McConnell: Raise The Debt Ceiling Yourself Obama

Loading

Below is the video in which Mitch McConnell sets forth his proposal, and here is the WaPo analysis:

McConnell’s proposal would have the effect of forcing Obama and congressional Democrats to take full responsibility for raising the debt limit, and require Democrats to vote on the matter as many as six times between now and the 2012 election.

Historically, “when the president has asked for a debt-limit increase, he’s gotten it and his party has given it to him,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). McConnell’s proposal “gives the president 100 percent of the responsibility.”

Under the proposal, Congress would approve a joint resolution that would have to be signed by the president changing the rules surrounding the debt limit. The resolution would create a new legal structure to raise the debt limit on an installment plan. Obama would be required to request an increase in the debt limit three times — first for $700 billion, then for $900 billion and finally for another $900 billion. On each occasion, he would be required to submit a menu of spending cuts equal to the debt-limit request.

McConnell’s strategy makes no provision for those spending cuts to be enacted; aides said Republicans could pick and choose from the president’s list when they put together appropriations bills in a separate process. The strategy would also give Republicans no avenue to block a debt-limit increase.

My initial reaction is negative, but not as negative as some people.  If the authority were to give Obama the power to increase the debt limit but contingent on equivalent cuts which Obama could choose, that would make sense.

Essentially this is a $2.5 trilliion election strategy, figuring that it is better to defeat Obama in 2012 than run the risk of consequences now which would keep Obama in office through 2016. Because by 2016 $2.5 trillion is going to seem like chump change at the rate Obama is going.

The problem is, standing firm now both is the right thing to do and may be just as good an electoral strategy. We don’t know how all this will play out, but backing down on a core principle which led to the 2010 electoral victory could just as easily fracture the Republican Party and lead to the electoral disaster we are trying to avert.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

All I can say is WTF??

A couple of minutes ago I watched McConnell give one of his best speeches on the floor, and now this?

Don’t be too quick to cast stones at McConnell.

This move is actually a pretty brilliant rope a dope on Obie and the Dims. Here’s an assessment:

Here’s how the proposed plan would work: Republicans in Congress would agree to vote to authorize the president to propose three separate incremental debt ceiling increases, spaced over the remainder of his term. He would be required to couple each request with a corresponding set of spending cuts that exceed the dollar amount of his sought-after debt limit hike. These cuts would be of his choosing alone. The first pair of requests would come prior to the August 2 deadline. It would be for roughly $700 Billion. The next requests, for $900 Billion, would come in the fall, and the final tranche (also for $900 Billion) would be scheduled for summer of 2012 — in the thick of the campaign cycle.

In all likelihood, on each occasion, Republicans would overwhelmingly vote to disapprove of the president’s debt ceiling increase request. This allows GOP members (and almost certainly some vulnerable Democrats) to technically vote “no” on raising the debt ceiling. If, as is likely, simple majorities in both houses vote to disapprove of the president’s requests, he’d be forced to veto each disapproval, pinging the issue back to Capitol Hill. If Congress can’t override those vetos with 2/3 majorities (and Republicans won’t have the votes, even with some Democrats), the debt ceiling will increase. But not without the exacting a substantial political price from the president and his allies in Congress. They will own the debt ceiling hike. Period. Members of Congress who vote with the president will set themselves up to be targeted by brutal attack ads (“so-and-so has voted to increase the national debt limit three times in the last year alone,” etc).

Aye: I can almost hear Obama channeling Dobie Gillis’s friend Maynard G. Krebbs: “WORK?!?!?”
He can’t agree to it because making all those decisions would eat into his leisure time.

Debt ceiling impasse: Which party is right about taxes? An article from Christian Science Monitor.

If republicans were only to make a revenue concession–an increase of a few percent on the highest earners, or maybe the closing of a few high-end loopholes–in return they could get significant concessions on entitlement programs. These were offered. The White House had them on the table, despite protests from the far left.

It would seem steps toward fiscal responsibility are more important to McConnell than anything–except for keeping the highest earners in the nation from paying a nickel more in taxes.

