Debt Ceiling Follies: McCarthy? Don't Impress Me Much

The debt ceiling debate has a certain artificial flavor to it.  

The average person is not quite clear about what it is all about. The average media website as well as everyone else would best have in these situations a basic FAQ.  The value of the Internet includes easy access to more material.  OTOH, many articles still fail to do simple things like provide readily available links to legal opinions cited or the like.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury notes:

The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments.

The general idea was that Congress originally had to specifically agree to borrow (such as bonds) in a more piecemeal way.  This eventually got to be tedious, especially as the budget rose, and there were ways to block new borrowing.  A ready example was funding WWI-related spending that there was a strong minority in opposition.  

The Treasury continues:

Congress has always acted when called upon to raise the debt limit. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit – 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. Congressional leaders in both parties have recognized that this is necessary.

So, what's the problem?  Well, like asking anyone to do something "they always did" or "that is not complicated," there is an opening for people saying "no." This is especially a problem when we have a divided government with strong ideological opposition to basic spending.  The limit provides an opening for a bottleneck.  The fact a united government under Trump did not refuse to raise the debt ceiling is far from shocking here.

The basic thing then opens up a blackmail situation. The threat results in a lot of theater.  A lot of noise.  We were assured by various people that THIS TIME things might really get bad.  The problem for me -- even as we heard a lot about coins and "Fourteenth Amendment remedies" (see a mostly forgotten clause about debts) -- is that it is hard to see what changed.

Look at the situation.  Do so before -- as some have -- giving Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy a lot of credit.  Speaking about how "surprised" (as even some liberals did) at how well he handled things. And so on.

Any budget deal would have to pass the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. It had to be signed by President Biden. Furthermore, Biden is a good negotiator.  He is also an institutionalist who trusts the basic system. He's not going to -- even if we wanted him to do so -- start using novel hardball tactics.  He won't screw things up from the stress of it all.

So, what changed? Well, we have a more ideological House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans.  Fine enough.  I have little respect for these people, including the noise they make such as the ridiculous comment "reasonable moderate" Nancy Mace made about (what?) Biden not being able to find his pants.  

These are not serious people.  And, they have horrible beliefs (see her trans comments).  There still are basics here.  First, they as a whole need the backing of money from people who don't want the threat of financial panic if the debt is not honored.  

Second, they have a tiny five or so person majority.  There are much more than five people who are not hardball MAGA types.  It is even unclear even how much true believer types care about this.  The whole thing these days appear to be "anti-wokeness."

Finally, look at Kevin McCarthy.  The general assumption that led to the patting on the back seems to be a result of people thinking him a total moron.  He's not a total moron. He is a Trump-enabling weasel. I really disdain this quality about him.  I don't really care too much that he is not "really" deep down a Trump believer.  Doesn't matter on a basic level.

Still, he is not a total loser. A total loser does not get to be Speaker. It helps that many don't seem to actually want the job. A prime way to get your way. "Hey, you knew what you would get with me ... hey, do you want the job?"  Plus, again, he doesn't come off as a true believer on these things. He is not going to "kill the hostage" to use one metaphor used on MSNBC. Plus, again, the Republicans as a whole don't want him to do so.

Now, if you don't have Biden on the other side, there is a chance that more trouble can arise here. It is not like the Republicans didn't pass a budget for policy reasons that was basically a poison pill. It was obvious (it would have required Biden and the Democrats to override basic accomplishments) it wasn't going anywhere. It took finesse to "negotiate" here.  

It is far from clear to me that McCarthy added much here. It is much more likely (though progressives have had years of experience now accepting they have to follow the herd) Biden had to convince Democrats, especially with some talk of 14A alternatives that I referenced above.  Democrats are now led in the House not by Pelosi but by more of an attack dog sort of person (not clear really on his negotiation skills).  

Biden handled things nicely, including not hitting the Republicans over the head with things such as bragging about how good the final result was.  We even have the Congressional Budget Office said a work requirement poison pill (to the degree it was one; it wasn't really much) was even weaker than expected.  There is some pushback to this, but who in the heck is paying too much attention to the weeds here? 

There are some liberals who are pissed off about any negotiation. "Just use the coin" or some such thing.  A basic thing missing here is that there is a House Republican problem.  They control the House.  They have the power to veto.  If not now, later, when a new budget is negotiated. Yes, that is what they should do -- wait until the new budget.  But, as long as the debt ceiling is there, the opening is also there.  And the bottom line is the same. They have the power to ask for something later too.  

The end result really comes off as a whimper, finalized after the usual "vote-a-rama" in the Senate where senators (mostly Republicans) can "put people on record" voting on stuff that won't pass.  Over 300 people voted for the final deal in the House though it took more Democrats than Republicans to get it done.  It again makes it look like -- a lot of posturing aside -- they simply didn't in their heart as a whole care. 

No shock since the whole thing comes off like a Democratic bill with some Republican things tossed in. If this thing had to pass a 51-vote Senate without getting around the filibuster, you almost expect not much different bill even if we had 222 Democrats in the House.  Again, why should this result in giving McCarthy that much credit?  I don't really see it. Biden is the grown-up here. 

McCarthy is now assuring his caucus that this isn't the end. We will have further efforts to change the budget and spending. Okay, Kevin.  And, then there is the business of taking the whole drama out of the picture next year.  This makes perfect sense for Republicans.  Borderline Republicans don't want to deal with this drama when trying to win swing races.  And, it's good for Biden, since he looks above the fray.  

Again, I don't think -- though it's easy to make fun of the guy especially after it took so many votes to be chosen (though that was more theater than substantive on a basic level) -- McCarthy is a total clown. And, it is not like he works alone. He has the leadership to help him.  Leadership in various cases has its own reasons for not playing hardball.  

The whole thing does have a bullshit quality.  All of this theater is not totally harmless.  It does cause some stress though I don't know how much it really threatens our standing in the financial markets and overall.  Something like that is complicated to figure out, probably, and I surely can only guess at it.  Something akin to how the world respected us foreign policy-wise generally.  It is negative and self-inflicted.  

If raising the debt ceiling is so simple and pro forma, why even have the damn thing? This is where the weeds can help explain things (see, e.g., Michael Dorf and Neal Buchanan's articles and blog posts).  

But, as I understand it, it would be logical just to have it be automatic. Congress can always pass new budget-related legislation if necessary if there is some problem doing so.  Not that it is clear why -- the situation here is that the Republicans won a change of control of the House. Fine. Wait until the new budget.  I think Republicans are aware of this.  They really didn't lose much by this getting passed.  

[As an aside, this brings to mind the stupid 27th Amendment, a footnote of a constitutional provision, that requires a new election pass before the congressional salary raise goes into effect. 

Who cares?  Was there some big trick of them sneaking in a ridiculous raise that took effect before an election, after the people elected them?  Maybe, this is why the thing wasn't ratified the first time. 

A basic cost of living raises here would make sense.  I think that should be the rule for minimum wage rates too though maybe at times there might be a decrease too that might bother someone? Anyway, never quite clear why that is not how it is done.]

Now, we punted things until 2025. Okay. We had one more time for a lot of blather and a chance for Republicans to make things somewhat worse. Such are the perils of them controlling the House.  Let's change that next year.