Yes. It’s called politics.
Few congressman want to vote for a tax increase. If they vote in January, they can call it a tax cut.
There’s a Senate bill that’s fairly moderate that the House Republicans could pass tomorrow. I predict (50-50 confidence, not giving odds confidence) that a bill will be passed before June 2013 that will be closer to Obama’s proposal than the current Senate bill. So the Republican donor class will pay a price for not having a vote on a tax increase now. Their reps in Washington will do fine.
We should hope the vote occurs in January. Any later and real damage will be inflicted on the world economy.
If he’d really wanted to piss you off, Ethilrist, it would have gone:
Bear in mind that I also envision Ludovic pausing after typing that and saying “live within our means” while making air quotes.
[ul]
[li]The Pubbies pushed thru the Bush tax cuts, now set to expire at the end of this month. Tax rates for their wealthy friends will go up (actually back to what they were), unless they cut a deal with the Democrats.[/li][li]The Pubbies pushed thru the fiscal cliff legislation, set to take effect the beginning of next month, unless they cut a deal with the Democrats.[/li][li]The Pubbies refuse to raise the debt ceiling, which if not done will force a government shutdown, unless they cut a deal with the Democrats.[/li][/ul]
Any one of the above has potential negative economic consequences, notwithstanding the political damage. Two or more of the above have the potential to drive us into a recession, or worse.
The Pubbies are in political disarray. More and more are abandoning their Norquist pledges. The electorate has spoken, approved of Obama’s plans and left the Pubbies wanting. Any deal they make means they fail. If they don’t deal, we all fail and the Pubbies will be blamed. When you build a house of cards, you have to own all of the cards before you even play the game.
They don’t. Obama has all the aces.
I’m not so sanguine: if there’s no deal, the economy fails and it’s unclear who would get the blame. The Fox bullshit machine is pretty tenacious after all.
Of course we could always try backroom politics. They could cut deals, assemble sausages and do their freaking jobs. If the Republicans offered to cut the budget deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years rather than the $1.6 trillion that the President wants, and they do so by capping deductions at $50,000 and raising the top rate to 37.9% rather than 39.6%, I suspect the President would go along with such a compromise.
As it is we have Mitch McConnell proposing $300 billion of cuts to social security and medicare which is less than $1600 billion and would hit the middle class damn hard. And yet that bozo is suppose to be a serious guy. I guess he is in a way: his fellow Republicans after all have offered nothing with specificity. The Full McConnell - The New York Times
1600 >> 300 > 0
The Republicans do their jobs?! You wild eyed visionary!
But the only thing this power does is ensure that we won’t default on our debt unless both the president and congress wants to. All that allowing a Norquister to act unilaterally on the debt ceiling does is give one more person who won’t use it the power to do something good. Which is kinda why this pisses me off so much.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563
I mean, really?
Also, Bricker, stop being a tard. -.-
Hey! Birds gotta swim, fish gotta sing!
Back in the land of hard-hitting analysis, Matt Yglassias at Moneybox extols the Geithner plan. For years both parties would jabber every time that the debt ceiling was raised and what’s a little posturing among friends? Serious people know that Deficit = spending-taxing, and that congress legislates the last two.
But in 2010 Boehner used it as a tool to lever additional concessions out of the executive, and once that sort of Pandora’s box is open, neither party can easily close it. It would immoral for Democrats to unilaterally surrender in the face of Republican sleaze innovations. Matt Yglassias: The Geithner proposal is to turn the debt ceiling back into a grandstanding game by flipping the order of operations. When the president goes above the ceiling, Congress will have the right to pass a resolution of disapproval. Then the president can veto the resolution. In theory, Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds supermajority, but in the real world that’ll never happen. Congress gets its chance at symbolic opposition, and there’s no risk to the economy. It’s a great idea.
On Twitter last time, Tim Carney was trying to say that this would be an abrogation of congressional responsibility and a huge increase in executive power, but that’s nonsense.
Every dollar the federal government spends is spent according to laws Congress has passed. Every dollar of tax revenue that comes in does so because of taxes Congress has enacted. The Treasury Department’s borrowing of money to make up the gap between Congress’ spending and Congress’ taxing isn’t any additional authority to spend or do anything. It’s the very model of Congress making laws and the executive implementing them. That’s a key philosophical contrast between liberals and conservatives. Modern conservatives believe in bug-eyed posturing and hissy fits while liberals trust deliberation, observation, arithmetic, the multiplication tables, sound reasoning, the periodic table of the elements and the dictionary. I’m willing to entertain a judicious discussion of this difference in perception.
Correction: The President also has some $400 billion of spending cuts, partly to do with allowing Medicare to bargain for drug prices. So President Obama’s deficit reduction over 10 years is closer to $2 trillion. MfM regrets his error.
You mean one hundred 100 percent %.
Hey, you can’t joke with language around here. Your grammar is incorrect and I am calling you out on it!
The negotiations would be so much easier if [their side] would just give into what [our side] wants.
That’s almost exactly what one GOP politician has said: “we do believe in bipartisanship: we believe the Democrats should come around to the GOP point of view on this.”
And Obama with the ‘restore the middle class tax cuts’ and give up one of your bargaining chips. Both sides suck.
I was going to say something about this, but then you responded with this:
Which saves me the trouble of asking if you think this is reasonable. I don’t know if you figured this out last year (I dunno, maybe you were dropped as a kid or something), but the debt ceiling shouldn’t be a bargaining chip to begin with. It’s like having a big button titled “Press here to fuck up the USA”, where one (or maybe both!) parties are willing to play chicken over the pressing of that button, essentially saying, “Hey, give us what we want, or we’ll press the button. Do you feel lucky? Punk?”. That this leads to market uncertainty and a preemptive damning of the USA should be no mystery. It allows for the political equivalent of hostage negotiations, and allows any party which has either a majority in one house or a 41-plus-member minority in the senate to say, “You (the majority) will do as I say”. Both sides suck? No! This is not a bipartisan issue any more than deficit chickenhawkism is. This wouldn’t be a problem were it not for the 2011 hostage-taking by the republican party, and it wouldn’t be a problem if Boehner didn’t essentially promise to do that every single year. So take that shit and shove it. Negotiations would be so much easier if there wasn’t a fucking self-destruct button that one side seems downright eager to push!
Then how would the President have the authority?
I see your point – Congress limits itself by even creating a debt ceiling law, and by passing a budget that may call for more borrowing, they are effectively overruling themselves anyway.
How does that translate to the President having anything to do with it?
And is there a difference between passing a budget that MAY call for more borrowing, and actually borrowing that additional money?
Debtmageddon 2011 was a year and a half ago, how do you still not get this? Congress doesn’t “limit” themselves through the debt ceiling. They give themselves a “fuck you” button. Giving the president the authority ensures that there’s one more person there who can defuse the (really dumb) situation. Refer to my post above yours towards KidChameleon for details, plus my opinion on your post. And then refer to the other post where I name you personally for more of my opinion of you.
Yes. The former is spending money you don’t have, the latter is spending money you borrowed.
Translation: me and my gang want to spend more money, and that pesky Constitution says we can’t. Stop reminding us of that inconvenient fact.
In your understanding, can Congress give the President authority to do anything it wishes?