« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Staring Down the Schoolyard Bully

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  January 9th, 2013 at 08:41 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

What a difference a year makes when it comes to the attitude of Republicans regarding the debt ceiling.

In 2011, Republican leaders spent the incipient months of the debt ceiling fight publicly stating that they would ultimately raise the debt ceiling.  They cloddishly communicated to the Democrats the reality that they would never engage in brinkmanship by declining to raise the debt ceiling after Tim Geithner’s arbitrary deadline of August 1, 2011.  Consequently, despite Obama’s dismal approval numbers, he felt confident he’d be able to ride out the storm until the final days, when Republicans would undoubtedly cave.

And boy did they cave.

Not only did they grant Obama a free $2.1 trillion debt card to take him past the election, they passed the Budget [out of] Control Act, which locked in Obama’s spending levels for 10 years, thereby obviating any future leverage in annual budget fights.  The only real cuts that emerged from the deal were defense cuts, which gratuitously opened a schism between defense hawks and fiscal conservatives to this day.

What do we have to show for it?  A downgraded credit rating and a new debt ceiling crisis 17 months later.

At the time, John Boehner declared that he won 98% of everything he aimed to achieve.  That sentiment was echoed by the overwhelming majority of the conservative intelligentsia.  In fact, those of us who understood our leverage when Obama was unpopular, and desired to fight for Cut, Cap, and Balance, were maligned for being “intransigent.”

Now, after seeing what thin leverage really looks like with the fiscal cliff, many of our detractors have come to appreciate the leverage that comes with the debt ceiling.  Unlike with the fiscal cliff, the default position is one that is favorable to us.  No new debt is incurred.

Whether Republicans ultimately hold the line or not (fat chance) is yet to be determined.  However, one thing that has changed due the ephemeral tough talk from Republicans is a sense of fear from Obama and the Democrats.  We are now hearing noise from the left about using a convoluted interpretation of the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.  They are talking about using the courts to settle the fight.  They are even pushing the magic $1 trillion titanium coin to service more debt.

Why the sudden sense of panic from the left?

Behind the irascible bravado and confidence in Republicans taking the blame for a partial government shutdown, Democrats know that a fight about spending and debt, when articulated properly by Republicans, will reflect badly on them.  Until now, they always operated with the certitude that Republicans will ultimately cave.  They probably will cave in the end once again, but here is what concerns Democrats:

  • House Republicans were willing to humiliate Boehner over the fiscal cliff by scuttling “Plan B” and forcing him to pass the final deal with Democrat support.
  • Another group of at least two dozen members were willing to join a coup to oust Boehner from the speakership.
  • As a result of getting a raw deal on the fiscal cliff, in conjunction with nothing to show from the entire 112th Congress, a growing body of the membership is ticked..really ticked.  If you’re Obama, you’re thinking that these guys will not let Boehner cave, whether he likes it or not.  One more budget cave, and these guys will toss him.
  • Obama was counting on using the sequester as a hostage during the debt ceiling fight.  He planned on holding it over Republicans for raising the debt ceiling or raising taxes.  Now, most Republicans are rightfully saying they are willing to shoot the hostage.

In other words, whether they ultimately follow through with it or not, Obama and his fellow bullies are finally getting the feeling that someone is willing to stare them down.  The more they continue starring him down every time he screams “default” or “government shutdown,” the more he will buckle.  Ultimately, brinkmanship is the only thing that will give us a chance to exact transformational change.  And this is the sort of brinkmanship we must embrace.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • PubliusII

    Fiscal conservatives have more leverage now, for two reasons.
    First, in the fiscal cliff confrontation, the issue of spending was hopelessly conflated with the issue of taxes. When the Republicans confronted Obama on spending, he was able to answer that the Republicans were really doing so to protect Thurston Howell’s trust distributions from being taxed. There was just enough plausibility to this argument that the American people bought it. Victory to Obama.
    This time, the issue is purely spending. I expect Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and the media to do their best to make the issue taxes, again. But this time, that argument is harder to make, given that we have just raised taxes, a lot. The pork Obama stuffed into the fiscal cliff deal makes his argument even harder to make; if taxes are too low, why did the morbidly obese Michael Moore and his buddies in Hollywood get a special deal?
    Second, the leverage Obama has to persuade defense hawks to avoid sequestration are the cuts to defense. But deep defense cuts are coming no matter what we do. Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson, er, Chuck Hagel, will cut the Pentagon mericelessly. Since defense cuts are inevitable, let’s at least get the (limited) cuts to Obama’s pet projects that sequestration will bring. Otherwise, we will get the defense cuts anyway and no cuts to anything else.

