Let’s begin with a premise from professional moderate Matthew Yglesias: “The debt ceiling standoff itself has, as the White House itself acknowledged, been damaging to the economy and to the world’s confidence in the United States… By giving Republicans a policy win in this way rather than through the normal appropriations process, Biden has validated the debt ceiling hostage tactic. That meaningfully increases the odds of a future substantive disaster, either in terms of policy concessions or a breach… In the short-term, dismissing the viability of the strategies around the 14th Amendment, the platinum coin, and premium bonds was a huge mistake. The spin that this wouldn’t work because of judicial uncertainty won’t hunt. The president could— and should!— have said that his preference was to avoid using those options because of his limited confidence in the courts and because the financial system doesn’t like wackiness. But he still should have preserved them as options he would prefer to use rather than signing a terrible deal.”
In his coverage of the still emerging details of the deal for the NY Times, Peter Baker called the shit part of the detail “imposing new restraints on federal spending,” averting “a potentially devastating national default.” OK, nothing to see here… everyone go home and flip on Netflix. After all, wrote Baker, the deal will “enact important changes in environmental permitting, work requirements for social safety-net programs, and Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement.” What’s not to like? “Among other things, the agreement would cut about $10 billion out of the $80 billion that Biden previously secured to help the I.R.S. go after wealthy tax cheats, and would use that money to preserve domestic programs that otherwise would have been cut. Some of the billions of dollars left over from the Covid-19 pandemic relief package passed shortly after Biden took office would be clawed back. A New York Times analysis suggests the limits will reduce federal spending overall by about $650 billion over a decade— a fraction of the cuts Republicans originally sought— if spending grows at the anticipated rate of inflation after the caps lift in two years. The agreement would protect the military and entitlements like Social Security and Medicare from spending cuts imposed on other parts of government.”
Baker also notes that the deal will “leave intact Biden’s efforts to forgive $400 billion in student loan debt in coming decades, although that faces a challenge in the Supreme Court. But it would include none of the tax increases on the wealthy and corporations that Biden sought in his original budget proposal. New work requirements would be imposed on some recipients of government aid, including food stamps and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Among other things, the agreement would limit how long people under 54 without children could receive food stamps, although those limits would expire in 2030 unless renewed by Congress. The package would also expand food stamp access for veterans and homeless people.”
And we’ll know how bad this next thing is by how enthusiastically Joe Manchin talks about it: “Environmental permitting for major energy projects would be streamlined. A single lead agency would be charged with developing a single review document according to a public timeline. The agreement would enact these changes without curtailing the overall scope of the current review process, cutting down the statute of limitations, imposing barriers to standing or taking away injunctive relief or other judicial remedies.”
This morning, Dan Pfeiffer played a little both-siders-erism, noting that “People on the Left and the Right are unhappy, but that is to be expected. No deal gets the agreement of the Democratic president and the Republican Speaker and is universally praised.” So America’s best legislators, say, Pramila, Ro, AOC and Jamaal are somehow mirror images of America’s worst— say Boebert, Traitor Greene, Ralph Norman, Dan Bishop, Scott Perry and Bob Good. And then he admits that “this is shitty public policy foisted on the nation by a radical Republican House willing to blow up the economy and cause millions of jobs to vanish. Efforts to deal with deficits that do not include asking the wealthy and corporations to pay what they owe are cruel and wholly unserious. The tightening of access to aid for the most vulnerable Americans serves no purpose other than performative cruelty to appease the MAGA base.” So, basically, exactly what Pramila, Ro, AOC and Jamaal are saying.
A trio of A-list Times reporters pointed out last night that “passage of the plan before June 5, when the Treasury is projected to exhaust its ability to pay its obligations, is not assured, particularly in the House, which plans to consider it on Wednesday. Republicans hold a narrow majority in the chamber, and right-wing lawmakers who had demanded significantly larger budget cuts in exchange for lifting the borrowing limit were already in revolt… In a nighttime news conference outside his Capitol office that lasted just one minute, McCarthy said the deal contained ‘historic reductions in spending, consequential reforms that will lift people out of poverty into the work force, rein in government overreach’ and would add no new taxes. He declined to answer questions or provide specifics, but said he planned to release legislative text on Sunday.”
McCarthy has repeatedly said he believes a majority of his conference would vote for the deal, but it is not clear yet how many Republicans will back the compromise— and how many Democrats might be needed to vote for it to make up for GOP defections.
The path also is likely to be rocky in the Senate, where quick action requires bipartisan support and conservatives [wrong: conservatives will absolutely go along; fascists— a word the NY Times never uses to describe members of Congress— won’t] have signaled they are unwilling to go along.
In a sign of their displeasure, House Freedom Caucus members were huddling to identify procedural tools to delay passage of the agreement or make the bill more conservative.
Republicans have refused for months to raise the debt limit unless Biden agreed to spending cuts and reduce future debt— risking a default to wield their leverage. The final agreement accomplishes their goal, but only modestly. A New York Times analysis of the spending caps at the center of the agreement suggests they will reduce federal spending by about $650 billion over a decade, if spending grows at the expected rate of inflation after the caps lift in two years.
The cuts in the package are almost certainly both too modest to win the votes of hard-line conservatives and too stringent to win the votes of progressives in the House. Lawmakers in the House Freedom Caucus were privately pillorying the deal on Saturday night, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus had already begun to fume about it even before negotiators finalized the agreement.
…On a private call to brief members of his conference on the emerging deal, McCarthy sold the agreement as a victory, saying there was little in the package that Democrats supported. But hard-right lawmakers in the Freedom Caucus, who for days had been venting frustration with the emerging contours of the deal, made their displeasure known.
Everything “they fought for” in the House bill were omitted from the agreement, Representative Bob Good of Virginia said, according to a person familiar with the remarks who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private call. McCarthy and his deputies defended the deal, citing several wins, including rolling back money for the I.R.S.
I say we would have been way better off if the Democrats had the orcas who are sinking yachts off the coast of Spain and Portugal as the negotiators instead of Biden and Ricchetti. Axios predicts 60 Republicans won't vote for the deal-- so that's how many Democrats Biden has to deliver. By the way, will you be sad if the House Republicans replace McCarthy with someone "worse?"
