Where’s YOUR Plan?

By Too Conservative


Comments

  • RichmondDem says:

    No vote tonight.

    I thought I’d never say this, but I miss Tom DeLay.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    It sounds like Boehner is making the bill farther to the right to get his remaining votes. What a waste of time.

  • Dan says:

    ed, you couldn’t be more correct. It makes no sense from either a policy or a political perspective. Hard to figure what Boehner is thinking.

    I am talking to more people who ordinarily don’t pay attention to this sort of thing who are expressing anxiety about it. And listening to what they think (a very UNscientific survey I admit), the Republicans are really hurting themselves politically here. Now ordinarily I think things that hurt Republicans politically are just dandy. But not in this case. The damage to the country these nitwits so breezily propose to inflict with their ignorance is just too high a price to pay.

    I don’t include Boehner with the nitwits. I know he is not one. I just fail to understand what he hopes to accomplish this way. I also think his Republican colleagues over on the Senate side are losing patience with him. As well they should.

  • RichmondDem says:

    Yup, he’s doing all this just so the bill can be killed by Reid.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I don’t even know if this bill is amendable in the Senate. I imagine they all are…

  • RichmondDem says:

    Neither Reid nor the Senate Democrats are going to touch anything the teabaggers vomit up. Amending this bill would be like putting spices on a dinner that consists of deer turds and arsenic.

  • Dan says:

    RichmondDem, as colorful as your description of this bill is, I think the Senate may indeed amend it and pass it and send it back over. Not because they like deer turds and arsenic, but because it may be the quickest route procedurally to get it done.

    If Reid initiates his own bill tonight I think it will take longer to get it through the arcane Senate procedures which seem to require at least 30 hours between each step. I also believe that for reasons understood only by themselves the Republicans are still insisting on observing every minute of delay possible on every bit of business. I may be wrong but I think there is a method for taking the House bill and amending it that allows for bypassing some of the needless delay. So, although everyone (except some of the anarchist teabaggers) knows that the Boehner bill has no chance of becoming law, it may turn out to be the most efficient vehicle available to do the essential work of getting the debt ceiling raised. Assuming the House can get it passed this evening.

    Of course, once the bill has been amended in the Senate to comport with reality and is returned to the House it will be unacceptable to the teabaggers. Leader Pelosi will no doubt then deliver a majority of her caucus to vote for passage. The $64,000 question is whether or not Speaker Boehner can deliver enough Republican votes to pass the thing. If not, we will all be up shit creek looking for a paddle.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Boenher would need to get around 25 Rs to go with the Ds (if all Ds vote yes). I would hate to be one of those guys the next day though…

    Imagine what Limbaugh will mobilize against them.

  • RichmondDem says:

    @ED

    So they get teabagged next time. So what? They get to be hedge fund managers in Manhattan as a “thank you” from the banks for not letting the world economy go belly up.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    There are zero proposals floating around that would satisfy the wolves at S&P, so while it’s fun to fling poo there’s probably a downgrade coming regardless of what’s passed.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I think no downgrade. Talk about negative outlooks or whatever phrase they use, but no downgrade.

    Everyone gets to take a breath and then whatever committee (Simpson Bowles II) gets agreed to gets to recommend yet another fix to the problem (which will also include revenue).

    If they don’t pass that (December), then a downgrade.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    Tough to call. They drew a line in the sand at 4T, and in the bast case we’re looking at a bill that does half of that. The S&P rhetoric will be difficult to walk back from, they put themselves into a bit of a box. I don’t really foresee dire consequences if we do catch a downgrade, though.

  • RichmondDem says:

    If that’s the case, Cato, all the better reason to get a clean bill even if it has to happen at the last minute.

    Deficit negotiations belong in the budgeting process.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    He can’t sell a clean bill. Just like Pelosi couldn’t sell a public option.

  • RichmondDem says:

    A clean debt ceiling bill is one sentence. It can be passed at 11:55 pm Monday night by voice vote (just like every other time the debt ceiling was lifted).

  • Dan says:

    Anyone else have a problem with rating agencies attempting to dictate public policy? I mean, in the event of an actual default a downgrade of U.S. government debt is a foregone conclusion. And should be. But rating agencies attempting to dictate the amount and pace of budget reductions? I don’t think so.