  • MiamiDave

    The Democrat Party (surprise surprise) seriously misjudged how this deal would be received. Like Obamacare and the Stimulus Package, they predicted that an unpopular deal, once signed into law, would suddenly be embraced by the American people- who would then drive out the intransigent conservatives who stood against it. Well, it didnt work out that way. As it turns out, most folks are smart enough to recognize that this deal wasn’t sound policy or smart politics. Instead of driving the conservative wing of our party into the shadows as the Democrats (and, sadly, some in the GOP leadership) had hoped, those who stood and voted against it are the only folks with political capital left. Lets hope the leadership recognizes this, grows some spines, and stands firm on the debt ceiling.

  • MiamiDave

    Sequestration and the debt ceiling are two different issues, and don’t have to be dealt with hand and hand.

  • dfcord

    I don’t know the details of the 2011 agreement, but it was very much coupled to the debt ceiling.

    Likewise, I can’t be sure of the reason why the Republicans insisted on only a two month stay of the sequester, but it seems clear their intent was have it “dealt with hand and hand” with the debt ceiling.

    To me the obvious response for Obama is to refuse to play the game. While it isn’t ideal, the multi-year budget agreement worked out in 2011 is a budget agreement.

    If the Republicans want to renege on the agreement and demand even more cuts, then so be it. But then it is up to them to bring a realistic proposal to the table.

  • metairiemike

    And let’s not forget that there are a number of Democrats who have their own pet defense projects that are dear to their patronage pushing and graft demanding little hearts. Mary Landrieu will fight just as hard for Barksdale AFB, Fort Polk, Textron (where the armored vehicles you see in Afghanistan come from) and NAS New Orleans as any conservative. Harry Ried will scream bloody murder if there are any cuts proposed to Nellis or Creech (where the drones are controlled from). Feinstein and Boxer, and the entire California democrat delegation will ignore the Occupy movement, Michael Moore and the rest of the anti-war crowd and will take stances that make them look like rabid war hawks defending their state’s bases like Alemeda, Miramar, China Lake, Edwards and NAS Lemoore. Follow the money and we’ll see how eager any of these creatures is to make real cuts in defense spending even at the expense of other discretionary spending.

  • dfcord

    MiamiDave,

    How does the 2011 Sequestration fail in your CCB goals?

    It appears to have across the board cuts and is balanced in that the domestic infrastructure budget takes a significant hit on par with the defense cuts.

    Imagine the reaction if the Republicans pre-empted this idea by offsetting the expenses in the upcoming $51B Sandy bill with cuts of $25.5B each in Defense and Infrastructure budgets.

    People might start believing the Republicans aren’t a bunch of political hacks just trying to score points by complaining and hostage taking.

  • http://conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com ew88

    Yes, we know this. But does Boehner? The guy doesn’t seem to understand Obama, even now! Looking floored when Obama denies he has a spending problem. Didn’t surprise any of us, that’s for sure, and it shouldn’t have surprised Boehner!

  • rbdwiggins

    Your understanding is wrong… President Obama put nothing in writing. It was all smoke and mirrors.

    The problem was… Everytime Boehner came close to agreeing with President Obama’s demands, the goal post was purposely moved just out of reach. The president embraced the fiscal cliff while convincing low-information voters otherwise.

  • jpkoch

    Things tend to build up over time. They did for Bush43 after the 2004 elections. By the end of 2005 his administration was toast and his political capital spent. For Bush it was the accumulation of 2 bloody wars that had no end, sky rocketing energy costs, and Katrina. For Obama, I think it will be centered around his gambit with gun control. But, it will extend to ObamaCare, the poor performance of the economy, and Obama’s flagrant, in your face dissension. People are quickly wearying of Obama. He and the Dems just don’t realize it, yet.

  • dfcord

    I am curious as to how Boehner’s “Plan B” fits into the narrative you just described, but that is getting further away from the point.

    If your goal is to continue to try and make Obama look bad and, therefore, refuse to do anything which might reflect on him in less than a negative light, then the “do nothing” 112th congress is going to continue its tradition in the 113th.

    RightAppeal asked the appropriate question. What is the objective?

