 pm
And if we are so broke, why did the “conservatives” in the House pass a bill last week that INCREASED defense spending by $17B?
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader
July 12th, 2011
7:10 pm
McConnell looks like a turtle.
He acts like a weasel.
Go Cowboys!!!
what??
July 12th, 2011
7:10 pm
LBB-
Tax revenues went up after our President Bush’s tax cuts were implemented.
WHAT…me and Linda had a talk about this downstairs. She even posted a chart. That my friend is incorrect.
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader
July 12th, 2011
7:11 pm
Those Rethugnicans have to protect their corporate sponsors. We cannot ask millionaires and billionaires to give more money in taxes. So what if GE paid no taxes last year. It will trickle down and all will be happy.
Lee
July 12th, 2011
7:12 pm
Ryan’s plan has already proven to be a loser with both parties (remember all the outcry at Townhall meetings?). Why are you still hanging on to this dream, Kyle?
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:13 pm
@ LBB – Ahhhh yes, name calling. Weapon of choice for those who can’t win a debate with facts.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:15 pm
Blue Man on a Red Island @ I am a progressive…
Which makes you exactly an obumer fan and a socialist like Woodrow Wilson period. And it was because of Wilson as some have said that we have this deb ceiling business because he cried and cried about Congress wouldn’t let him spend more money like he wanted to on good progressive socialism.
Now how’s that working for you? Are you still confused?
I’m not.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
7:19 pm
Blue Man@7:09, To pay for the war that Obama surged, that other one & the non-war war be began that congress found out about from watching TV.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:20 pm
I’m not confused at all. The debt ceiling issue is not a R or D issue. Regan requested it be raised just as Obama is now doing.
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader
July 12th, 2011
7:21 pm
Why is Michelle Bachman married to a closet case homosexual?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:22 pm
Tax revenue in 2003 (first year of our President Bush’s tax cuts): $1.78 trillion
Tax revenue in 2006: $2.41 trillion.
Don’t fear facts.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:22 pm
@Linda – Gen Powell famously told President Bush on Iraq, you break it…you bought it. Obama had no choice but to continue it and follow the advice of his military advisors.
And just to be clear, I completely disagree with Obama’s decision to become involved in Lybia’s civil war.
arnold
July 12th, 2011
7:24 pm
Both sides have to give up something they don’t want to inorder to have a compromise. This would be actually governing. However, the Dems have offered many tax cuts. $4 B? Where is the reciprocation from the Republicans?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
7:25 pm
what@7:10, Lil’ Barry is correct. Not only did tax revenues go up, but unemployment continued to go down. Tax cuts work.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
John
July 12th, 2011
7:26 pm
Linda@7:19, “To pay for the war that Obama surged, that other one & the non-war war be began that congress found out about from watching TV.”
Do you agree we shouldn’t be in those wars? Did you feel the same way when Bush took us there? Let’s get out of those and scale back military spending…we don’t need to be the world’s police.
arnold
July 12th, 2011
7:27 pm
Sorry $4 Trillion.
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
7:28 pm
“Conservatives helped run up the debt and they want to cut it on the backs of the less fortunate. ”
Really? Been in the meetings, have you? Know what’s been discussed as far as cuts, have you?
Manufactured poutrage.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:29 pm
arnold: Both sides have to give up something they don’t want to inorder to have a compromise.
———————-
What would you have compromised on with Hitler?
There is no compromise with evil of the sort represented by Nazi Fascists or Obozo.
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
7:33 pm
arnold, that $4 trillion is NOT a serious proposal by this President. It was a POLITICAL proposal released last Friday, ONE WEEK before there really needs to be an agreement and 2 days before negotiators were going to meet.
If you’ve been meeting for months, and have come close to having $2 trillion in cuts already largely agreed upon, what possible reason would ANYONE have to dump a steaming pile of $4 trillion in cuts WITH ENTITLEMENT REFORM into that mix?
The answer is – NONE. Unless they want to be seen politically as being wonderful or they WANT the talks to fail.
You’re buying into the Kool-aid this administration serves if you think that $4 trillion was a serious proposal.
John
July 12th, 2011
7:33 pm
Hitler? Hmmm…he was a dictator, wasn’t he? No compromise…my way or the highway. Sounds more like Republicans to me.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:33 pm
Oh yeah you are definitely confused or ignorant of your facts.
You may recall from our prior discussions that all this started in 1917 when the government wanted to borrow money to finance World War I. In those days, President Woodrow Wilson–the original Nanny Stator who thought he could direct people’s lives from the White House–made so many requests to the Congress for legal authority to borrow, that the Congress got tired of hearing them.
