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
JDW
July 12th, 2011
10:25 pm
@MKS…”That’s what isSO!.”
Just ’cause you “Conservatives” in mind only proclaim it to be true It must be?
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
10:27 pm
“So if the cuts weren’t real why is McConnell looking to punt instead of calling Obama on his bluff?”
Because McConnell is an idiot disguised as a U.S. Senator.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
10:31 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:54 pm
Sorry, Moderate, no sale. Those numbers paper over Clinton’s deficits by stealing the Social Security trust fund. Nice try though.
+++++
That is good logic. The government is stealing from the government. In that case then if you take the total cost of medicare and social security you will see together these two programs actually have spent more than they have taken in. It is only when you seperate out social security that it seem as if the governmnet “is stealing”.
Since 2000 Medicare has paid out 1.6 million and socail security has collected excess funds of 393 million. It just so happens that the only years since 1995 that social security and medicare collected together collected more than they paid out was 2000 and 2001 so techically the trust funds in general have been a drain on general revenues or shall we say thieves.
This is all taken from the tables 3.2 and 2.4 of the OMB tables with some calculations.
This why Paul Ryans budget address medicare because medicare is one of the main drivers of the deficit because it STEALS more from the general treasury than the general tresury steals from social security.
lol
Real Athens
July 12th, 2011
10:37 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
10:44 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
10:25 pm
Moderate@947, I’m so glad you brought up Open Secrets & who got what from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mae, the culprits who brought our economy to its knees. Seems that Chris Dodd of the Dodd-Frank 2000+ page bill got the most, who had been in Washington for decades. Seems that Obama got the second most moolah, the junior senator who had been in DC for 2 yrs. Why do you think that was?
+++
I will not defend Dodd or Obama but at the same time I am not going to obsolve the Republicans. George Bush received the third most in 2004.
The one that cracks me up is GM. Why is GM able to give money for lobbying when the government owns them. I don’t get it.
Well see you later.
Truth Squad
July 12th, 2011
11:19 pm
Tax rates need to be raised back to where they were under President Eisenhower (90%). When the national deficit is cut in half, then lower them to what they were under President Kennedy’s tax cut (around 70%) that conservatives love to cite.
When the deficit is retired, then further lower the rates to where they were in President Regan’s second year (around 69%).Then keep them there.
Under these rates, this country had robust growth, everyone who wanted a job could find one. There was no need for both parents to work, and we still lead the world in innovation,social mobility, millionaires, and billionaires.
If you believe in capitalism, then it is crystal clear that it must be rescued from the failed economic policies of the past 40 years or so. Europe is in trouble, developing countries are in trouble, and the U.S. is in trouble. The era of worshiping the wealthy at the expense of the Working and Middle Class has to end, or we really will see people trying to turn to socialism and maybe even communism (China is doing really well is it not?).
The idea that a very small select few should control all of the planet’s resources, and the destinies of billions of people cannot survive unless we act. Capitalism can work. Free markets can work if government, yes government, stops playing favorites, and making rules that guarantee big corporations always have a low wage labor market.
Antitrust regulations must be rigorously enforced so that we don’t have a handful of companies controlling every sector of the market and able to keep small business from prospering.
At some point, social order breaks down as the economy becomes less fair and social darwinism becomes the rule. Now that we’ve decided cops are nothing more than costs just like any other employee, the firewall between the have and have nots is growing weaker by the day.
Shame on all of you who continue to vote for politicians that do not have Middle and Working Classes as their top economic priority. And yes, some of those politicians can be found in the Democratic Party.
I very much look forward to the second Obama/Biden term. After another devastating loss, I believe smart Republicans will begin to act in the best interests of the country and planet rather than blind adherence to Big Government Conservative dogma.
Get Real
July 12th, 2011
11:32 pm
Truth Squad
Are you friggin insane? Drunk off you a$$? Or just plain tripping?
Please do not reproduce for the sake of everyone in this country!!
Michael T
July 12th, 2011
11:57 pm
I don’t really have anything to say. I was just compelled to post something because Kyle only has 157 comments and Jay Bookman has over 1,000. I really don’t understand it. Kyle’s blog is just as interesting and it’s about the same thing. I know it’s not a matter of AJC readers not being conservative. I can tell by the vents that most of AJC readers are conservative. I just don’t understand how Jay gets so many comments. Anyway, I just wanted to do my part to help Kyle compete.