    If the objective is to generically reign in spending then the house can do that. For example, the upcoming $51B emergency appropriations could tied to be two $25.5B reductions in the Defense and domestic Infrastructure budgets.

    This is compatible with the 2011 sequestration agreement.
    It would send a clear message that Republicans are serious.

    Sure, the political fallout would be very mixed, but what is your objective?

    Is it to fix the budget or is it to score political points?

  • conservitas

    This is another trap set by Dems who plan to blame a default on Republicans. And guess what, just three months after Obummer won a majority vote and the GOP brand has been heavily damaged by the “Plan B” fiasco and the New Year Debt Cliff Massacre, folks will pin this one on Republicans.

    The Dems don’t just want to win on a few issues. They want to totally destroy the Republican Party once-and-for-all and cause it to splinter into powerless factions. From their perspective, they are tantalizingly close to getting that to happen. It’s time to close ranks and play political dodge ball for awhile, as the result, if that happens and we really do get a one-party system, will be terrible.

    Don’t fight every battle — just the ones that you can win, or at least not lose. This is not one of those, and you can just see the Dems baiting the House Republicans as they’ve been so good at doing for the past two years.

    My $0.02 American

  • rbdwiggins

    Although misguided, “Plan B” was Boehner’s last-ditched effort to get the president to commit to anything.

    The objective is to balance the federal budget, reduce the public debt to less than 75% of GDP and maintain the primary responsibility of the federal government. Everything else is optional.

  • dfcord

    RBDWiggins,

    You keep tempting me with your convoluted narrative which defies logic. If “Plan B” had a $500K threshold, then your narrative would makes sense. Boehner tried a Hail Mary pass in an attempt to embarrass Obama. He failed.

    There are different ways to look at the relationship between GDP and debt. For example, your metric could be stated as the GDP should be more than 133% of the debt. Either way, I would agree that reducing deficit spending is a good idea.

    As I am sure you are aware, the US had a balanced budget for three years starting in 1998 (President Clinton). I think it is possible to have a balanced budget again by the next presidential term.

    What is more important to you, having a balanced budget or a Republican in the White House?

    If by “primary responsibility of the federal government” you mean engaging in unnecessary wars (Iraq, Iran?) and maintaining an obscenely overwhelming military force, I disagree. If you mean to “insure domestic Tranquility” and “promote the general Welfare” we might be able to find some common ground.

    BTW, what is your thoughts on paying for the $51B Sandy relief with $25.5B from domestic infrastructure and $25.5B from defense?

  • conservativeradical

    I fully expect Republicans to cave on this just like they always do. I’ve written a bit about it at http://conservativeradical.com

  • rbdwiggins

    Before the unsustainable ‘dot-com’ bubble collapsed, the economy produced enough tax revenue to show on paper a balanced budget. After the collapse, President Bush inherited the resulting recession, and subsequently, a budget deficit.

    The primary responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. That’s self-explanatory. Insure domestic tranquility means to enforce the rule of law. Jefferson best described the federal limitations of the general welfare clause: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

    Hurricane Sandy Damage Relief should be restricted to actual damages and paid solely out of federal and state infrastructure funds.

  • WmCraig

    Boehner fails, Obama fails, Republicans pick up the pieces. I don’t believe it but I couldn’t be happier. See, here is the thing. Shut down the government and get somebody with dry eyes who is NOT a Blue State Republican to talk about turning on the tap.

    Here is money for education, less than before but you can start spending it right away.

    Here is money for for the poor, less than before but you can spend it.

    Here is money for Israel, a little something for Israel, and maybe a little something for Israel. No money for the UN or Egypt, but you can spend it now.

    Here is a little money for well, you get the point

    Open things up one bill at a time, make sure each bill is clean, and has a sunset provision, then make Obama veto it. Veto money for schools veto money for Israel etc. Make them look greedy, uncooperative, dangerous.

  • WmCraig

    Pass a bill with democrat votes that raises spending levels, is done without following their own sunshine rules, and insures that he holds his blue state fief another term, the the grace of Obama.

  • rbdwiggins

    You’re welcome.

  • rightlane1111

    DH…I know that morning briefing is supposed to allow us to post other comments and this is as close as I could come. Please pick it up and see if you can make a story out of it. This is really good.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svGDZOW-brA

    This needs to get front line and center…nobody is hearing this.