So, Congress changed the law and gave the President and the Treasury Secretary blanket authority to borrow up to a certain amount; however and whenever they wished, so long as their total borrowing did not exceed a given, congressionally determined amount. When they reached that amount, they asked for authority to borrow more. Thus was born the debt ceiling.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/2011/06/01/debt-ceiling-theatre#ixzz1Rw9X35OC
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
7:34 pm
And Kyle, don’t try to make any sense of the McConnell Plan, because it has none.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:37 pm
Hitler? Hmmm
Actually Hitler and his NAZI party barrowed heavily from the PROGRESSIVES.
Not exactly Republican but then again talking points never do quite measure up to the truth found in reality.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:37 pm
@LBB – Wow, from name calling to Hitler. You literally have no argument do you? I have to agree with Eric Erickson from Redstate (conservative blog) that the first one to throw a nazi reference is the automatic loser.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
7:39 pm
Blue@7:22, If you agree that O had no choice but to continue the war in Iraq, why are you complaining that the “conservatives” are increasing defense spending?
If you agree that “Obama had no choice but to continue it (Iraq) & follow the advice of all of his military advisers,” then why are you not complaining that he should follow the advice of at least one of his military advisers regarding pulling out of Afghanistan, coincidentally right before the 11/12 election?
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:39 pm
@Michael – OK, so it started under Wilson, so what? How many Republicans have tried to get rid of it if it’s such a horrible liberal scheme? Hang on I’ll help you, zero. Regan and Bush both used it so it is clearly not a liberal issue but nice try.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:42 pm
Americans are the losers with the incompetent Obozo still trying to figure out how he got in so far over his head.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:42 pm
@Dave R – So if the cuts weren’t real why is McConnell looking to punt instead of calling Obama on his bluff?
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:48 pm
@Linda – Because we are broke, haven’t you heard? If we can’t afford to Americans with American tax dollars we can’t afford to help Iraqi’s and Afghani’s with American tax dollars.
My point is you can’t scream we are broke and say cuts are all that matters and then vote to increase spending on defense and say tax cuts are off the table. You are either worried about the deficit or you aren’t.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:50 pm
Oh boy where we go again, SO what, So what.
The Republicans aren’t the best but pee-gressives and the Democrats are real pure crap. Democrats have started more wars, spent beyond reason on socialist programs that should not be federal matters to begin with and are the damnedest bunch of BIG GUB’MENT control freaks this side of socialist Fascism seen since Marx.
Pal don’t even try to defend these damn democrats to me or your ‘f’ ing pee-gressive a.k.a. socialists. I hate the politics of both of them, SO.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
7:52 pm
John@7:26, Bush did not take us anywhere. Congress did. Democrats spoke out loud & clear about going into both. Would you like for me to cite the videos?
We have troops stationed all over the place protecting our delivery of foreign oil, because we have politicians who keep trying to convince us we don’t have our own abundance of natural resources, & if we did, we can’t use them because fossil fuels cause air/breath/carbon dioxide/plant food & heat up the globe.
We also have 26,000 troops who have been defending the border of S. Korea my entire life, but we can’t send troops to our southern border where terrorists are coming in & where drug violence is treating Americans.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:55 pm
I can scream whatever I want. Cut, cut, cut, cut and cut some bloody more until there isn’t one dry eyed Democrat left in the country that isn’t bemoaning the death of BIG SOCIALIST GUB’MENT.
Truth Squad
July 12th, 2011
7:57 pm
This is just more Big Government Conservative hot air. There’s a $4 Trillion deal on the table now. I’d suggest Republicans take that deal, they aren’t going to get any better. Even Newt knows this new proposal isn’t a good idea for Republicans. Ol’ Grover is also starting to realize that he has help put Republicans in a bind that some will not survive. He can’t repudiate the pledge he made people sign, or he’ll actually have to work for a living, which might be hard for him.
According to new polling, Tea Party Republicans don’t want the ceiling raised even if it’s revenue-neutral, don’t want any revenue increases, want a cap on spending, and they want a balanced budget amendment.
President Obama is taking heat from his party, so let us not pretend that it isn’t real. The Dow is tanking, so let’s not have anymore denials about the reality of this deadline.
The answer to why no “clean bill” has been proposed in the Senate has to do with the new 60-vote standard Republicans have created. Budget deals can’t be filibustered, but a free standing debt ceiling deal can be stopped by one lone Senator. Can you say, Jim Demint”? Also, this drama is not playing well for the Republicans, as polling tells us that Americans trust President Obama on this matter more than Republicans by almost 2-1 margin (65-35).
So why should Democrats take heat for spending cuts, and then help Republicans wiggle out of another mess they created?
Take the $4 Trillion deal. Go ahead, be fiscally responsible for a change. What about the children and future generations and all that stuff? This is your moment Republicans, take it. President Obama has already beaten you on this issue in the court of public opinion (outside of the Fox News crowd…$7 billion in value gone..poof…laysoffs soon? stay tuned) so you might as well get what you asked for, right? Right?
Naw, I didn’t think so.