Michael T
July 13th, 2011
12:13 am
Maybe liberals just talk more than conservatives. They should all get together on facebook or myspace and get to know each other.
Michael T
July 13th, 2011
12:24 am
I’ve done some research and it appears Jay is very insulting and condescending to many of those who dare to comment on his blog. You should try that Kyle. Apparently people like it.
There, now I’ve made three posts ’bout nothing. I feel I’ve done my part. I can’t sit here all night and make hundreds of post. Carry on Kyle and good luck.
Michael T
July 13th, 2011
12:27 am
Oh yeah, one more thing. Will all you Michaels out there please change your screen name to “Mike” or something else? Thank you.
Truth Squad
July 13th, 2011
12:37 am
@Get Real, truth doesn’t require insults and talking points, or blind adherence to dogma.Those of you who are keyboard warriors dutifully firing off what you feel are interesting put downs of those who dare disagree with you, are actually quite sad. I feel for you, not because I am commanded by my faith to do so, but that you folks are so obviously burdened with hate, anger, bitterness, and negative energy. The gift of life is too short and imperfect, to carry around the mindset you people have just takes up too much time and spirit, in my humble opinion.
Then again, someone obviously reproduced and now the rest of us have to deal with the likes of you!
I want you to know that you can feel free to hurl all the insults and talking points you can muster. I have reality on my side. Sooner or later, I’m betting sooner, the economic policies that has gotten all of these economies in a deep hole will have to end.
People like you might be willing to watch chaos ensue and the planet implode, but I believe most people just want to live their lives, raise their children, enjoy their family and friends, and live out their lives in dignity.In the end, dignity will win out over greed because humans are programed to survive. We will not survive if we continue to listen to people like you.
Tick Tock! Change is inevitable. There are more of us than there are of you, you’ve lost, you know it, so you have nothing left but insults, talking points, and causing as much misery in the brief time you have left. Very sad indeed.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 13th, 2011
6:02 am
Truth Squad: Tax rates need to be raised back to where they were under President Eisenhower (90%).
———————-
You may get some agreement from the parasite class, but folks who work in the productive part of the economy know better and disagree.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 13th, 2011
6:03 am
Tick Tock! Change is inevitable.
—————–
November 2010 speaks volumes to that point. Time to eat your peas, Democrats!
Sobelle
July 13th, 2011
6:22 am
What these comments sound like to me is exactly what’s going on in Washington. Just a bunch of foolish men arguing about whose toy is the best. If you don’t play my way, then I’ll take my toy and go home. When grown men begin to act like adults, then maybe our government will be running the way it was originially set up to run. As to Obama, I didn’t vote for him, but he IS our president and we should not be acting like the middle-easterners who are trying to throw out a dictator. There should be a certain amount of respect for the office of the presidency, there should be a certain amount of respect for we senior citizens who have worked hard most of our lives, paid in the system and now need assistance from our government in paying us what we paid in already. I have lived under 12 presidents, Obama being #13, and I don’t think I have ever seen as much contention going on as is now. In regard to the tea party, my prediction is they will be the ruination of our wonderful country as we know it. They are like bratty kids who just moved in on the block and are trying to take over. Someone needs to remind them that this country is free and is for everyone alike. Go ahead radicals, throw us under the bus and see who comes out to vote next time!
Ayn Rant
July 13th, 2011
7:11 am
It’s a silly “plan”. but go for it. It’ll allow the economy to limp along until November when the voters will set the Republicant charlatans back to the “minority” party in both houses of Congress.
Mongo
July 13th, 2011
7:31 am
@Kyle:”At some point, you have to be for something. Why aren’t Reid & Co. being branded the “Senate Majority of No”?”
You seem to be forgetting the 200+ filibusters the Senate Republicans have used to block jobs bills and everything else that would help the economy for the past 2 years.. How convenient.
Carlosgvv
July 13th, 2011
8:51 am
McConnell did not get this far in politics by being a dummy. If Obama warns that SS checks might not go out and scares 70 million people, McConnell knows he will come out smelling like a rose if he rides to the rescue and comes up with a solution.
