Bottom line: This simply was a play by Boehner to keep his job and should not be assumed to be an accurate prediction of what’s to come on the budget in the lame duck session.Granted -- that doesn't mean we won't really get a showdown...well, we've had many showdowns in the past; we'll probably get something this time unless unified government breaks out before a debt limit extension is needed (and perhaps even then). There's a bit of a myth out there that last summer was the first-ever exercise in debt-limit brinkmanship. Not that it wasn't notable -- it was! It's never come that close to default before, as far as I know, and everyone should take seriously the threat posed by a good-sized group within the GOP conference who apparently really want to break through the limit and see what happens. So we certainly could be in for something as messy as last summer, or even worse.
But I think Collender is right: what Boehner said yesterday doesn't really change anything, or give us any new clues about what's going to happen.
Nice catch!
Posts
Obama still has the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the 14th Amendment to use if Bonehead's caucus really wants to test it. It would show strong leadership and deal an awful blow to Republicans. And there is a possibility he'll have nothing to lose by that point.
ReplyDelete" ... everyone should take seriously the threat posed by a good-sized group within the GOP conference who apparently really want to break through the limit and see what happens."
ReplyDeleteUm, no, actually... the Tea Party would prefer that Congress spend less instead of adding more debt. Unlike Pete Stark, Teapublicans don't believe that spending all tax money on debt payments makes us wealthy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0
I guess there are two orientations to take to this: 1) ok, talk is cheap, not necessarily an indication that brinksmanship will occur, or 2) yikes, just to keep his job, Boehner still has to say he'll threaten the credit of the US. And #2 is worrying because many thought it was clear enough last summer that true brinksmanship doesn't pay off politically, so this indicates that the house GOP nonetheless still thinks it does.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why the GOP would want a do-over, because they came out looking pretty bad and with a deal they didn't like.
DeleteBut they won't get a do-over before the election, so they can make a lot of noise without having to follow through. So my vote is with theory #1--talk is cheap. The election may render brinksmanship unnecessary, or indicate how for to go.
Or maybe this is a third possibility: trial balloon for GOP positioning for the election. There's plenty of time to back away if they get pummeled, or refine or ramp up if the response isn't outright negative.