In an otherwise perceptive
account of the budget dilemma in which
Congress finds itself, the Washington Post last week
erroneously asserted it is “inevitable” that Congress “reach a deal
to fund the federal government through September, the end of the
fiscal year,” because congressional leaders in both parties agree
they must; it is just a matter of how. To the contrary, it is not
at all clear that Republican leaders do, in fact, agree it is
necessary to pass a comprehensive Continuing Resolution (CR) taking
us through the rest of the fiscal year. And even if they do agree,
it does not imply they should.
It is true, as the Post contends, that “limping
along” on a series of stopgap funding extensions has been “a hassle
to negotiate, with the two parties bickering over spending cuts for
little benefit.” However, it is far from certain that it would be
less of a “hassle” or less costly politically for Republicans to
pass a comprehensive CR taking us through the end of the fiscal
year rather than finishing out the fiscal year by continuing to
piece together a series of short-term extensions, adding additional
spending cuts to each extension along the way during the next six
months.
Moreover, for a significant contingent of the Republican
Party — which is perfectly willing to shut the government down,
indeed is hankering to do so — “limping along” may be far
preferable to sailing through on a comprehensive CR, which may
enrage the GOP base.
The Washington Post now
reports that when some Republican House
freshmen went home this week, constituents urged them to keep up
the budget brinkmanship:
“They say: ‘Shut it down. Shut it down,’” said Rep. Joe
Walsh (R-Ill.), meaning the government. “I think the American
people are ahead of us on this. And they’re prepared for
it.’”
A strategy of serial short-term extensions may be just the way
for Republicans to have their cake and eat it too if a gimpy Uncle
Sam earns them plaudits from the party’s conservative base without
raising most other people’s ire, whereas a government shut down may
provoke wide-scale political backlash.
The same Washington Post article uncovered that
federal agencies are operating in limbo as the budget impasse drags
on:
The budget impasse hasn’t shut down the government — at
least not yet. But it has slowed down or stopped a lot of its
parts.
The fact is, though, there is a far preferable alternative
that would allow both sides to win something important and would
benefit the nation enormously.
The
budget battle has morphed into more a
struggle over policy change through appropriations riders than a
battle over how much money will be cut from the budget during the
rest of this fiscal year. In the House, Republicans are pushing a
variety of de-funding riders that would change policy by denying
spending authority. The four most important among them are
defunding National Public Radio, defunding EPA’s ability to
regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, defunding Planned
Parenthood, and repealing existing and denying new spending
authority for implementation of ObamaCare.
There is less zeal for attaching these riders in the
Senate. However, in the Senate, Republicans are unanimously behind
what might be called the Debt Limit Restoration Rider, which is not
being pushed in the House. This amendment championed by Senators
Toomey, Vitter and DeMint would prioritize spending for debt
service and Social Security payments and thus guarantee that funds
are available for both in the event the debt ceiling is reached and
the federal government is precluded from borrowing more money.
Senate Republicans
voted unanimously to attach this rider to
the Continuing Resolution.
Of these five riders, the debt-limit restoration provision
is clearly the most important, not only because it is the only one
of the riders with a real chance of surviving in a comprehensive CR
this year but also because it would provide for an orderly and
rational reduction of federal spending and the deficit in years to
come. It is the rider on the margin, which would provide
Archimedean leverage in the budget process to reduce federal
spending. By removing the specter of a default on the national debt
or Social Security in the event the debt limit is reached, this
rider would eliminate the ability of big-spenders to hold markets
and seniors hostage to raising the congressional credit-card limit
time and again.
Hence, by transforming the debt limit into a real budget
constraint, the debt limit would become the anvil against which
federal spending reductions were wrought. Under a hard budget
constraint defined by the debt limit, Congress would lock itself
into a predetermined amount of spending reductions by first
deciding how much less than the projected deficit it decided to
raise the debt ceiling. This alteration in the congressional budget
process would transform the debt limit from a paper ceiling that is
routinely ripped up at will into a real, hard budget constraint
under which Congress would have to allocate spending. In the
process, it also would provide a framework in which to consider the
policy changes sought by the Big Four riders.
Finally, the debt limit restoration provision would be
very attractive to Senate Majority Leader Reid in his
struggle to keep on the reservation
potential Democrat renegades who are being tempted to use
Republicans as their cat’s paw to cut Social Security benefits.
It’s a deal the Majority Leader could not refuse.
To make this work, House Republicans must finally come to
the realization that their lone House majority is insufficient to
force the Senate and the president to accept any of their Big Four
riders. These riders are, as the Post points out, deal-breakers for
the Democrats, and threatening to shut the government down over
them is like threatening to shoot yourself in the head if you don’t
get your way.
Republicans also must find the wisdom and courage to
coalesce around a deal breaker of their own, which cannot be one
among the Democrats’ deal breakers and also must receive unanimous
backing by every Republican in both Houses. The only rider in the
mix that can satisfy both conditions is the Vitter/DeMint/Toomey
debt-limit restoration rider.
So, here’s the deal. House Speaker Boehner finds a House
sponsor for the Vitter/DeMint/Toomey debt-limit restoration
amendment and enlarges the class of Big Riders from four to five in
the House. He then lets Senate Majority Leader Reid know the House
intends to pass all five of its Big Riders but they all will be
subject to negotiation in the House-Senate Conference Committee on
the bill.
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader McConnell lets Majority
Leader Reid know Republicans will demand another vote on the
Vitter/DeMint/Toomey debt-limit amendment to the CR when it comes
to the Senate floor. Further, McConnell tells Reid that even if
that amendment fails on the Senate floor, Republican conferees
nevertheless will support Democrat conferees in dropping four of
House’s five Big Riders if Senate Democrat conferees in turn
support the House’s debt limit restoration rider.
In Conference, the House recedes to the Senate position on
the original Big Four House riders (i.e., strips them from the
bill) while the Senate recedes, if necessary, to the House position
on the debt-limit rider, keeping it in the bill.
Go ahead, Republicans, offer Democrats this deal they
can’t refuse.