@Greeyore:

If tax increases are key to the financial future of our nation, then why didn’t the Dims raise taxes any of the last six times they raised the debt limit?

Bonus prize: Someone who agrees with me that taxes shouldn’t be raised while the economy is struggling.

Roll the tape:

Exit Question: Considering that the US Treasury gladly accepts donations, could you please tell us how many extra dollars you have mailed in to them over the past three years? Five years? Ever?

@Greg:

maybe the closing of a few high-end loopholes–in return they could get significant concessions on entitlement programs. These were offered. The White House had them on the table, despite protests from the far left.

Obama was speaking out of his butt. Nothing like that would ever happen because democrats would lose a potent fundraising point.

Aye, McConnell plan is rotten. Here’s why, these few little words: “These cuts would be of his (the President’s) choosing alone.”

Are you really prepared to let this Marxist POTUS take a hachet to the military budget? Because that is the first place he will go.

The Republicans need to stand strong and when Obama threatens to stop Social Security checks again, the Republicans need to take to every TV show in the nation and say “We tried to get a plan out of the President. But all he wanted to do was raise taxes and now he is going to cut Social Security checks so that his ACORN people can continue to get money.” Obama threatens to shut the government down? Shut ‘er down. It’s happened before and guess what, the military still got paid and the sun still came up the next day.

Greg, please tell all us uninformed people; what exactly entitlements cuts did Obama put on the table? Name them.

@Aye, #6:

Republicans never voted to raise the debt limit?

@Greeyore:

Straw man.

Why is it that you have such a remarkable inability, or unwillingness, to answer the questions I pose to you?

Another assessment (projection) about the results of the McConnell plan–notice I don’t refer to him by a pejorative nickname (like Ole MacDonald’s Plan)–similar to like “Obbie and the Dims”, which I think does not further the goals of rational discussion (which I think, possible mistakenly, is the reason for this discourse):

The Republicans–in the form of the George Bush administration–are largely responsible for the deficit due to their waging of war–primarily in Iraq–due to the oil interests of them and their friends (including the majority of the Congressional Republicans), without ever paying for the war with tax dollars.

Now the bill has become due and the Republicans don’t want to pay for it–although they try to distance themselves from their actions in the past. If the Republicans surrender through the McConnell plan, then they will have to fight the bad publicity of “the Republicans caused contributed to the debt, but wouldn’t do their part to help correct it–instead they left it to the Democrats to do it on their own”. They’re going to have to live with this mantra through the 2012 elections–which Obama will win due to the paucity of choices of Republicans. The same chant will be used until 2016, unless the Republicans become more reasonable.

LIBERAL[objectivity,
you guys forgot the the debt reach the ceiling exactly because of the DEMOCRATS astronomical over expanses,
so why would the REPUBLICAN allow the DEMOCRATS to make them the intransigent’s vilain , meaning why would they let the public being told that the whole thing started by them ?
the DEMOCRAT ARE PLAYING POLITIC AND TRYING HARD TO SHIFT THE BLAME TO THE OTHER PARTY, BUT LET’S BE STRAIGHT ABOUT IT, THE DEMOCRATS ALLOWED THE LEADER TO SPEND IRRATICLY ALL THIS TIME, AND NOW THE LIMIT HAS ARRIVE, SO YES LET OBAMA HIMSELF BE THE REAL OFFENDER AND RAISE THE LIMIT HIMSELF, SO THE AMERICANS WILL KNOW WHO IS TO BLAME ,
THEY TRIED ALL TO CONFUSE THE PEOPLE WHO THEY ARE TARGETTING TO VOTE FOR HIM THE BIG SPENDER OF THE AMERICANS ‘S MONEY,
but we must emphasise to keep the real cause of it in front of AMERICA,
because they trying so hard to cover themself making the other REPUBLICANS AND GOPS
look bad, as oppose to OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS BEING GUILTY AS HELL, FOR THE DISASTER THAT THEY ARE MAKING FOR THE WHOLE NATION , POORS AND MIDDEL CLASS WORKERS AND RICHS ENTERPRENEUR , ALL ARE IN THIS MESS MADE
BY THE DEMOCRATS LEADER AND ALL.

