GOP announces vote on 18-month debt-ceiling plan
posted at 11:35 am on July 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
While Barack Obama went to the press for the third time in 17 days, John Boehner and Eric Cantor called his bluff in the House. The Republican leadership announced that the House would vote on a plan to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion and matching cuts:
House Republicans said Friday that they planned to vote next week on a proposal to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, with matching cuts and guidelines to control future government spending.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) said at a news conference Friday that the House next week would vote on a “cut, cap and balance” approach. The House plans to separately vote on a measure that would amend the U.S. Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said Friday that the White House has been “unwilling to put a real plan on the table,” but said next week’s vote would not “preclude” the chance of reaching a deal with Democrats.
The only thing wrong with this announcement was the timing. The GOP probably should have waited for Obama’s press conference to end before unveiling this effort. That would have trumped Obama’s message and might have improved the chances of carrying the news cycle.
However, Obama’s wan performance at the podium might not prove much of a challenge. Obama’s third press conference produced exactly what his first two press conferences already delivered: no plan, no specifics. In fact, Obama explicitly stated, “I’m not going to get into specifics.” House Republicans have offered — and passed — a very specific plan to reduce spending and the need for future borrowing. Obama’s own debt commission delivered a very specific plan, which Obama has entirely ignored for five months. James Pethokoukis was prompted to tweet, “Leading from behind,” and at this late date, it’s hard to grasp what the White House wanted from a rehash of the prior two press conferences.
Boehner and Cantor could still be bluffing themselves. They took quite a while to develop this proposal, and some wondered whether Boehner could get the votes for a debt-ceiling increase in order to put pressure on the Senate and White House. One has to assume that they have whipped the caucus to make sure it can pass without Democratic support, even though Tea Party Caucus leader Michele Bachmann and others have publicly declared opposition to any debt ceiling hike. I assume we will see a round of strategic voting and a thin margin of victory in the roll-call vote.
If Republicans pass this in the House, they will have delivered a plan that puts the next debate over the debt ceiling into 2013, and made the 2012 elections hinge on this debate. The bill will force the Democrats in the Senate and Obama to either accept that outcome or kill the bill — and that puts the onus for default squarely on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the President of Ambiguities.
Breaking on Hot Air
NYT convinces itself Hillary is exciting and surprising while she remains same ol’ Hillary
The progressive agenda for 2016 : Much more spending, much less trade
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I havent seen any hard evidence, default being a failure to pay creditors, in particular a failure to pay the interest on the debt
Failure to build light rail systems to nowhere for billions of dollars, and failure to bail out states on their debts is not a default
Failure to pay Social Security checks would be not a default, but criminal, since there is sufficent social security tax coming in to pay the checks that must go out, and because the law requires that money be used only to fund social security
I also cannot find hard evidence to support the ‘cut, cap and balance’ deal, and I cannot at all understand the need to throw in a constitutional amendment for anything into this debate, except to divert attention from the reality of ‘cut, cap and balance’
I turned off the John Batchelor show last night as they defended the McConnell plan, because the Prez would get to raise the debt ceiling, but if he vetoed the cuts (and Congress would likely not override such veto) the Prez would get the blame for raising the ceiling without cutting spending
Only in the Beltway would that be considered a solution
IMHO ‘Cut,cap and balance’ puts the cart before the horse. The debt ceiling must not be raised until the cuts are signed into law. Otherwise what’s the difference. The Prez will hold out for raising the ceiling first, with the threat of not mailing Social Security checks
We may all be in nursing homes before a constitutional amendment on spending becomes law. What a waste. Just a sucker for the suckers
The only specific the GOP owes Obama is swift retaliation over the Social Security threat. The GOP needs to hammer home there is zero justification to withhold SSA checks because the tax withholding money is there, in surplus
The more they hammer that nail, the more they take the hammer away from the Prez who is behaving like a cad
You want to see the economy drop like a rock, let this social security threat fester. I saw a drop in the local store yesterday (seniors missing) and one lady told me, no one is going to buy anything, if they think the checks wont come
The GOP needs to ssize that threat and beat Obama’s evil noggin with the fact. They need to do it in public. He handed them a chance to take control of the message and they are too busy talking to each other to see what is happening in flyover
entagor on July 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM
Why 18 months? Do it til the end of the year and make Zero have to fight the battle again. That way if he doesn’t find anything to cut between now and then, we’ll all know he really wasn’t serious about cutting spending which we all know right now he isn’t.
Kissmygrits on July 15, 2011 at 9:56 PM
Unfortunately, the markets and credit rating agencies have indicated that a partial solution is inadequate. Congress needs to pass a package that reduces deficit spending by $4 tril or more over 10 years or face the severe consequences. If the credit rating of the federal government is lowered, it’s only a matter of time before the rating of US corporate debt follows suit.
