Republican list of demands to raise debt ceiling

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Maddermax**

From the NYT:

But in their efforts to unify restive Republicans, House leaders were only widening the partisan divisions. Behind closed doors on Thursday, they laid out their demands for a debt ceiling increase that include the health law delay, fast-track authority to overhaul the tax code, construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, offshore oil and gas production and more permitting of energy exploration on federal lands.

The legislation would also roll back regulations on coal ash, block new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on greenhouse gas production, eliminate a $23 billion fund to ensure the orderly dissolution of failed major banks, eliminate mandatory contributions to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, limit medical malpractice lawsuits and increase means testing for Medicare, among other provisions.

Even with that legislative Christmas tree, many Republican backbenchers balked. After introducing the measure to his divided troops, a sheepish speaker of the House faced the press with a grimace. “Oh, this ought to be a blast,” Mr. Boehner sighed as he opened a news conference for questions.

.....

Economists of all political persuasions have warned that a failure to raise the debt ceiling by the Treasury’s deadline of Oct. 17 could be catastrophic. The world economy’s faith in the safety of Treasury debt would be shaken for years. Interest rates could shoot up, and stock prices worldwide would most likely plummet.

“Defaulting on any obligation of the U.S. government would be a dangerous gamble,” Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told the House Budget Committee on Thursday. “In a very uncertain world, the one thing everyone has been able to count on is that the U.S. government will pay its bills on time.”
But many House Republicans put little stock in such pronouncements.

“Economists, what have they been doing? They make all sorts of predictions,” said Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana. “Many times they’re wrong, so I don’t think we should run government based on economists’ predictions.”

Those who do believe in the dangers said that they provide precisely the leverage they need to win passage of their priorities.

“People have to recognize there’s never any compromise until the stakes are high,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California. “In our society, that’s the nature of democratic government.”

So, the Republican list of demands is basically everything they ever wanted - well, almost everything, I'm surprised they didn't include and anti-abortion rider. This is for the Debt ceiling, of course, which comes up in 3 weeks, and not related to their Demands for funding the government, which comes up tomorrow. The Government shut down will be disruptive and costly, but the debt ceiling fight could well be catastrophic and have world wide ramifications - it's the one to watch.

So, thoughts?

**motyak**

It seems that even when stakes are high, compromise is lacking.

**whembly**

The debt ceiling... yeah, that's worst than the Government shutdown.

It really goes back to passing a viable budgets. The Democrat Congress doesn't want to pass budges because they'd have to face some hard truths. It's easier to push for Continuing Resolutions (that is, keep paying out the same rate as last year's + adj inflation).

**sebster**

Maddermax wrote:
Even with that legislative Christmas tree, many Republican backbenchers balked. After introducing the measure to his divided troops, a sheepish speaker of the House faced the press with a grimace. “Oh, this ought to be a blast,” Mr. Boehner sighed as he opened a news conference for questions.

I read an interesting insight about a week ago, which was wondering why the markets weren't really reacting to the looming insanity in Washington. The writer observed that the CEOs of multinationals and the hedge fund managers come to talk to both parties, and they talk to guys like Reid and Boehner, and they walk away satisfied. They see these are reasonable men who clearly are concerned with running the the country properly.

But what they don't realise is that Boehner isn't really running his party, nor is he representative of it. A significant portion of his party is deeply nuts. And even among the more sensible member, they're still committed to trying to win their primaries... and the people who come out to vote in those primaries are fething bonkers... and so those reasonable members still have to perform a song and dance to prevent a tea party protest vote putting in some crazy.

And so we are where we are. And the market is just starting to realise.

**Maddermax**

motyak wrote:
It seems that even when stakes are high, compromise is lacking.

Well, over here if there was such discord that it was threatening to disrupt the government, we'd have a Double Dissolution election called by the PM, or the Governor General would declare a Constitutional Emergency and an election would be called. Either way, it would let the people decide before things became catastrophic. As it is, there's no such system in the US, and so a sufficiently dedicated group controlling either the Senate or House can quite simply shut everything down without recourse if they choose.

**motyak**

sebster wrote:

And so we are where we are. And the market is just starting to realise.