And then, on the following day:

McConnell: Debt ceiling will not get ‘a single Republican vote’

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that his party is united in opposing any effort to raise the debt ceiling, even as he maintained that the country will not default on its debt obligations.

“I bet there won’t be a single Republican vote to raise the debt ceiling at the end of the day,” the Senate’s top Republican said in a radio interview Wednesday morning with conservative commentator Laura Ingraham.

Maybe the President’s problem is that he’s trying to negotiate with schizophrenics.

McConnell told (Laura) Ingraham (in a radio interview) on Wednesday that despite Republicans’ opposition to raising the borrowing limit, he believes that the country will not default on its debt obligations. He also dismissed criticism of his back-up plan from some Republican presidential contenders.

“There are always differences among Republicans,” McConnell said. “At the end of the day, we’re going to have a good election next year; it’s going to be a referendum on the president.”

So, there’s McConnell, tipping his hand. There’s the explanation for the inconsistencies from one day to the next: None of it is actually about making a good faith effort to work toward compromises and genuine budgetary solutions this year; it’s all about politics and the elections next year. Republicans don’t want any progress to be made this year, with regard to both the national economy and federal deficits. This will also be the case throughout 2012. Any improvements in the nation’s situation before November 2012 would be to their disadvantage.

@Liberal1 (nitwittery):

The Republicans–in the form of the George Bush administration–are largely responsible for the deficit due to their waging of war–primarily in Iraq–

Tell me, what’s it like to live full time in Wonder Land?

Here’s a reality check for you:

Photobucket

Notice that pretty little circle labeled “F”? That represents the cost of the Iraq War.

The circle labeled “G” represents gov’t borrowing. No, spending on the Iraq War is not the issue.

Thanks for playing though.

@Greg:

None of it is actually about making a good faith effort to work toward compromises and genuine budgetary solutions this year; it’s all about politics and the elections next year.

1) Why has it been over 800 days since the Dims passed a budget?

2) Why did Obie’s budget get not one single vote when it was presented?

3) Would Obie’s attempts to get the GOP to raise taxes be considered all about politics and the elections next year?

4) If Obie were serious about fiscal responsibility and getting the country on track toward some sort of sanity then why did he just completely walk away from the findings and recommendations of his own debt commission?

@Aye, #15:

According to a recent study completed by the Eisenhower Research Group, that little circle labeled F is actually part of a war effort that has already cost the nation over $4 trillion. The effects of George W. Bush’s policies didn’t end the moment he left office. The wars didn’t stop. The national economy didn’t immediately cease the downhill slide that was already in progress.

@Greeyore:

It’s so tiresome to hear you sing the same verse of the same song over and over and over and over….

Especially when that Brown study had multiple fundamental flaws in it’s foundation.

Here’s a question for you that you never answered when I asked it the first time:

Exit Question: How much should we spend to defend the nation, and it’s interests, from threats abroad?

Mark Tapscott, the Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Examiner wrote:

Obama told CBS News today that he “cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

But wait just a minute. If Washington receives about $200 billion in monthly revenues and sends out roughly $50 billion worth of Social Security checks and the same amount of Medicare payments, why is Obama claiming the checks may not go out?

Isn’t $200 billion minus $100 billion still $100 billion?

Because Obama is playing the demogogue, that’s why. Pure and simple. He is trying to scare seniors into making panicked calls to their congressmen begging them to do whatever Obama and the Democrats want in order to keep the checks coming.

This is demogoguery of the worst sort because Obama has to know that what he is saying is false. When you and I say something we know to be false, it’s called a “lie.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner

If the Debt Ceiling is not raised it simply means the federal government must cut 44% from its total spending.
It could do that with some modest cuts to these:
* Defense vendors

* IRS refunds

* Food stamps and welfare

* Unemployment benefits

* Department of Education

* Department of Housing and Urban Development

* Departments of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS .

Geithner and Obama are doing the moral equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater and they are doing so for political reasons rather than financial reasons.
It is called ‘playing the demogogue.’

#18:

Exit Question: How much should we spend to defend the nation, and it’s interests, from threats abroad?

