I also think there’s an enormous amount of untoward language about the federal government shutdown. Democrats including the president routinely refer to the House Republicans’ actions as “blackmail”, “extortion”, “terrorism”, “arson”, or some variation of one of those. I think the expression they’re looking for is “hard bargaining”. The basic difference is that all of the insults refer to acts that are illegal while what the House is doing is ill-mannered but not illegal.
If what the Republicans in the House are doing were illegal, the president would all but certainly be seeking relief in the courts. That he is not doing so suggests that he recognizes that the House Republicans are engaging in hard bargaining and he’s responding with stump speeches, presumably intended either to sway the public (which does not appear to be working) or prepare the battleground for the 2014 midterm elections.
To the extent that the president’s objections are well-founded the problem is in the structure of our government. Congresses have very little ability to compel future Congresses other than via multi-year appropriations, trust funds, and the like. That’s why bipartisan agreement on major new programs is so vital. The House, Senate, and the president together enact laws but the House identifies the spending priorities. The House has no legal obligation to fund things enacted into law by prior Congresses. What obligations it has in that regard are those of tradition, convention, and civility.
I wish the House weren’t behaving the way it is but I also wish that there were more collegiality and civility in our present public sphere. I very rarely get what I want.
Sorry, bargaining implies that both parties might get something they didn’t have before. What the GOP is offering Obama is a funded government and the economy in return for something they actually wanted. If there was bargaining involved, Obama might bring to the table gun control or cap-and-trade or some policy he did not have before. But he’s not doing this; and people would think he’s crazy if at the 11th hour he decided to throw one of these in.
I’ve seen a number of people describing the standoff as Civil War II, though in run up to the actual Civil War something illegal was actually being done, and nonetheless, the President negotiated to avoid a civil war.
They didn’t really rely on the SCOTUS to interpret Constitutional issues back then, but the Congressional authorization for Andrew Jackson to use military force to stop the nullification movement was a public law that denied the legal right of states to unilaterally secede.
Lincoln was willing to negotiate, but he wasn’t willing to compromise two things: (a) the illegality of secession; and (b) non-expansion of slavery. As I recall, he would compromise on fugitive slave laws, slavery in D.C., tariffs, a Constitutional Amendment to protect slavery from the federal government where it already existed and grudgingly he would allow New Mexico into the union as a slave state. (Jackson, along with Clay and Calhoun, also compromised on the tariffs)
Modulo Myself:
I agree. The president doesn’t like what the Republicans are offering. They’re well within their rights to make their offer. They’re not breaking any laws by doing so.
Now, I agree with the president that they’re offering a lousy bargain. Still doesn’t mean they’re doing something they don’t have a right to do.
This is not going according to script. The shut-down is a big nothing, and I expect the howling to increase as the nothingness continues. Sequestration redux.
Crying wolf only works a few times.
That’s right, TastyBits. I’m not honestly sure what the name-calling is intended to accomplish. Above I’ve suggested trying to sway the public and battlespace prep.
The one thing it won’t accomplish is persuading the House Republicans to behave better.
If you’re trying to buy a ring, calling the jewelry dealer a gonif may be satisfying but it probably won’t make him lower the price.
They’re not trying to buy a ring from a professional jeweler–they’re being guilt-tripped by their alcoholic brother-in-law into getting a time-share in Clearwater. Or maybe a time-share and an insurance policy, it depends on how willing to negotiate the Democrats really are.
But don’t call him names! The poor guy has been through so much!
Modulo Myself: I see no reason why Obama cannot have his own interests to pursue through negotiations. I don’t think it would make sense to seek something that the other side is fervently opposed to, like asking Republicans to pass gun control or Obama to repeal Obamacare. But negotiations are best when they seek to address each side’s interests, not focus on their positions. If the Democrats could end this roadblock by the Senate agreeing to a vote on repeal of Roe v. Wade, why wouldn’t they? Its something that perhaps has high value to certain members of the GOP, and little significance to Democrats. But if you focus on the GOP “getting something” for untoward tactics, then its just negotiating to position, creating a zero-sum game. Maybe Dems would like a vote on immigration reform?
PD: the other side is fervently opposed to everything Obama is interested in.
