The debt-ceiling deal: Who wins and who loses?

The dust is still settling from the debt-ceiling accord reached over the weekend between the White House and congressional Republicans. So far, the deal has the true hallmarks of a compromise; it’s been blasted on both the right and the left, so much so that its passage remains uncertain.

The process was laborious. and so full of starts, stops, and walkouts and accusations, that it’s hard to say any single politician -- or any institution -- emerged unscathed. Instead, it could be argued that all of Washington came out with a black eye, with the public thinking less of all involved -- if that’s possible—as a result.

Here’s a look at the how the major players in the debate look today, with the caveat that a final agreement still hasn’t passed the Senate or the House.

President Obama: Can you call the president a winner? He got much of what, politically, he needed for 2012: a debt-ceiling deal that takes the nation through next year and avoids what could have been an international economic catastrophe. In the final agreement, he was also able to protect cherished totems such as Social Security, Medicare benefits, and veterans benefits from automatic cuts if a congressional super-committee can’t work out a deficit package, ensure that cuts to defense spending will be on the table along with entitlements, and retain the potential expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts as leverage.

At the end of the day, should the deal clear Congress, he’ll be able to tell the American people (and, more crucially, independent voters) that he was able to get the GOP to the table and produce an agreement -- and since the public has a short memory, voters may soon forget all about the tangled process that led to this moment.

But liberals are furious with the president for risking entitlements at all, while some conservatives are crowing that they brought him to his knees. His public approval rating has bottomed out after the salad days of May when Osama bin Laden was killed. And after insisting on first, a “clean” debt-limit vote and then maintaining that any deal must contain tax increases, Obama was dragged rightward by an insurgent House that appeared willing to take a chance on the nation defaulting.

From that perspective, the president never held a strong hand. His view of the world didn’t match up with those who simply refused to see raising the debt limit as an economic necessity. By that token, one could argue that he procured the best deal he could. Of course, if the deal doesn’t end up passing, the president’s standing could be in serious jeopardy.

Speaker John Boehner: Has any political figure in recent memory had his obituary written more times in the last week than this old-schooler from southern Ohio? Yet should he -- and this is a big “if” -- convince most of the members of his caucus Monday to vote for the bill, then much of the hand-wringing may have been for nothing. Yes, what happened last Thursday during Boehner’s first attempt to pass his debt-ceiling deal was embarrassing, but other speakers have suffered similar indignities.

After that failure, Boehner was savvy enough to tack right to appease his caucus and and add a balanced-budget amendment provision when he was fairly sure that language would not survive a final deal (and he was proven correct) — and much of the framework for that final deal came from his legislation. In the end, the intransigence of the “tea party” bloc may have worked to his benefit, as their seeming irrationality tied Boehner’s hands in signing off on a “grand bargain” and forced Democrats to surrender their bargaining position.

Still, the rebels in the House have shown that their loyalties to the speaker, and to their party, only run so deep, meaning that the speaker’s hold on power will continue to appear at times tenuous — even if that isn’t necessarily the case.

Senate deal-makers: From the Gang of Six, to the Biden talks, to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s last stand, the Senate, traditionally the place where deals get brokered, became largely irrelevant. Part of that, at the end of the day, was by choice, as Reid sat back to let the process between the White House and Boehner play out. But given that many of the hard choices concerning deficit reduction have been kicked to a joint, bipartisan committee, there’s still a chance for those on the Hill who want a serious debate about spending reform to have an impact. All in all, the most influential senator may have been. . .

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: A lifetime ago (read: in early July), McConnell was astute enough to see that a default could be disastrous for his party — even as it appeared to be winning the Washington conversation on budgets and spending, and he began seeking a way out. At the same time, his ability to hold his GOP caucus together meant that he and Boehner had the leverage to block any competing Senate plan and force Obama to return to the bargaining table. In the end, Republican unity was the reason why the president gave in on demanding revenue increases. The final package is grounded in reality, not ideology, which means that it should (and this is always an operative word before the vote counts are known) gain some significant Democratic support, which it likely will need to pass.

Anti-tax forces: Revenue became a four-letter word in this debate, which should give anti-tax crusaders such as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform comfort, and alarm some who view increased receipts as the only means to quickly pay down the deficit. In fact, opposition to taxes became the central focus of the GOP’s position (and the focus of President Obama’s attacks), moreso than deficit reduction. Norquist, who holds sway among the GOP conference, initially made it sound like there was some opportunity to tweak the tax code to eliminate tax breaks for special interests without violating the “no new taxes” pledge that many members have signed, but he quickly made clear that that was not the case. Given the work ahead for the congressional super-committee charged with deficit reduction, the controversy will continue to rage.

The “tea party”: There is little doubt that tea-infused legislators in the House were the variable elements introduced to what had been in the past a business-as-usual Washington equation. Movement leaders are already taking credit for the deal, even though many of those supported by it are pledging to vote against it. Therein lies the problem. At no point have several freshman legislators in the House had to actually help forge a compromise; in fact, many have forsworn it. That’s earned them the enmity of such influential entities as the Wall Street Journal editorial board and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who, among others, argue that the GOP has a responsibility to govern pragmatically. Moreover, the movement’s outsize influence may give middle-of-the-road voters the impression that the Republican Party is now lockstep with tea-party principles.

The question that has yet to be answered is whether the electorate likes what it sees. While polls show that Americans favor divided government, they don’t desire a dysfunctional government, one in which every small deadline becomes a cause for drawn-out, scorched-earth warfare. The last three congressional cycles have seen large shifts in seats from one party to the other. Will this drama help ensure a fourth? Which leads us to. . . .

Michele Bachmann: Bachmann should send flowers to the National Republican Congressional Committee and anyone else responsible for engineering the huge GOP majority in the House. It means that members such as Bachmann are free to take positions within their party without political risk, and that Bachmann, who is seeking the support of tea-party activists and other fiscal conservatives as part of her presidential campaign, can oppose raising the debt limit without being needed to take a tough vote.

The economy: While Washington has spent weeks focused on nothing but the question of default, all the while making voters and money managers nervous, the final outcome likely will do little to grow the sluggish economy, experts say. For those who were seeking any kind of new stimulus, the deal provides no new money for programs to spur job creation. The best thing that may be able to be said about it is that it avoids default, which could have resulted in higher interest rates for everyone and knocked government workers off the payroll. Beyond that, it perhaps sends a signal to markets that the country is serious about paying down its debt, albeit more slowly than many would like.