I’d guess in this crisis the banks have told Biden that they don’t want a solution that comes out of what is perceived to be an executive branch gimmick because they don’t want the uncertainty.
IMO it’s also partly that the Democrats desperately want a bipartisan environment to exist. They then have the twofold problem that you can’t will that into existence and the GOP, knowing that when the Dems threaten to go it alone their hearts aren’t really in it, can just keep ramping up the brinksmanship until the Dems give them what they want.
Part of the reason I used the word “perceived”. (Other reason is that 14th amendment is not a gimmick and would actually force the Biden admin’s hand if it ever came to it)
I think we’re at this point in part because banks just want things to be done the way they’ve always been done regardless of other context.
What on earth makes you think “the banks” or anyone else in the financial markets wants things done this way? The markets quite obviously hate this Republican brinksmanship, and would welcome a sensible permanent resolution.
And it hasn’t “always been done” like this. For most of history, this was nothing more than a technicality, because nobody imagined that any politician would threaten to blow up the economy as anti-democratic leverage to get what they want. The only people who think this is a good thing are the “what if we didn’t” element of the Republican Party.
Since it really was only ever a technicality, it seems bizarre to me that anyone is opposed to resolving it in any manner that is technically valid under the Constitution. It’s not as though anyone ever set things up this way because this stupid game every few years is what they envisioned.
I mean it’s just my opinion that the reason the Biden admin doesn’t agree with us is the banks, I don’t listen in on their conversations.
Clearly the Biden administration and/or someone advising them is opposed to a solution that doesn’t require congress, I’m speculating on where they’re getting that idea. It is absurd, and they shouldn’t have this view but they do.
Are you under the impression that bankers never express their opinions in a manner that you could somehow discover? It took me about 30 seconds to find this by googling the name of our most prominent banker and “debt ceiling”:
“Number one is really a morality point: We all teach our children that we are supposed to meet obligations and I don’t think the nation should be any different. Number two, we should never even get this close — there are huge economic costs already being borne… [and] it’s already affecting the stock market,” Dimon said, and “number three, we should get rid of this debt ceiling — we don’t need to have this kind of brinksmanship every couple of years.”
It’s a bit tricky to read between the lines from what Dimon (or really anyone) says to figure out what specific suggestions they would have for the president unless they specifically say that someone should or shouldn’t use the 14th, the trillion dollar coin etc.
Dimon has recently said that the US should avoid even the run-up to a default which I would have to think means he’s not in favor of Biden just hitting the ceiling and then saying it doesn’t constitutionally apply (and to be clear I think this would be a better option than to allow the hostage taking via congress).
I think the idea comes from lawyers who think the Supreme Court won’t agree that questioning debt, and failure to pay, are the same.
If Biden takes the 14th amendment route, markets won’t have a definitive answer until the Supreme Court can rule.
I do see a problem with the idea that the Supreme Court justices could issue a ruling liable to tank the global economy. They themselves have a big interest in the U.S. continuing to pay federal salaries. However, some smart people think putting the economic success of the Biden administration in the hands of the current Supreme Court is too high risk:
Biden will have to deal with the Republicans for at least the next year and a half. While it might feel good to dismiss them from the outcome, the realistic approach is to find an accommodation so that they don’t just shut the system down over every bill. While the prevailing opinion online is that they will do so anyway, McCarthy needs to show victories both so the party looks good and personally so he is relieved of the continued scoffing that he is a hostage to the Freedom (pardon my French) Caucus.
I wonder if this is playing into it. Perhaps Biden knows he can invoke the 14th amendment, and is prepared to do so, but wants it to be clear that he at least tried to work out a bipartisan deal.
Sounds correct to me, but I will phrase differently.
If the choices at deadline are down to a deal that would get virtually no Democratic votes, a default, and a 14th amendment approach that the Supreme Court may veto, the 14th has to be the choice.
I am convinced that Joe really wants a deal. He is not negotiating for show. But he knows at the same time that it would have been politically harmful to refuse to negotiate.
CNN is saying there’s a deal. That is, an “agreement in principle”.
Despite the deal in principle, new issues could easily crop up at each step along the way, and each step has the potential to be time-consuming, running out the clock ahead of the debt limit deadline early next month.
Selling the deal to members will be no small task, with stiff opposition expected from both the left and right. That means it’s going to require an intense whipping operation – and support from both sides of the aisle – to get the bill over the finish line.
At least one senator, Utah Republican Mike Lee, has already threatened to use procedural maneuvers in the Senate to hold up a debt ceiling bill for as long as possible if he doesn’t like what it contains.
I’m not sure exactly what “procedural maneuvers” are possible if there’s a bipartisan majority?
I think assuming bipartisan support, with only a few hard line Republicans (and possibly a few hard line Democrats) opposed, 60 votes can stop a filibuster, right?
I guess I am wrong. I thought cloture votes to stop filibusters only happened on procedural filibusters but the stand on the floor and talk forever kind could still happen. It seems cloture votes can happen for any kind of filibuster (needs 60 votes).
I was of the opinion that there was no point to negotiating (i.e. Just use the extraordinary options) - McCarthy couldn’t guarantee votes and he wasn’t an honest and rational negotiating partner anyway, but if this goes through then it proves that wrong and, once again, shows that the Biden administration is much savvier and more skilled at these things than they appear at first glance.
I disagree. They are agreeing to cuts they don’t want and they’ve made McCarthy much more prominent. If this was the path Biden wanted to go down, he never should have come out with an absolutely-no-conditions initial position. It looks like he caved, and he did.
And, the US may still default – good luck getting the Republican nihilists on board.
AFAICT the cuts are relatively minor and what we’d expect if this were a regular budget negotiation (it is divided government after all) instead of around the debt ceiling.
And if it fails because of lack of Republican votes, then Biden still has the extraordinary options, plus the benefit of McCarthy likely being ousted and more chaos in the Republican ranks.