As I asked over at OTB, with whom is he going to negotiate? John Boehner or Michelle Bachman, et al.?
Modulo, do you see that fervent opposition (your words) as sufficient justification for Obama not to negotiate?
@sam, Obama does not need to negotiate — he just needs to stop saying he won’t negotiate. By taking the position that negotiations are tantamount to surrender to dark forces, he pretty much stops all Democrats from negotiating.
“You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need………”””
Has anyone considered that Obama’s negotiating style – such as it is – and his governing style is just like the style of most lawyers? Oh, that’s right…………
How about “some lawyers”?
Abraham Lincoln’s advise to young lawyers:
“Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.”
Piercello,
I think he should negotiate. But he also has the right to put the squeeze on the GOP. And the squeeze is working; the GOP can’t even figure out what they want except for Obama to look terrible.
So I’m guessing that soon enough Boehner will have to fall on his sword and cut some short-term deal and this will be an absolute disaster for the Tea Party, except for in the mind of the Tea Party.
Gonif! I learned a new word today, thanks!
I agree with Dave’s post. Additionally, PD’s comments and our current predicament remind me of the movie, “The War of the Roses.”
I am a virtual treasure trove of Yiddishisms. After my first ten years, spent in a tough inner city-type neighborhood, we moved to a more affluent suburb. There about half of our neighbors were Jewish at a time in which most Jews peppered their speech with Yiddish and many spoke it fluently. We had one neighbor (in the garment business) who conducted most of his business in Yiddish. I picked up a few words.
@Andy, man I hated that movie; it might be my least favorite film of all time.
“I am a virtual treasure trove of Yiddishisms”
Ven der politish putz shteht, ligt der sechel in drerd.
Meant to add:
Here’s an appropriate (modified) one for our times.
“The War of the Roses.â€
Just hope it doesn’t degenerate into the Guelfs and Ghibellines.
Obama advocates are screaming that the GOP should not be entitled to pick ‘winners and losers,’ when referring to the validity of the various House appropriation bills sent to the senate, to at least fund some government entities now frozen out from accessing financial resources. They are saying it would ‘set a bad precedent,’ or something along those lines. This is irony, at it’s best, as those kinds of tactics have been role-modeled throughout Obama’s presidency, from government “investments’ cherry-picked to the recent changes he made to his own HC bill — the one being disputed by the House, for not treating everyone equally, because of all the waivers, subsidy extensions and delays he gave some and not others in complying immediately with PPACA mandates.
You just can’t make this kind of raw hypocrisy up — how each side indignantly chastises the other for the very same political maneuvers deemed ‘justified,’ when used by them, in choreographing their own agendas and gambits,
Also, Obama’s opposition to raise the debt ceiling in 2006, has already been reported. But, few may know just how close the final votes were in granting the increase — 52-48. If that number had been reversed, we would have been in the same stark default mode then as we are in today. Apparently, 7 years ago Senator Obama felt his deficit fears were enough to merit ardently pursuing a no vote, no matter the fiscal consequences. I might posit, though, that in 2006 the deficit was radically lower than it is today, meaning that the economic implications were less severe than they are today, as well. But, of course, no one is even talking about that. Instead, they are calling the party trying to put the brakes on deficit spending irresponsible terrorists.
The world is indeed upside down……
PD
Was thinking of you when I posted that. I hope you understand it was not lawyer specific.
But twenty+ years of deal making (and we have some of the finest legal talent on the planet) tell me lawyers (at least M&A lawyers, and really, what is different in M&A from what’s going on, unless its dry patent law and such) that they are too literal, myopic, detail and one sided, controlling, ego-maniacs, my way or the highway, confrontational and worry warts………..etc. Further, they could barely inspire and lead a trip to the bathroom. But boy oh boy can they talk and pontificate.
Can you say Barack Obama?
You’re talking like Ben Carson, Drew, regarding his thoughts about having too many lawyer types running DC. He advocates having more of a mixed group making policy decisions like, say business people. – or doctors. The doctors currently in Congress have certainly had a more reality-oriented viewpoint of HC – Price, Barasso are some examples. Even Rand Paul has had more lucid moments than many politicos in DC.
