I have the same question as Hugh Hewitt asks in his Washington Post column. What is the Republicans’ “ask” for raising the debt limit?
But without a shared set of reasonable demands, Republicans will appear confused and divided, and after weeks of massive media pummeling, the GOP will likely give in. “What’s the ask?†is the key question for Republicans right now.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) argues that the debt-ceiling legislation traditionally includes measures to control spending. The “sequestration†of the 2011 BCA is widely regarded as having been a disaster for Pentagon preparedness and national security, so a replay of that is off the table. But a rollback of nondefense discretionary spending to pre-pandemic levels? That makes sense.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), a leading debt hawk, would go further and give the Pentagon a budget haircut as well, rolling defense spending back to 2019 levels. GOP defense hawks will not agree. They think it is 1938 again, with mortal threats rising in Europe and Asia. They won’t budge.
So what can the GOP ask for, if not a new sequestration? Along with Cotton’s proposal, the party can insist on undoing the authorization and first appropriation for about 87,000 new IRS staff over the next decade. The idea that the economy will grow through better, faster, bigger tax collections is absurd. The GOP could also argue that the debt limit will continue to rise until the flood of migrants into the country ebbs, pointing to the quite obvious costs of uncontrolled migration. Saying that the debt limit won’t go up until the border wall goes up is concise, catchy and compelling, and would focus the country on the border crisis. (A genuine “crisis.â€) Defunding NPR and PBS would excite the base — the first cut should be the least necessary thing the federal government pays for. In this age of a thousand media outlets, no one needs a government subsidy.
For the sake of clarity, Republican priorities should be limited to a list of three items or fewer. Lay them on the table for the public to see. Hammer them relentlessly, until every swing voter can recite the list by heart. If that moment comes, all the pressure to make a deal will shift to Biden and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). Will they risk the full faith and credit of the United States because they want a bigger IRS and a porous southern border?
I don’t have any sense of the mood of the Republican caucus. If the battle over the speaker is any gauge, they’re in a Network-y sort of mood, hence the title of this post. They might keep in mind that, Howard Beale, the character who gives that tirade, is assassinated at the end of the movie.
They need an ask to agree to pay debt already incurred? They only care about this when a Dem is in office. I dont see the need to concede anything?
Steve
Welcome to politics, steve. The federal government doesn’t run itself. Every move is orchestrated by the Congress, mostly the House through the power of the purse.
We’ve been doing things this way since 1917. I think that budgeting should be handled differently. Zero-based budgeting would be a step in the right direction and the present fund mechanism is completely broken.
Hypocritical? I am shocked, shocked to see politicians exhibiting hypocrisy.
But its changed and you know that. You used to have some complaining about the debt limit every time it came up no matter which party was in charge. Then they would vote and there would be some symbolic votes against raising the limit but there was never any doubt they would do it. Then we had 2011 where they went to about 3 hours away from defaulting. Now there are even more crazies involved and an even weaker speaker than Boehner. If they want less spending than pass laws authorizing less spending. Also note that there is a revenue side to the issue.
Steve
Another alternative would be for spending over the debt limit to be rendered ipso facto unconstitutional. That’s closely related to my plea for zero-based budgeting.
Right-wing populism doesn’t give a damn. They believe in tax cuts. That much we know.
It’s a broken record. I believe in good government. Increased spending isn’t inconsistent with good government but it does make it harder. I also know the retort of those who support the right-wing populists: there is no such thing as good government. There is no such thing as perfect government and however well-intentioned or constructed regulations always need tweaking. Government is hard work and I honestly don’t believe the old men and women we’ve elected are up to it.
“Another alternative would be for spending over the debt limit to be rendered ipso facto unconstitutional. ”
That just puts us into the same position. The answer is to pass bills with less spending. This goes back to the same thing I always note. The GOP supports tax cuts but only talks about spending cuts. When they control govt they dont really cut spending. The Dem support both increasing spending AND increasing taxes. Electorally, the GOP approach is much more popular. It gives people stuff/services while appearing to be free but really is just running up debt.
So they wont actually try to cut the spending you need to cut to make a difference, ie military spending and entitlements (except Medicaid and we all know why). The debt limit thing is a way for them to attempt to cut spending but without taking blame.
So the Dems shouldn’t compromise. And BTW it looks like the GOP controls the House. Why dont they go ahead and pass some budgets and show us how they intend to cut spending. Heck, why didn’t they do that in the past when they controlled both houses? (Ok, I know, just rhetorical.)
Steve