This outcome would be potentially devastating for long-term economic growth. It would increase the cost of servicing the debt and increase the cost of credit for both businesses and consumers.
The sad truth is that this country doesn’t face a fiscal challenge- it faces a political one. This country has more than the financial means to reach a $4 trillion reduction in the deficit. But inaction is the most likely outcome- those on the left refuse to accept deep spending cuts without some tax hikes, while those on the right demand zero new tax revenue and savings through spending cuts alone.
Hopefully rationality will prevail and a compromise will be reached. The Fed and Wall Street have stated very loudly that everything should be on the table, emphasizing the importance of compromise. If each side isn’t willing to compromise and put some skin into the game, then the country will ultimately pay a high price.
bayam on July 15, 2011 at 11:15 PM
“bluff called”?? IGNORAMUS! They’ve folded and allowed Obama to escape. 18mos pushes any hard fiscal discipline crisis out beyond the 2012 election. It practially hands Obama a 2nd term.
rayra on July 16, 2011 at 1:54 AM
Why raise the debt limit when Obowma and the democrat congress raised spending 5 trillion dollars over the past 4 years? Roll back spending to 2006 levels and problem solved: NO Obowmacare that no one wants, LESS entitlements, LESS zero liability voters, CUT waste.
dthorny on July 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM
When the treasury receives 170-200 billion dollars per month in tax collection, they can certainly pay out 30 billion per month in Social Security payments.
Unless the DC math is different?
dthorny on July 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Hey! I clicked on
but the link didn’t work.
Time to hit Google. ;o)
DannoJyd on July 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM
1 for 1 should be 2012 budget vs cap to make government last until 2012 budget time. Heck, make it the budget deal. Take enough out of the budget for 2012 that a matching raise in debt ceiling will not require another raise until October of 2012. Demand passage of the balanced budget amendment with a budget cap as a percentage of GDP. Let the show down be the backdrop to the elections. Use the same formula for the 2013 budget.
When trimming make sure it is agencies that are overburdening small businesses with paperwork and regulations. Make sure it trims the people denying oil leases. Make sure it trims people denying water to farmers to save a should be extinct little fish. Make sure it gets rid of the governmental intrusions into private lives “for their own good.” (There is no nanny clause in the Constitution.)
Getting rid of the regulation will in itself boost the economy. That should allow us to be on a solid course for balancing the budget and actually reducing the debt.
{^_^}
herself on July 16, 2011 at 1:00 PM
What is your definition of a partial solution? Anything other than a balanced budget is a partial solution.
Those on the left are wrong. Spending is killing us.
Those on the right are correct. This country doesn’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
It’s wrong to compromise if your compromise leads to very bad economic policies.
Look, fiscal conservatives don’t believe in low spending and low taxes because they want to hurt poor people and help rich people. Fiscal conservatives want the economy to do well for EVERYBODY. Fiscal conservatives aren’t taking sides – they’re trying to get others to do the right thing.
blink on July 16, 2011 at 1:10 PM
The only reason Obama has been able to keep his head above water in this debate about the crisis he created on his own is that we’ve allowed him to speak only in generalities. He can call for us to eat our peas and seek compromise and love apple pie all day and all night, as long as he doesn’t have to show his own plan – which is MORE wasteful spending, higher taxes for most of the middle class, and no meaningful spending cuts at all.
Put up or shut up, Comrade Barry. That should be our message, every day and every night. The answer to every question from the media should be the same: Q – “Why are Tea Partiers so stubborn?” A – “Where is Obama’s plan? He doesn’t have one! How can we negotiate with nothing? He’s a phony, a fake.” Q- “What about the Gaza Flotilla?” A – “Where is Obama’s plan? He doesn’t have one! How can we negotiate with nothing? He’s a phony, a fake.”
& etc.
Adjoran on July 17, 2011 at 3:45 AM
I just came back from Long Beach Island, NJ. I have NEVER seen so many ‘For Rent’ signs this late in the season. I also spoke with a young lady at the local ice cream parlor and she said that this is the worst business they have seen in years. I went on Friday night, around ten, and there were NO lines at all, no wait time.
She also works as a life guard and said that the beaches are not as full as in previous years.
Local fish shop owner said all the businesses are, “Waiting for the season to start!”
This economy sucks, and I sure as hell hope the American public wakes up and gives this inexperienced executive the boot.
siwrcw03 on July 17, 2011 at 8:52 AM
The Full Monty
If raising taxes is so good for the economy, why not just make the rates 100% and really get it going?
Just for a few months.
Why Dear Leader said the folks are sold on it…
IlikedAUH2O on July 18, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3