OK, I give up. What’s the answer?

So far as I can tell, it’s seldom possible to get a straight answer from republicans about how much has already been spent on recent military activities, let alone a dollar amount for a question like that one.

@Greeyore:

So far as I can tell, it’s seldom possible to get a straight answer from republicans about how much has already been spent on recent military activities…

Why do you feel the need to look to Republicans for the answer? The TelePromTer Jesus says that the cost is $1 trillion.

Oh, and the answer to what we should be spending is whatever it takes to keep the country safe and secure.

#19:

But wait just a minute. If Washington receives about $200 billion in monthly revenues and sends out roughly $50 billion worth of Social Security checks and the same amount of Medicare payments, why is Obama claiming the checks may not go out?

Something wouldn’t go out. There wouldn’t be enough to cover Social Security checks, Medicare service provider payments, military and civilian Federal pay, payments due to defense contractors, etc.

The list of possible targets for modest cuts is interesting. Perhaps republicans will suggest who on there should get shorted. Maybe we should curtail all farm subsidy payments to wealthy congressional farm owners or ethanol subsidies to Koch industries, before we suddenly take away some poor family’s food stamps. I wonder if it’s too late to delay Rupert Murdoch’s tax refund?

Nan G,
hi, he could just cut the war as a participant in those MIDDLE EAST COUNTRYS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICA, ONLY TO DO WITH HIS FRIENDS THE BROTHER HOOD,
THOSE COST ARE BILLIONS, ; HOW COME HE DID NOT THINK ABOUT IT
BEFORE GETTING INTO THOSE BILLIONS SPENDING WITH HIS OTHER FRIENDS THE UN ORGANISATION,
cutting that alone would be and should be the priority, that would not touch the AMERICANS’S NEED, THAT HE IS THREATENING
HE might want the CHAOS TO BE HAPPENING SO HE COULD USE THE MARSHALL LAW ON THE CITIZEN,
THAT IS IN THE MARXIST AGENDA, AT THE END ALMOST OF THE 10 PROGRESSION LAWS HOW TO DESTROY A COUNTRY AND BECOME THA MASTER OF ALL,

GREG as you know OBAMA started many wars lately, in getting involved with the ARAB’S SPRING,
EVEN THE PEOPLE THERE DEMONSTRATING WHERE CALLING ON HIM TO GET IN,
as they knew something first hand.
those are many wars that did not have noting to do with AMERICA
and more than MR BUSH FOR YOU.

Did anyone actually think that the CINOs could stand up against Obi and crew? Have we not seen this same great ploy before? And the dems ran with it, and still won? All Obi had to do was make the threat that we were all waiting for “The checks will stop” and bingo the republicans put their tail between their legs and slink out of the room. There is still a small part of me that hopes that they will resist. But if they don’t I agree that this will be the action that fractures the republican party big time. Coupled with the wild card Palin her entering the race has the potential to change the face of politics like we have never seen in this country in ages.

Gary G. Swenchonis,
HI, I think the REPUBLICANS are doing a great job, now specialy fight on top of that for the lies and threats on the MEDIA done for political gain by OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS WHICH are desperate themself
fighting for their own party in peril because of OBAMA who is only him in his party alone
and disconnect with the DEMOCRAT FOR WHICH HE DOESN’T GIVE A S..T
SO the REPUBLICANS see that as clear as transparent, that is why they have to counter on many fronts
beside sticking to their original demands that make more sense than all the other side rejections or demand for the future that they will destroy before it come, if they are reelected.

In CA (and elsewhere, too) when the gov’t has been short of funds in the past, many ”non-essential” gov’t workers are put on furloughs and or handed IOU’s.
Also many people are encouraged to retire BUT are not replaced.
We have incredible fat in the federal workforce.
The Post Office is a dinosaur but still running in the red with a single 1st class letter costing $.44 right now.
Most of the PO’s cash is now going toward pensions and medical.

@ilovebeeswarzone:
Great point, bees.
Just today the Arab League threatened the USA.

Not that Obama wouldn’t buckle and call it an outstretched hand, but what about the presidents in the future who Obama is hamstringing via his gutting of our Defense now?

