The McConnell Plan and the GOP House

July 13, 2011

So just how hostile  is the GOP House toward McConnell’s new debt ceiling gambit (not to mention tax increases)?  Here are some excerpts from a chat I had early yesterday evening with a GOP Hill source with good knowledge of the caucus. I think it gives some pretty good color:

Members are really, really dug in. Even a deal with $2 trillion in cuts would be a tough sell.  Obama going on TV and repeatedly and being the champion of America’s debt crisis has resulted in members getting frustrated. They have sort of latched onto Obama’s $4-5 trillion [debt cut] number, they just don’t want to do it with tax increases. They longer Obama plays that, the more likely it is we end up not getting anything done.  It might have been possible to sell members on the [$2-2.5 trillion] deal two weeks ago but I don’t think that is the case right now.  He raised the stakes. The White House does not seem to be taking [Boehner and Cantor] at their word when they say tax increases won’t pass the House.  They think it’s a negotiating ploy.

The [McConnell plan] is shrewd but it doesn’t help the House majority. I don’t see how members could vote for that — tough enough selling them on a $2 trillion cut with no tax increases. If markets start reacting, it’s more likely Republicans  will get blamed. But even in that scenario, there would be trouble getting a tax increase through the House. Someone will blink if markets start tumbling, but I don’t see House members voting for a tax increase. If Obama puts out a detailed policy proposal, his own party will revolt against him.

But the ball is now in the House’s court. What will it do? Bill Kristol sees some options:

Plan A: They pass their optimal version of a debt ceiling increase—some version of the Cut/Cap/Balance proposal, with major domestic discretionary and entitlement spending cuts, spending caps, and at least a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Voting for this, like passing the Ryan budget, puts House Republicans in the position of claiming to have a serious and comprehensive governing plan

Plan B: The House (also?) passes a short-term debt ceiling increase of “only” several hundred billion dollars, accompanied by several hundred billion dollars of domestic discretionary cuts.  …

Plan C: The problem with both Plans A and B is that they do involve voting for an increase in the debt limit, which many House Republicans don’t want to do in the first place. … So why, some of them will say, ever vote for any debt ceiling increase at all? What’s in it for Republicans to be part of any process whose ultimate effect will be to authorize the federal government, under the management of President Obama, to plunge the nation ever deeper and more dangerously into debt?

One could answer that voters did send House Republicans to Washington to at least try to govern responsibly, and that Plans A and B embody such an effort. And that in voting for the Ryan budget, the House GOP has in effect voted to raise the debt ceiling. But that leads us to Plan C, which could either stand alone (i.e., one could skip Plans A and B) or be a follow-on to Plans A and B if they fail.  … House Republicans could allow Democrats to pass a no-tax-hike, no-gutting-of-defense version of a debt ceiling hike in the House. Speaker Boehner would have to round up (if I’ve done the math correctly) 48 Republican members who would agree to vote present on such a debt limit increase. The other 192 GOP members would vote no. The 193 Democrats would be welcome to vote yes and to pass the bill.

 

5 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

The debt ceiling is the responsibility of the Congress. If Congressmen/women don’t want to do do their jobs, then why the Hell are they in Congress?

Posted by Mainer1776 | Report as abusive

wHY IS IT SO HARD TO GRASP THE CONCEPT THAT INCREASING THE DEBT LIMIT WILL ALLOW PAST SPENDING DECISIONS TO BE PAID FOR?

Posted by jakster1 | Report as abusive

The majority of TP people and conservatives want no increase in the debt ceiling whatsoever, because we know that >$200 billion is taken in monthly in revenues while 0bama now has spending at >$300 billion monthly. Servicing the debt is ~$20 billion per month. Even adding in entitlements and defense, there is plenty left over. We are demanding severe and immediate cuts in spending NOW before any raise in the debt ceiling is discussed, and it is not needed in any case. Raising the ceiling will only encourage Congress to spend more. We want severe and painful cuts to government. The examples of where to achieve this are innumerable.

We are holding Boehner’s, Cantor’s, and all conservative GOP House members’ feet to the fire. They’re gone if they don’t do what we gave them the majority to do. End of discussion.

Posted by Peg_C | Report as abusive

You really want to cut spending? Start with the military. Then roll back the Bush taxcuts ($500B in 2008) and Medicare Part D – and voila, the budget’s balanced. Don’t forget that the Bush taxcuts were sold on the basis of “creating jobs” – how’s that working out, liars?

Obama won’t give an inch unless taxes are raised, as he shouldn’t, and the business leaders who are the Republican base have told Congress to quit monkeying around and get the job done of raising the debt ceiling.

To quote the most recent memoranda sent by the top CEO’s to the House members: “Asking what will happen after the debt limit is not raised is like asking how life will be after you commit suicide.”

Posted by Unsympathetic | Report as abusive

Defense is a CORE responsibility of government per the Constitution. Education, health care, Social Security, Medicare, all the various bloodsucking departments and agencies (NEA, EPA, Energy, most cabinet positions/depts., etc., ARE NOT. Make cuts in defense but only if making commensurate cuts in all other areas. And survival of the republic likely will require defunding and abolishing most of the Death Star size of the socialist state created in the past 80+ years.

Your entire dogma is crumbling and you along with it, Unsympathetic. I was probably far more lefty than you for 26 years. It’s a fraud and a nihilistic way to live, and its endgame is elimination of humanity. But none of you is willing to live in reality and SEE what you are doing. We are.

Posted by Peg_C | Report as abusive