Big Government Conservatives exposed, oh the humanity!
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
8:00 pm
@Michael – Where is all the socialism you Obama haters keep talking about? Either I am missing something or you guys need to lookup the word socialism in the dictionary.
And really, pee-gressives, that the best you got? Whatever gets you through the night I guess.
what??
July 12th, 2011
8:05 pm
Linda-
Seriously, we literally just had this conversation on the last blog. And the fact that ya’ll don’t know he cut the top rates in both 2001 and 2003 has me a little scared. And the fact that you say unemployment went down and based that off a tax cut, tell me who had more jobs, Clinton or Bush. One lowered rates, one raised rate…this is stupid. I’m threw talking to people who literally just make up stuff that defies all facts.
LBB/Linda-
Compare Clinton’s last year in tax receipts to Bush’s in 2003, 2004, and they barely beat it in 2005.
And even more, compare them after 2001. So we have to wait 4 years for a tax cut to generate more revenue. Sounds pretty stupid.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:07 pm
Blue@7:48, If you defend O for following the advice of his military advisers in 1 country, it seems strange that you would support him for not following the advice of his military advisers in another country.
I’m just saying that decreasing military spending when we are still in 3 wars, one of which is a non-war war, might not be a great idea.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
8:13 pm
Yeah you’re missing something alright, the that fact that your propaganda isn’t working so good and what I’ve got is plenty better than anything you brought to fore so far, especially where facts just happen to matter.
All I hear from you liberal socialist is raise taxes and those old bush tax cuts that’s the best YOU GOT, more liberal socialist dunkey dung tax borrow spend and expand government and then have the unmitigated gall to ask where is the SOCIALISM?
old timer
July 12th, 2011
8:16 pm
What SENATOR Obama said about raising the debt ceiling…that is the correct answer.
Red dude
July 12th, 2011
8:26 pm
@Michael H. Smith 8:13
Can you please stop posting? Your ignorance is proving their point. Let’s stick with our conservative principle and quit the silly name calling.
lannnerbraves
July 12th, 2011
8:27 pm
I wouldn’t give obama power over anyting..has he not done enough damage?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:32 pm
what@8:05, Yes, Clinton raised tax rates & Bush lowered tax rates. Here’s the unemployment rates during both administrations. If you decipher them, you can see that the average unemployment rate during Clinton was 5.205% & during Bush was 5.2675%.
The unemployment rate under Obama has averaged 9.45% for his first full 2 yrs.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
8:33 pm
The average yearly increase in taxe revenue under Bill Clinton was 8% under George Bush it was 3%.
Over the entire Bill Clinton Presidency tax revenue went up 86% while under Bush tax revenue went up 25%.
It would seem that if tax cuts are better then the tax revenue would go up more when we cut taxes than when we raised taxes.
My president is black
July 12th, 2011
8:34 pm
The Republicans blinked plain and simple. At least President Obama put $4t in cuts on the table all Republicans had to do was agree to close a few loopholes wholes the President would have took a grilling for cuts to Medicare and Social Security and would have surely lost next year and wouldve given the Republicans the mantle of saving future generations….but they blinked and said its Obama problem now…excuse me but by law isn’t The Congress supposed to approve and pass the budget?
Red dude
July 12th, 2011
8:43 pm
@Linda 8:32 Look at those unemployment numbers compared to Reagan. They are almost identical. Can’t draw any conclusions from your info. Reagan is our hero. Pls don’t post anything that can be used against him!
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
8:43 pm
what??: Compare Clinton’s last year in tax receipts to Bush’s in 2003, 2004, and they barely beat it in 2005.
————————–
Yeah, thanks Clinton for the Internet bubble bursting and handing a recession and an al Qaeda operation in progress over to our President Bush.
Our President Bush’s tax cuts weren’t implemented until 2003 so it’s rather ignorant to attribute 2001 or 2002 revenue to something that hadn’t happened yet.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
8:45 pm
Bottom line: Our President Bush cut tax rates and revenues went up. If you claim otherwise, you’re an idiot or a liar.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:45 pm
Why am I one of the few people on this blog that cites sites to back up my comments?
Why am I one of the few people on this blog that cites govt. websites to back up my comments?
Why do Democrats argue with facts from historical govt. websites?
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
8:47 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
8:43 pm
what??: Compare Clinton’s last year in tax receipts to Bush’s in 2003, 2004, and they barely beat it in 2005.
————————–
Yeah, thanks Clinton for the Internet bubble bursting and handing a recession and an al Qaeda operation in progress over to our President Bush.
Our President Bush’s tax cuts weren’t implemented until 2003 so it’s rather ignorant to attribute 2001 or 2002 revenue to something that hadn’t happened yet.
++++
Tax revenue under Clinton went up 86% while under Bush only 25%. It seems if cutting taxes actually generated revenue the opposite would be true.