McManus: The political angle of the debt-ceiling debate

It's not hard to see what a compromise solution on the debt ceiling would look like. It's just hard to see how we get there from here before the Treasury begins running out of money Aug. 2.

Republican House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have proposed competing outlines for a deal, and what's most striking is how similar they are.

Boehner and Reid both proposed cuts they said would eliminate $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending over 10 years, with automatic cuts if Congress doesn't act. Both propose setting up a bipartisan joint congressional committee to recommend further savings, which means looking for ways to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And both propose doing all this with no tax increases, though they both favor some kind of tax reform.

The differences are significant but not unbridgeable. The main one is that Reid wants to raise the debt ceiling enough to get through the 2012 election without another debate on the issue; Boehner proposes increasing the debt ceiling by a smaller amount to force another vote within a year, partly as a means of enforcing more cuts.

Both plans represent a victory for conservative Republicans. They've won the debate over whether we need to focus immediately on reducing the deficit and the debt. They've won the debate over whether a deficit fix should include tax increases for high-income earners. (That was one of President Obama's top demands, and formally still is, though Reid has walked away from it for now.) They are slowly winning the debate over putting cuts in future Medicare and Social Security benefits on the table. (Even Obama agreed to that, infuriating many of his liberal supporters.)

The scale of the Republican success could be measured in the doleful statement that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued Monday. "It is clear we must enter an era of austerity, to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice," she said.

So it should be easy for Boehner and Reid to quickly resolve the differences between their two plans, right?

If it were only a question of policy, they probably could. But politics gets in the way.

Boehner is clinging tenaciously to holding another vote on the debt ceiling before the 2012 election. Reid, and Obama, are equally adamant in rejecting it.

Republicans clearly think that having the issue front and center in an election year will help them. Most voters don't like the national debt and don't want to allow more borrowing. Forcing Obama to come back and ask for a higher debt ceiling is a way of forcing him to spend time in an election year debating the GOP on its own terms.

Probably more important, though, is the challenge Boehner faces in winning support from his own party for a deal, especially from the fiscal hawks allied with the "tea party" movement. Tea party Republicans mistrust bipartisan deals, especially deals that spread budget cuts over a 10-year timetable. Boehner drew stinging criticism from his right for the short-term spending deal he made in April because many of its cuts turned out to be smaller than initially advertised.

All year long, Boehner and his lieutenants have been asking their most conservative members to cut them some slack on individual budget deals. They promised that there would be "more than one bite at the apple," in the words of House Republican leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and that the debt ceiling would be the most important bite.

By proposing to raise the debt ceiling in two chunks instead of one, Boehner is promising the tea party yet another bite at the apple — another chance to hold up federal spending if their demands for deficit reduction aren't satisfied.

In the short run, brinkmanship has worked for the House Republicans. Their single-minded stubbornness has forced both the White House and the Democratic-controlled Senate to bend in their direction.

But brinkmanship always carries the risk of actually going over the cliff. If the impasse over the debt ceiling causes economic chaos, Boehner and his party will get much of the blame. Already, polls suggest that this debate has been a "negative sum" game for its protagonists: Obama and both parties in Congress have all fallen in public esteem.

The debate has also changed at least one aspect of the way Washington does business. Raising the debt ceiling was once a routine piece of fiscal management, but now, for many in the GOP, it's become a matter of principle, and an indispensable point of leverage too. No matter what happens between now and Aug. 2, we are likely to find ourselves back at the brink again all too soon.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks

    The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks

    As we embark on the seventh year since the historic collapse of the Lehman Bros. investment bank, it's clear we haven't fixed what broke the economy in 2008. Big banks still control Congress. Workers remain acutely vulnerable to another financial crisis. But we can't blame only Wall Street for...

  • Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance

    Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance

    The terrorists who turned the World Trade Center into rubble struck a devastating blow to the U.S. economy too, and few sectors felt it as acutely as the insurance industry. Afterward, insurers balked at providing any coverage for damage caused by further acts of terrorism, making it harder — if...

  • Republicans love to hate the IRS, but it's a model of efficiency

    Republicans love to hate the IRS, but it's a model of efficiency

    As you labor over your tax returns this month, spare a moment of sympathy for the least-loved agency in the federal government: the Internal Revenue Service.

  • How to fix what ails Congress: bring back earmarks

    How to fix what ails Congress: bring back earmarks

    There are lots of complex proposals floating around for how to end partisan gridlock in Congress. But here's a simple start: Bring back earmarked spending.

  • How banking works for people of no account

    How banking works for people of no account

    For about 10  years now, two married friends of mine, both low-paid small-town schoolteachers, have been sending a monthly check for $50 to one of their former students. They tell me he’s the poorest person they’ve ever met. Given the hardscrabble place where they’ve lived most of their lives,...

  • The GOP's budget gimmickry won't fix the deficit

    The GOP's budget gimmickry won't fix the deficit

    With Congress on spring break, many House and Senate Republicans will probably spend the next two weeks back home touting the resolutions they passed to "balance the budget" within 10 years. But the competing resolutions for fiscal 2016 won't do anything of the sort, no matter what lawmakers say....

  • The government shutdown du jour

    The government shutdown du jour

    Reprising a scene that lawmakers have acted out too often in the last four years, Congress is heading for a partial government shutdown this week because of a Republican attempt to repeal one of President Obama's high-profile initiatives.

  • A new shroud on spending in Afghanistan

    A new shroud on spending in Afghanistan

    For six years, the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, which audits U.S. spending in the war-ravaged country, has submitted quarterly public reports to Congress drawn from records provided by the U.S.-led coalition supporting the still-shaky Afghan government....

Comments
Loading