Didn't the market start realizing last time, and hit the US with a credit rating drop? You'd think the market would be well aware by now

**Maddermax**

whembly wrote:
The debt ceiling... yeah, that's worst than the Government shutdown.

It really goes back to passing a viable budgets. The Democrat Congress doesn't want to pass budges because they'd have to face some hard truths. It's easier to push for Continuing Resolutions (that is, keep paying out the same rate as last year's + adj inflation).

They passed a budget in May. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/senate-budget-passes_n_2938878.html

**whembly**

Maddermax wrote:
whembly wrote:
The debt ceiling... yeah, that's worst than the Government shutdown.

It really goes back to passing a viable budgets. The Democrat Congress doesn't want to pass budges because they'd have to face some hard truths. It's easier to push for Continuing Resolutions (that is, keep paying out the same rate as last year's + adj inflation).

They passed a budget in May. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/senate-budget-passes_n_2938878.html

That's a good point... forgot about that.

That had some mondo tax increases on everyone... 'cept for the super rich. Would've never made it to the House's floor.

Too bad that existing government can't be funded as is w/o Policy changes. At least separate the policy change bills so that they're vetting appropriately.

Isn't that how the Parliment system works?

**Maddermax**

whembly wrote:

Too bad that existing government can't be funded as is w/o Policy changes. At least separate the policy change bills so that they're vetting appropriately.

So, you also think that the Republicans should separate out their demands (including the "Obamacare" removal) from the Debt Limit/Government Funding bills so those demands can be vetted appropriately?

Or perhaps just give the clean bills an up or down vote in the house (which would pass with moderate Republicans and Democrats together)?

**Seaward**

Maddermax wrote:
Or perhaps just give the clean bills an up or down vote in the house (which would pass with moderate Republicans and Democrats together)?

It's weird how the definition of "moderate Republican" always winds up meaning "not completely loony Democrat."

**DogofWar1**

One of the most important rules of politics is that if you've got leverage, use it to its fullest extent, and then some. If you've got a pair of jacks, act like it's a royal flush and hope everyone else bails.

Republicans know that, with control of the House, they have leverage. They obviously have limited leverage because of the Senate and President, but they still have one of the gates firmly under their control.

It makes sense for them to be asking for the Sun, Moon, and Stars in that context. If they start WAAAAY off to the right, with some of their party demanding more than they'll ever get, Boehner can go to Obama and Reid and play good cop, saying that he can get Republicans on board if they just concede on a few things. Maybe they don't get the Obamacare delay, but they'll get some other provisions changed within it or something.

The problem is, I don't know if Democrats will fall for it. We just had a major debt ceiling debate not too long ago, and the Republicans used a similar playbook. Democrats know that if they concede ground, the same playbook will be rolled out again when the next ceiling raising needs to happen, and they'll have to give up more ground.

It'll be interesting. I think, if push comes to shove, Republicans might crack first. They're currently blamed more in the polls, and the longer this drags on, with their heels dug in with their wishlist, the more it will look like they're holding the government hostage for political gain, and that won't play over well with independents.

**Maddermax**

DogofWar1 wrote:

It makes sense for them to be asking for the Sun, Moon, and Stars in that context. If they start WAAAAY off to the right, with some of their party demanding more than they'll ever get, Boehner can go to Obama and Reid and play good cop, saying that he can get Republicans on board if they just concede on a few things. Maybe they don't get the Obamacare delay, but they'll get some other provisions changed within it or something.

Perhaps next time these ransom bills come up, the Democrats should make absolutely outrageous demands, and then "Compromise" down to a clean bill. That would at least cut out the "they're not compromising!" cries from people who don't understand what's actually going on.

**Seaward**

Maddermax wrote:
DogofWar1 wrote:

It makes sense for them to be asking for the Sun, Moon, and Stars in that context. If they start WAAAAY off to the right, with some of their party demanding more than they'll ever get, Boehner can go to Obama and Reid and play good cop, saying that he can get Republicans on board if they just concede on a few things. Maybe they don't get the Obamacare delay, but they'll get some other provisions changed within it or something.