#27

The Post Office is a dinosaur but still running in the red with a single 1st class letter costing $.44 right now.

The United States Post Office doesn’t operate on taxpayer money. It operates on the postage that’s paid for the delivery services it performs. To my thinking, a service that will reliably deliver a letter anywhere in the country within a few days for only 44 cents is a bargain.

Consider the administrative costs of Social Security or Medicare compared with the total funds managed. The federal government beats private industry’s overhead costs for administering anything of similar size ad complexity by a wide margin.

@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees. I respect your position. But the old crop of republicans have been put on notice, and are some are still acting like they were before the Tea Party movement began. Thats unfortunate for them and us as well. Many Americans like myself no longer believe that the old Republicans have what it takes to battle the libdems in DC. That a new type of politician is needed for our side, and the welfare of the nation. The birth of the Tea Party was only the beginning of a movement/revolution to combat not only the nation’s budget, and money matters but social issues as well. Issues that conservatives have been losing ground on for years now due to the apathy, and complacency of the republicans in charge. That was and is the initial reason that the Tea Party came about, Republicans who always have an excuse as to why they will not fight, only compromise. It’s not just me BEE, but millions of Americans who are demanding that our government be returned back to the people. Thats why we are now seeing individuals like Palin and Cain, more so Palin of course who are the driving force behind this new movement. BEE we are actually witnessing history in the making. The end of the republican party maybe, and or the beginnings of a new republican party made up of individuals who will put the agenda of conservatism first and foremost. Who will hopefully put honor,courage, and responsibility back into politics. And who will put their political career last, and the will of the people first. The liberals who make up only 20% of the population were the first to hold their politicians responsible BEE, and now we are trying to play catch up. I am not your enemy BEE, and don’t want you to think so. At one time in my life I would never ever had critized the republicans. But they abused that trust with me and millions more Americans, and now we have found another party to support if they don’t straighten up and fly right. And they are getting ready to do it again with disasterous results for most of them next election.

Gary G. Swenchonis,
I understand your anger, and what I am trying to focus now at this time
number one problem, that is for us to keep in mind that the REPUBLICANS ARE NOT IN POWER AS THE PRESIDENT IS, AND THAT MAKE THEM LIMITED IN THEIR ACTIONS, TO CHANGE THE CORRUPTION,
AND PROPAGANDA BY THOSE IN POWER TRYING TO ACCUSE THE REPUBLICANS PUBLICLY, WHEN THE GUILT IS ON THEIR SIDE OF ALL THE DEMOCRATS FOR NOT TALKING FRANKLY ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THERE FOR FEAR OF HARMING THE DEMOCRAT PARTY,
SO THEIR AGENDA IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO PROTECT BY THEIR OATH TO DO SO BY PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION,
SO WE MUST FOCUS ON THEM NOW, AND THE OTHER WEAK LINK WILL BE FIX AS THE NUMBER ONE IS DISABLE
this is to important to HAVE IT fail, and let the MEDIA divide us on this side, remember that we elect the same president that will reclaim AMERICA, WITH THOSE ELECTED GOOD WILL WHERE YOU WILL FIND TEAPARTY, CONSERVATIVES LIBERTALIEN AND REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDANT TOO VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE, UNDER THE BANNER OF THE SAME PRESIDENT WE WANT AT THE END WHEN THE 2 LAST PERSON ARE STILL UP,, HE WILL WORK FOR US ALL NOT DIVIDE THE COUNTRY BY USING THE RACIST CARD OR THE HATE CARD, OR THE WEALTHY AGAINST THE POOR, OR THE COLOR OF AMERICAN SKIN, AS IT’S DONE PRESENTLY, THOSE HAVE DESTROYED THE SUPER AMERICA THAT WAS,
AND IT MUST BE CORRECTED ALSO, WITH THE DEBT CEILING NEVER HAPPENNED BEFORE IN CENTURYS, IT TOOK DESTRUCTIVES FORCES GETTING TOGETHER TO DO IT PROGRESSIVLY BUT SURELY AS THE BIGGEST TRAHISON [THAT IS FRENCH], I DID NOT HAVE THE ENGLISH WORD BUT HAD TO WRITE IT YES THE BIGGEST EVER SUCCEEDED, BECAUSE OF THE LAST 2008 ELECTION.