A voice of reason
July 13th, 2011
8:54 am
Not quite following how the top 2% are not making a sacrifice… they already pay far more than half of total income tax. How is fair, then, to raise taxes on them even more?
A voice of reason
July 13th, 2011
8:56 am
Really Mongo? In what way is spending money we don’t have going to help the economy?
So many idiots, not enough poets
July 13th, 2011
9:11 am
OMG, this is exactly why I stopped voting after I helped GW get elected the first time. One of the top 3 leaders of the GOP basically recommends handing the keys to Obama, (in essence giving up) and the sheep immediately come out with the Obozo, Obummer, Idiot Messiah bleets. LOL. Wake up little sheep, your party is retreating from the very “idiot” you are chastising. BOTH sides are equally responsible for mess we are in, and BOTH sides will have to work together to get out. Not sure who the dumba$$ was that made the Hitler reference regarding compromise, but I have to admit, that made me laugh. I haven’t heard anything that stupid since someone tried to convince me that elected officials actually care about us.
GT
July 13th, 2011
9:12 am
There are public companies like maybe a Lowe’s that tend more to running a good business and let the stock price fall where it may. Then there is Home Depot that eyes its stock price and cuts cost to show profit on the bottom line. Stock prices momentarily rise until the customer service becomes so bad they have to fire the chairman. In Mitch McConnell plan the real problem is it is not sincere. When you have to think too much as you do here, you are trying to hide the true you and there is no natural way to do that. The Republican doesn’t care about what they talk about they are just trying to get elected, hook or crook. In their grandstanding they may shipwreck this country. The one thing we have going for us in this country is Obama. He is dancing to his own music and not trying to keep beat with someone else’s agenda. He is a quick thinker something we have not had in the White House for a while. He also more middle of the road, not the liberal the flakes on the right try to paint him. The middle America recognizes this and he has strong support there, more and more as this insanity goes to market. The real liberals are not happy with our president but it is the devil or the deep blue sea for them. It is time the Republicans round up their nutballs and start leading this country from the middle too. The tail is wagging their dog.
1961_Boomer
July 13th, 2011
9:23 am
Personally, I’d rather see tax hikes than to let Obama rack up another $2 trillion in debt before attempting… again… to reign in spending. This is crazy. Do you let your spouse go out and rack up another $5k in debt so that you can say the credit card problem is her’s? No… because you still have to deal with it as a family. The Government credit card belongs to everyone and the debt will remain long after Obama is a footnote in American history. Since there are no obvious signs of debt all around us, a political stunt like “trying to pin the debt on Obama” is foolhardy. McConnell is a dumbassss
Frederick M. Luper
July 13th, 2011
9:38 am
I’m no constitutional scholar, but I always understood that Congress and not the President had the responsibility of appropriating and spending money. Doesn’t this proposal do violence to Separation of Powers?
poker face....
July 13th, 2011
10:00 am
i am far from being a bleeding liberal or a huge obama fan, but he called the repugs bluff and they backed down. he offered them a package that would reduce spending and end tax loopholes to the tune of 83% cuts and 17% revenue, and they balked. these are the same numbers the the repugs were tossing around a few months ago. just shows they are not serious about deficit reduction.
you have to have new revenue sources to cut the deficit. reagan did it, bush 1 did it.
the repugs are beholden to the right wing nut jobs who want to slash and burn, unless of course you are michelle bachmann sucking of the medicare and ag subsidies teets…..”slash and burn for the people who are not whitey rich folks”
kudos obama, well played
Lynnie Gal
July 13th, 2011
10:01 am
Now that the Republicans have dug themselves into a hole by being obstinate about the debt ceiling, the true masters of the party–Wall Street, millionaires and billionaires (who use Republicans to assure they won’t pay a dollar more in taxes,) are cracking the whip against McConnell’s back and forcing the lamebrains in the teahouse back into the asylum, locking them there until they unleash their wild eyed ravings next year. The real masters of the party will not allow the crazies to cause a default, that’s very clear now. And, it’s clear to swing voters now that what David Brooks said, that “Republicans are not fit to govern” is correct.