Perhaps next time these ransom bills come up, the Democrats should make absolutely outrageous demands, and then "Compromise" down to a clean bill. That would at least cut out the "they're not compromising!" cries from people who don't understand what's actually going on.

Are you genuinely suggesting that Democrats don't do that?

**sebster**

motyak wrote:
Didn't the market start realizing last time, and hit the US with a credit rating drop? You'd think the market would be well aware by now

Yeah, and market leaders met with leaders of both parties, and after talking to reasonable and sensible people who assured them that it wouldn't happen this time, they left happy. But what they missed was that much of the party behind Boehner is a lot less sensible than he is.

**Maddermax**

Seaward wrote:
Maddermax wrote:
DogofWar1 wrote:

It makes sense for them to be asking for the Sun, Moon, and Stars in that context. If they start WAAAAY off to the right, with some of their party demanding more than they'll ever get, Boehner can go to Obama and Reid and play good cop, saying that he can get Republicans on board if they just concede on a few things. Maybe they don't get the Obamacare delay, but they'll get some other provisions changed within it or something.

Perhaps next time these ransom bills come up, the Democrats should make absolutely outrageous demands, and then "Compromise" down to a clean bill. That would at least cut out the "they're not compromising!" cries from people who don't understand what's actually going on.

Are you genuinely suggesting that Democrats don't do that?

They are not on the government funding bill, nor on the debt ceiling bill. They've just asked for a continuation of current spending levels and an increase in the debt ceiling to allow the government to pay it's bills - maintaining the status quo basically. Republicans, as mentioned above, have asked for everything they could think of and then some.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Too bad that existing government can't be funded as is w/o Policy changes. At least separate the policy change bills so that they're vetting appropriately.

Isn't that how the Parliment system works?

Over here whatever money bills pass the House of Representatives cannot be blocked by the senate. And the Prime Minister doesn't receive a seperate vote (he's basically the leader of the majority party in the House of Reps) so when a bill of supply is passed in the House of Reps that's it, it's done. So the budget is basically guaranteed to go through.

The rub comes, of course, with exactly what is and isn't a bill of supply. A bill to pay an on-going war is clearly a supply bill, but what about a bill that's expanding education funding? That issue caused a constitutional crisis in England before the war, and basically killed the Liberal Party as a major party (they were eventually replaced on the left by Labour).

**Seaward**

Maddermax wrote:
They are not on the government funding bill, nor on the debt ceiling bill. They've just asked for a continuation of current spending levels and an increase in the debt ceiling to allow the government to pay it's bills - maintaining the status quo basically. Republicans, as mentioned above, have asked for everything they could think of and then some.

Currently.

Why are we pretending that this sort of politics is new, is my question.

**sebster**

DogofWar1 wrote:
One of the most important rules of politics is that if you've got leverage, use it to its fullest extent, and then some. If you've got a pair of jacks, act like it's a royal flush and hope everyone else bails.

Republicans know that, with control of the House, they have leverage. They obviously have limited leverage because of the Senate and President, but they still have one of the gates firmly under their control.

That's politics sure, but there's a limit placed on that by the need to provide decent governance. Neither side wants to shut down government and then tank the economy by hitting the debt ceiling. Both sides could simply vote to continue government and raise the debt ceiling and on that particular issue everyone would be getting what they want.

This is a really, really negative way to play politics. And I agree with the rest of your post, pointing out that it probably won't work. But I will add that a straight look at the polls don't matter, because polls and straight voting numbers don't decide the House of Reps. The real fight for most seats in the House of Reps is in the primary, where Tea Party hardliners hold massive sway.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Are you genuinely suggesting that Democrats don't do that?

They do, when they're going through one of their more competent phases, such as the one they're in right now.

But on this issue, they're simply not making any demands at all. Because what they want is to continue government operations and raise the debt ceiling and that's something everyone wants, including the Republicans. Wanting what everyone wants isn't a demand.

The demands are coming from the Republicans, who are trying to extract a price for agreeing not to blow up the economy.

Seaward wrote:
Why are we pretending that this sort of politics is new, is my question.

Because instances of one major political party threatening government default in order to force the other side in to abandoning a piece of legislation they passed several years ago is pretty remarkable.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:

But on this issue, they're simply not making any demands at all. Because what they want is to continue government operations and raise the debt ceiling and that's something everyone wants, including the Republicans.