    Cato, you think rating agency rhetoric has put them in a box? Perhaps someone should quietly suggest another sort of box to them. One with bars on it. These are the same rating agencies who persisted in giving AAA ratings to credit default swaps that they knew were virtually worthless. I don’t recall any of them or their co-conspirators in that fraud being indicted. Maybe someone should suggest to them that the DoJ might want to correct for that oversight if they want to get all high and mighty about their feelings about the final shape of a budget deal.

  • Dan says:

    “Boenher would need to get around 25 Rs to go with the Ds (if all Ds vote yes). I would hate to be one of those guys the next day though…”

    ed, it can’t happen that way. First of all, you won’t get all the Democrats in the House. In fact, 30 members of the Congressional Black Caucus have said publicly that they would vote no on the Reid bill if it came to the House. And the Reid bill will get a lot more Republican friendly before it can pass the Senate and be sent over to the House. So you can count on a fair number of Democrats voting no. As you point out, those 25 or 30 sane Republicans would feel way too lonely. They will have to have a lot of company to make this work.

    The question is can the Republicans in the House deliver. They have basically done nothing more than a purity dance today by essentially passing cut, cap and balance a second time. A total waste of time.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Well… now that we have a filibuster in the Senate (I really didn’t see that one coming — I don’t know why) we may get an impasse in the Senate and Obama will have to pull the 14th Amendment emergency lever (which I thought had almost zero chance of happening).

    If that happens, the house will move to impeach.

    Perhaps the Senate will begin to negotiate Sunday and there is a bill in the house on Monday, but I thought rules prevented that kind of speed.

  • As lame and wacky as it sounds, I would vote for any bill, and only vote for a bill, that had some form of balanced budget amendment. At least that way, you have some long term way of ensuring the problem doesn’t get too much worse.

  • Elder Berry says:

    You know, if Obama pulls the 14th to end this manufactured and ridiculous crisis, and he announces it just that way, and the House impeaches him over it, they will have probably guaranteed his reelection. This Senate would NEVER convict him. He then looks like the hero guy who solved the problem, and the Republicans look like bad losers.

    The House impeached Clinton essentially over his personal behavior, thus significantly diminishing for all time the magnitude of the act of impeachment. Anyone noticed that Clinton is still massively popular both in the US and worldwide?

  • I don’t know wherenthis 14th amendment silver bullet is coming from. There’s nothing in it that allows him to spend like that.

  • An old law professor of mine opined that The 14th amendment doesn’t give the president any unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling. Pretty shocking considering he was a rabid left winger

    http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Cato, you think rating agency rhetoric has put them in a box? Perhaps someone should quietly suggest another sort of box to them. One with bars on it. These are the same rating agencies who persisted in giving AAA ratings to credit default swaps that they knew were virtually worthless. I don’t recall any of them or their co-conspirators in that fraud being indicted. Maybe someone should suggest to them that the DoJ might want to correct for that oversight if they want to get all high and mighty about their feelings about the final shape of a budget deal.”

    So, put them in jail because they say stuff about your paper you don’t like? Sounds Stalinesque to me. If that’s the standard you’re going to apply (and I’m not saying you shouldn’t) there’s a whole lot of other folks that should be inhabiting that barred box along with crooked rating agencies. If, on the other hand, the ratings agencies have truly found Jesus there are some pretty compelling reasons to take the rating down a notch. So what are they really saying? The difference between AA and AAA is very small indeed. Both are considered strong, investment grade debt. It’s really only a very big deal to those who make their living generating tv/radio ratings through sensationalism and political weenies on blogs. Yes, interest rates would move higher, but we’re at historical lows.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “Yes, interest rates would move higher, but we’re at historical lows.”

    They have to move higher at some point, but not with 1.3 percent growth in GDP (and we all know that growth has some BS in it).

    Lloyd, raising the limit isn’t about “spending” it’s about borrowing to pay what is already spent.

    Who would sue the President if he raised the limit by executive order? Congress? Eric Cantor?

  • Ed, fine. Same diff

Leave Comment