JF McNamara
July 13th, 2011
10:04 am
Its a poor idea, but what option do Republicans have that’s better? They have two options. Sign a deal with tax increases or default on the debt.
They are at a negotiating table but they don’t have anything they can give up, because their base is so rabid about not doing anything. They made a big deal out of this, so now Obama can’t just give them some gift cuts and he won’t do a small deal because he doesn’t want this to be a long running theme. They aren’t actually dumb enough to drive the country off of a cliff, and they severely overplayed their hand.
Rafe Hollister
July 13th, 2011
10:21 am
I heard Barry say yesterday something to the effect of we need to get this deal done and fix our budget, so that we can get on with investing in our future.
Translation: We need to get something on paper that seems to settle the issue, and then when no one is paying attention, I can go back to spending money to make this a more “fair” economy.
The libs don’t get it that the tax revenue increases are designed so they can continue spending, they have no intention of shrinking government, just changing where the money is spent.
Mitch’s plan B would just allow Barry to cut defense and move the money to more entitlements.
Rafe Hollister
July 13th, 2011
10:26 am
Michelle Backman made the point the other day that Cons need to quit falling for this Democrat term cuts to the budget. She said that these are not cuts in spending they are cuts in projections of future spending. None of the “cuts” will take effect anytime soon, so they do not offer an immediate remedy.
I’m afraid that since the Dems have a history of smoke and mirror projections, that the GOP is going to fall for the same trick they played on Reagan. He gave them the tax increases but the “cuts in spending” never were implemented. Fool us once as the saying goes.
joe
July 13th, 2011
11:05 am
Posed this on Jamie’s blog:
I personally like Sen. Mitch McConnell’s suggestion where Obama could request “and likely secure — increases of up to $2.5 trillion in the government’s borrowing authority in three separate installments over the next year.”
Basically that is putting this decision in Obama’s hands and would allow GOP to say they tried everything to stop him, but he was the one who ultimately raised it, which the majority of US citizen taxpayers do not want…and thus, adding one more HUGE reason to vote him out in 2012. As the saying goes, give him enough rope…and you know the rest.
DawgDad
July 13th, 2011
11:38 am
Us “insane” tea party types are not in favor of gimmiks or other legislative sleight of hand, we want to see clear, straight-up fiscal responsibility and limited government. If I can’t understand the deal, or can’t read the bill until it’s passed, it’s a bad idea, period.
On the economy, Obama and the Democrats are political enemies. Their socialist/fascist policies and actions have harmed this nation and my family. I expect the GOP to shoot plain and straight, stand firm for the core values of their base, and let the voters judge for themselves who’s looking out for America.
Republicans voting for corporate sweetheart protectionist light bulb standards that compromise the free market (and plain common sense) does not sit well with me, either. The targeted $85 in annual household savings (chuckle) will cost the party $100 in annual contributions from this household.
First Sergeant
July 13th, 2011
2:11 pm
joe
July 13th, 2011
11:05 am
“As the saying goes, give him enough rope…and you know the rest.”
The Repugs have tried undermining the Obama administration this whole term, and has made themselves look very bad in the eyes of the American people. When will you and your party get it. Our President and his administration will continue to outwit those (Repugs) who want to bring harm to our country.
2012 Tuesday: The presidential politics of the debt ceiling fight | Kyle Wingfield
July 19th, 2011
11:52 am
[...] trillion plan Sen. Tom Coburn outlined Monday, probably not Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, possibly the $3.7 trillion plan the “Gang of Six” senators unveiled today (and about [...]
2012 Tuesday: The presidential politics of the debt ceiling fight | Hawaii News
July 19th, 2011
3:58 pm
[...] $9 trillion plan Sen. Tom Coburn outlined Monday, probably not Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, possibly the $3.7 trillion plan the “Gang of Six” senators unveiled today (and about which [...]
2012 Tuesday: The presidential politics of the debt ceiling fight | Delaware News
July 19th, 2011
4:14 pm
[...] $9 trillion plan Sen. Tom Coburn outlined Monday, probably not Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, possibly the $3.7 trillion plan the “Gang of Six” senators unveiled today (and about which [...]