As an aside, I think that even worse than some of the hyperbolic language being thrown around in this debate has been some of the memorable bad optics. In fact there are even whispers of a new movement beginning to form – “Occupy America” — people rebelling against nonsensical government closures by openly defying them.
jan: But, few may know just how close the final votes were in granting the increase — 52-48.
Wouldn’t have mattered. If they were short, votes could have been found.
The conventional system was that the majority party would do its duty, hold its collective nose, and vote to raise the debt ceiling; while the minority party would hypocritically posture. This was a workable system. The current crisis is because the majority has threatened to not do its duty, sending the U.S. into default.
The debt ceiling is an anachronism, and should be eliminated.
@Zachriel, with this I agree, we should return to the previous practice.
@Drew, most lawyers are regularly involved in conflict negotiation. Some are good and some are bad and a lot in-between, but in a situation like this, where I needed someone to resolve a conflict, I’d rather pull names out of hat marked “lawyer,” than “non-lawyer.” At the very least, most of them won’t personalize the dispute as an apocalyptic battle between good or evil. For many other things, I might reach for the other hat.
Critical as I’ve been of a Congress as lawyer-heavy as our present Congress is, I do not believe that physicians are by temperament or training well-suited to serving in Congress. A few of them contribute a useful perspective. The more serve, the more fractious the Congress will become.
“The current crisis is because the majority has threatened to not do its duty, sending the U.S. into default. “
Zachriel,
The republicans may be many things, but they did not foment this crisis, like many have been saying. Yes, they did introduce an initial futile defunding ploy in their demands. But, that was quickly dispensed with, their energies (amendments and appropriation bills) being directed towards softening the fundamental inequities of the PPACA, and parceling out funding to the most important, needy aspects involved with government expenditures — Veteran’s affairs, nutritional cancer programs, and so on. Several CR amendments and fourteen (14) appropriation bills have so far been written and sent over to the Senate during this 9-day stalemate, and summarily rejected by either a democratic party vote or just Harry Reid tabling these legislative attempts to bring some relief to the shut-down chaos. Tell me, what exactly has the President and his democratically controlled senate done to improvise or devise some kind of remedy other than saying, “Pass a clean CR. We won’t negotiate anything else but that!”?
Also, the threat of default has been a democratic screed, not a republican utterance. Boehner and company have repeadedly reassured the public there will be no default, as the President hammers away, otherwise — to the press, CEO’s, Wall Street, people in a restaurant, televised speeches — he’s embossed that refrain on everyone’s psyche, minds and fluttering hearts. It’s so divisive and offensive, too. Between his constant vilification of the opposing party and the verbal bombs he daily tosses out, how does he ever expect to assuage people disagreeing with him, enough to make a deal? So, far Obama has done nothing but be a purveyor of his own negative threats and expectations. Perhaps that’s why the AP has his approval rating at 37% today.
jan: The republicans may be many things, but they did not foment this crisis, like many have been saying.
Of course they did. They have been explicit in tying continued funding of the government, and even the debt ceiling, to demands over the ACA and other issues.
jan: Tell me, what exactly has the President and his democratically controlled senate done to improvise or devise some kind of remedy other than saying, “Pass a clean CR. We won’t negotiate anything else but that!�
By holding the government, and the world economy, hostage, the result will be a complete reordering of power in the American system. While they could never pass a law that said Obama has to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on his head—they would never get a majority, much less enough votes to override his veto, and even then it would be overturned as unconstitutional by the courts—they could demand Obama sit in a corner with a dunce cap on his head, or they will blow up the global economy. If the president acquiesces to this demand, then he has permanently relegated the presidency to a ceremonial role. All legislation would then have to pass the defunding test, which under the Hastert rule means a minority of 27% in a single chamber can veto enforcement or funding of any existing law.
jan: Also, the threat of default has been a democratic screed, not a republican utterance.