Not all of them.

Because instances of one major political party threatening government default in order to force the other side in to abandoning a piece of legislation they passed several years ago is pretty remarkable.

I don't think it's all that remarkable, given the trend we've been on for a very long time, but if others do, I genuinely hope they remember the outrage they're feeling in, say, ten years or twenty years or however long it is until the shoe's on the other foot.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
Not all of them.

Yeah, and the ones who actually want to hit the debt ceiling... we can put them over on the kids table with the goldbugs and the rest of the crazies.

I don't think it's all that remarkable, given the trend we've been on for a very long time, but if others do, I genuinely hope they remember the outrage they're feeling in, say, ten years or twenty years or however long it is until the shoe's on the other foot.

I agree that there is a long trend towards dumber politics that pretty much rejects the concept of governance. But this is a significant low point on that downward trend.

And yeah, I hope that when the shoe is on the other foot, and the Democrats have devolved in to a point where their crazies are commanding a say in national politics, then their voting base remembers this and refuses to be part of nonsense like this.

**Frazzled**

If they do not increase the debt ceiling:
As they have failed their fundamental duty they swore to:
1. Obama should use the platinum coin maneuver.
2. I'm debating whether Congress should be dissolved and new elections held in November as they are not performing their fiduciary duty, or maybe good old fashioned treason. And no I'm not joking.

What Would Jackson Do?

**Maddermax**

Frazzled wrote:
If they do not increase the debt ceiling:
As they have failed their fundamental duty they swore to:
1. Obama should use the platinum coin maneuver.
2. I'm debating whether Congress should be dissolved and new elections held in November as they are not performing their fiduciary duty, or maybe good old fashioned treason. And no I'm not joking.

What Would Jackson Do?

1) Possible, but he'd catch a lot of flack from it and it's legitimacy would be questionable at best.

2) It's a pity your system has no recourse in this situation. Perhaps you guys need an Amendment to allow a general election to be called if Congress cannot pass even a partial budget or cannot pay its bills.

**Frazzled**

Maddermax wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
If they do not increase the debt ceiling:
As they have failed their fundamental duty they swore to:
1. Obama should use the platinum coin maneuver.
2. I'm debating whether Congress should be dissolved and new elections held in November as they are not performing their fiduciary duty, or maybe good old fashioned treason. And no I'm not joking.

What Would Jackson Do?

1) Possible, but he'd catch a lot of flack from it and it's legitimacy would be questionable at best.

An actual default of debt is essentially nuking the economy. COuntries that do that don't recover for generations. Legitimacy is barely relevant.

2) It's a pity your system has no recourse in this situation. Perhaps you guys need an Amendment to allow a general election to be called if Congress cannot pass even a partial budget or cannot pay its bills.

I like your thinking.

**Jihadin**

Well. I have hope that Samuel L Jackson. In character. Would shoot them all

**Frazzled**

I was thinking Andrew Jackson riding into Congress with drawn sword but Sam Jackson kicking in the door shouting "NO MORE *&)(^ING SNAKES IN MY *&^*(^ing CONGRESS!" would work just fine too.

**Jihadin**

Andrew Jackson is considered a Extremist in today's society. Stick with Samuel

**Spacemanvic**

I'd love for a biblical flood to wash out Washington. TBH, there isnt much difference between "moderate" Repubeicans (sic - read Dummycrat light) and Democrats.

Maybe that's why Ive gone Libertarian

**Easy E**

The problem is electorally the Republicans have everything to lose by compromising. The Tea party "owns" the gerrymandered seats because there will be no credible D challenger to moderate the R's views in House elections.

If the R compromises, the Tea Party base will run a primary challenge. That is the only thing an R has to fear in House elections. Therefore, compromise is anathema to them.

I know, this is common knowledge.

**Maddermax**

Here's something interesting - apparently 69% of those polled think that Republicans are acting like "spoiled children" at the moment. I really don't think this will work out well for Republicans in the end...

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-blame/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

**motyak**

edit: nevermind me, didn't read the article. apologies