: BEE I hear you loud and clear, I really do. But unfortunately I think that it’s too late for all of us to come back together under one banner. Unless Palin gets the nod for the republican Party. But there are many republicans who don’t want to see that happen for selfish reasons, justified by their political reasons. Even with her getting the Rep. nomination a third-party might still try to run, so there are many scenarios that could and may materialize. This will be one of the most important elections in US history, and the results will no doubt cause even more political turmoil than it solves for years to come. Are you French Bee? if you don’t mind me asking? I admire your patrioism ,your perservance and loyalty to the democratic way of life.

Gary G, Swenchonis,
yes, french originate from MONTREAL IN QUEBEC’S PROVINCE OF CANADA french part, my family
CAME IN THE 1634 AND I even have an AMERICAN KECHUP HEINZ in the previous 5 or 6 generation, the rest CAME FROM THOSE 1634 TO EMIGRATE, CLIMING THE LADDER OF GENERATIONS, AS THEY MADE MANY CHILDREN SOME 10 IN ONE FAMILY WAS DONE MANY TIMES,
WE, UNFORTUNATLY DON’T SEE THAT ANYMORE IN THE LADDER OF ROOTED AMERICANS ALSO,
it’s the danger of loosing the tree, if one doesn’t produce enough roots, and anther danger is the other poisonous tree will grow on the weakened roots and kill the tree,at the end, and end up propagating almost non interrupted until it become a forest of poisonous trees, taking over the air and soil for itself only and too late to eliminate,
having render the ancestral trees to weak .

@Greg: The United States Post Office doesn’t operate on taxpayer money. It operates on the postage that’s paid for the delivery services it performs. To my thinking, a service that will reliably deliver a letter anywhere in the country within a few days for only 44 cents is a bargain.

LOLOLOL!!!

The Postal Service enjoys “implicit subsidies” —
A 2007 Federal Trade Commission report noted that
the postal service does not have to pay taxes, including property tax;
does not have to pay vehicle registration fees, and
can borrow at low-interest rates through the U.S. Treasury.

All told, these implicit subsidies are worth several hundred million dollars annually.

The Postal Service recorded an $8.5 billion loss in fiscal 2010.

The postal workers UNION is fighting any cost-saving policy changes such as 5 day a week deliveries,
office closures and other policies.

@Greg:

The federal government beats private industry’s overhead costs for administering anything of similar size ad complexity by a wide margin.

I’d like to see the proof of this, Greg. I invite you to post statistics and facts that show your statement to be true.

@Greg:

I wonder if it’s too late to delay Rupert Murdoch’s tax refund?

What tax refund would that be Greg?

Oh, you mean the one that never existed?

Readers, I apologize. The premise of my debut column for Reuters, on News Corp’s taxes, was wrong, 100% dead wrong.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp did not get a $4.8 billion tax refund for the past four years, as I reported. Instead, it paid that much in cash for corporate income taxes for the years 2007 through 2010 while earning pre-tax profits of $10.4 billion.

For the first time in my 45-year-old career I am writing a skinback. That is what journalists call a retraction of the premise of a piece, as in peeling back your skin and feeling the pain. I will do all I can to make sure everyone who has read or heard secondary reports based on my column also learns the facts and would appreciate the help of readers in that cause.

[snip]

The measure of character, I say in my posts and lectures, is whether when an error is found you forthrightly and promptly correct.

Don’t look now, but your meme is broken.

@ilovebeeswarzone: Bee I missed this one! thanks for telling me. Wise words about the family Bee. Some die out and others prosper. “Families rise and fall in America” someone famous said that I think. Very difficult these days to have a big family money wise. Take Care!

@Aye, #36:

I’m happy to hear that Rupert’s company has, in fact, paid all required U.S. taxes, and that a formal retraction was made when a retraction was due. Maybe all of that other unfortunate business in the news will turn out to be nothing also.