Many Republican leaders have threatened to not raise the debt ceiling unless they get their demands met. Misinformation has led to a distortion of the public debate, wherein most Republicans now believe that not raising the debt ceiling won’t cause major economic problems.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/07/partisans-dug-in-on-budget-health-care-impasse/
Zachriel,
“If the president acquiesces to this demand, then he has permanently relegated the presidency to a ceremonial role. “
The president set a precedent of his own, by circumventing Congress, in making a number of unilateral changes to the already passed PPACA legislation. Now, that the House is asking for a few more changes they are being unreasonable? In other words, putting the political shoe on the other foot, changes the whole perspective of cart and horse politics?
IMO, if the president wants a cooperative government, one that doesn’t reorder the power in the American system to something other than a republic, then he has to follow traditional constitutional formats too, whether or not it is beneficial to his intended political agenda. This is so that the executive branch doesn’t grasp too much power from the checks and balances of the Congress. As it stands now, Zach, you seem to be inferring that current presidential authority also affords him the title of King, meaning having the power to add or subtract from government by will, without any Congressional restraint in the picture!
As for that Pew Poll linked to — it indicates that the country is pretty much divided on the issues — not equally, but the percentages are close, with the R’s taking a bit more flak than the dems. Nonetheless, the ‘democratic screed’ has been echoing default threats in order to force the R’s into compliance, while the republicans have been firmly saying there will be no default. Perhaps, the reason why republicans seem less fearful of major economic problems is because they are listening more to the R’s reassurances than the D’s scare tactics.
jan: The president set a precedent of his own, by circumventing Congress, in making a number of unilateral changes to the already passed PPACA legislation.
That’s what courts are for.
jan: As it stands now, Zach, you seem to be inferring that current presidential authority also affords him the title of King, meaning having the power to add or subtract from government by will, without any Congressional restraint in the picture!
Quite the contrary. There is a clear process of legislation in the U.S., which requires a majority of two chambers, a president’s signature, and possible review by the courts. If they want to repeal ObamaCare, that is the process. But they don’t have the votes, so they use threats to the economy to force the majority to bend to their will.
jan: Perhaps, the reason why republicans seem less fearful of major economic problems is because they are listening more to the R’s reassurances than the D’s scare tactics.
As we pointed out, Republicans are much more likely to believe that not raising the debt limit will not have serious economic consequences. This is false.
Zachriel,
Why use costly litigation, creating more stife and grief for the country, to solve problems, when a reasonable reading of the Constitution already sets the perimeters of power for every branch of government? When one breaches it, sure you can take the issue to court. But should that be the only way to curb the overreach of power? IMO, it certainly is not the best nor the most productive way to conduct the business nor direct the affairs of a civilized and moderated country.
“This is false.
….in your opinion. But, there are no stone tablets citing it as “factual.”
jan: Why use costly litigation, creating more stife and grief for the country, to solve problems, when a reasonable reading of the Constitution already sets the perimeters of power for every branch of government?
That’s how the system works. It’s the court’s responsibility to determine the “reasonable reading of the Constitution”.
jan: ….in your opinion.
Nearly every investor would treat not raising the debt limit as a default, and nearly every economist would consider it an economic disaster of the first order. Notably, the markets have reacted very positively to news there may be a resolution.
Zachriel
The markets are fickle masters intetested in mainly monetary gains for themselves. They love the fact a Keynesian is replacing the current fed president, as well as the fact a bandaid has been applied to the debt ceiling. In other words, printing more money in order to spend more money, until the monetary delusion ends, along with the ability to extend our credit, once again. However, there is still no real headway in addressing unsustainable entitlement programs or lowering the almost 17 trillion debt.
jan: The markets are fickle masters intetested in mainly monetary gains for themselves.
Sure. That’s rather the point of markets.
jan: They love the fact a Keynesian is replacing the current fed president, as well as the fact a bandaid has been applied to the debt ceiling.
Perhaps you and they are confusing loose money with Keynesianism.
jan: However, there is still no real headway in addressing unsustainable entitlement programs or lowering the almost 17 trillion debt.
Deficits are dropping, but we agree that entitlements will need to be addressed for long term financial stability.
“Deficits are dropping,…”
Most people agree that sequestration, causing mandatory government cuts, first proposed and then railed against by the Obama Adminstration, have contributed to this drop, along with a tepid economy.
However, Zachriel, I’m glad we can agree on the need for entitlement reform.