In the New York Times today, Jonathan Weisman writes that Mitch McConnell has frequently used debt ceiling negotiations as leverage to get stuff he wants:
But two weeks before a potentially catastrophic default, Mr. McConnell has yet to reveal what he wants, telling President Biden in a letter on Monday, “We have no list of demands.”
....Mr. McConnell has said the government must not be allowed to stop paying its debts; he has also said he will not let any Republicans vote to raise the limit, while moving repeatedly to block Democrats from doing so themselves. Instead, he has prescribed a path forward for Democrats: Use a complicated budget process known as reconciliation to maneuver around a Republican filibuster that he refuses to lift.
Asked what he wanted, that was his answer: “As I have said for two months, I want them do it through reconciliation.”
The main issue with using reconciliation is that it would kill a couple of weeks of floor time.¹ That's a concession, but it's not that big a concession. So why not go ahead and use reconciliation to pass a debt ceiling bill, but instead of merely raising the ceiling, use the opportunity to get rid of it for good?
Maybe Chuck Schumer doesn't have the votes for that? Or maybe he wants to push things to a genuine crisis point and then use that as leverage to get Democratic skeptics to kill the filibuster? Or maybe he wants to force Republicans to filibuster the debt ceiling over and over and over. I'm genuinely curious about what the Democratic strategy is here.
Conversely, the Republican strategy is obvious: they just want to make trouble for Democrats, and they're sure that, one way or another, Schumer and President Biden will do the responsible thing and figure out a way to pay our bills. They're Democrats, after all, and bad government is not their goal. A feeling of responsibility is bred into their DNA.
¹This would not be part of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, which is weeks away from being finished. It would be a separate, standalone debt ceiling bill, which is allowed by Senate rules.
Aren’t there annual limits to the number of times reconciliation may be used? Perhaps that is why.
I think they get one reconciliation bill a year but convinced the parliamentarian that slip-ups last year give them an extra one this year. That's the big reason this BBB is such a hodge-podge; it's their second bite at the apple and they have to include everything they can think of.
I've also read or heard that the initial resolution has to include the major points but the debt ceiling wasn't in it, so they have to go back with an amended resolution and other procedural things like the votarama that take a lot of time.
Another thing I remember hearing is that according to precedent, the debt ceiling can only by raised by a specific amount. That means it can't be eliminated by reconciliation, if precedent rules.
McConnell knows all this. He's never offering a way out, only a way further in.
The rules allow separate reconciliation bills dealing with taxes, spending and debt ceiling each fiscal year. You can only do one of each type, but you CAN do one of each type - and debt limit is a separate type.
And they didn't get 'an extra one' this year - they used the FY 2021 spending bill in March for the ARA and are using the FY 2022 spending bill on BBB.
From Josh Marshall at TPM:
"It comes down to the Congressional Budget Act, the law that created reconciliation. It determines that in one year, there can be up to three different reconciliation bills: one on taxes, one on spending and one on the debt limit. So Democrats could do their x-trillion dollar “infrastructure” bill and a separate one raising the debt limit.
This is distinctly different from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) attempt to eke out multiple reconciliation vehicles per year earlier in 2021. "
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/republicans-are-forcing-democrats-to-deal-with-debt-limit-alone-but-will-dems-be-able-to-do-it
"Another thing I remember hearing is that according to precedent, the debt ceiling can only by raised by a specific amount. That means it can't be eliminated by reconciliation, if precedent rules."
So raise it by $10**100.
The parlimentary ruling was that in an emergency they can pass a new, different budget and that new different budget would allow an additional reconciliation. However, to raise the debt ceilig, they have to reopen the budget and put raising the debt ceiling into that. thus we would need three budget resolutions to raise the debt ceiling by reconciliation and pass bbb by reconcilliation. And since the budget they already passed included the 3.5 trillion for bbb, they would not be able to pass the 3.5 trillion plan in a 2nd reconcilliation (remember it must be a different emergency budget) . They would also have to get the parliamentarian to agree that the financial situation of the US has changed enough to merit an emergency.
McConnell's approach looks to me like a double-dog dare to change the filibuster or get rid of it altogether. He keeps hitting on the line "they're the majority, let them do it" when he knows full well they can't proceed in regular order without 10 of his henchpeople agreeing to let it happen. And he knows that almost nobody in the general public has the slightest idea about that rule, so he's just making them look weak as far as the public is concerned.
But senator to senator, he's taunting Schumer and every single solitary last one of the Dems-- including Manchin and Sinema and whatever other die-hards there are-- telling them "you say you're a majority, everybody in the world knows you're a majority, why can't you act like a damn majority and get your way? Nyah nyah."
It seems to me that the question is whether they want to do what they need to do now and hand McConnell a majoritarian senate, or wait until he does it anyway with his next majority. That's about the story as I see it.
I think McConnell is very, very confident that Manchin and Sinema are fully committed to wreaking havoc on the Democrats prospects in 2022 and 2024. At this point, I don't think there's any chance that either one of them will betray the Republicans or their paymasters. The odds are extremely high that there will be a very Republican congress in 2022 and a Trump restoration in 2024.
This is all about 2022, when McConnell and Republicans all want to campaign about "Biden and the Democrats all voted to increase the national debt, and all Republicans voted no."
That's not even true, and McConnell knows that. But it can be -- probably will be -- the subject of many campaign ads.
You may be right about 2022, but I think it's ALSO about right now, in a way that's very important to obstructionist McConnell. Every hour spent working around the obstruction to do what has to be done is an hour that's NOT spent moving ahead on the priorities that seem important to most of the Democrats in Congress and most of the American public.
McConnell has a method to avoid seeming obstructionist on all those things--just tie up the Senate on the things he knows have to be done, and will be done, but by a huge waste of time.
The problem is The Trump term. McConnell should have used that extra reconciliation to balance the budget.......but didn't. You can't escape your past.
Its much like the damage the pandemic did to global supply chains. Democrats seem to be in negotiations with LaFollette/Reagan Democrats on a protectionist/prounionist alliance, bringing in the most suppressive capital market regulations since the New Deal era. Literally destroying 40+ years of global supply line creation. You can see globalist 's like Musk in panic. I see supply sided liberals and negros struggling with this as well. Then break a deal on "Climate Change" issues and the L/F concern on them. It's crazy how this reconciliation and infrastructure bill play on this. But it all comes together. Should I even start with down ballet Dems joining the Carter Democrats and rejecting court activists and tearing down the Supreme court's decision making over the last 60 years. Some which Conservatives won't like(bye bye corporate personhood).
This is easily the biggest fork since Civil Rights. The old alliances are crumbling, the debt based orgy ended in 2008 and the globalism based around its Triumph in the 80's and 90's are over. Politics is all about coalitions. Power brokers who decide and create political management. I see a new regime by 2030, one that won't look like any political "era" in the Republic's history. One that will fracture this board as well.
One thing that may change how the general public perceives debt-ceiling gamesmanship is the replacement of pensions with defined-contribution plans, which shift investment risk from employer to employees. Democrats need to answer those expected ads with, “Yes, you’re damned right I voted to keep your 401-k from tanking!”
Counter point to previous post?
Forcing debt ceiling increase into a reconciliation bill is just a ploy to kill the Build Back Better bill. He wants to tie the debt to the Bill Back Better bill, even though the latter does not add to the debt. If they can have a third reconciliation bill this year for the debt ceiling, it should be called the "Paying for Trump's Giveaways to the Rich" bill.
I'm pretty sure Democrats can only do one more reconciliation bill this year, so raising the debt limit would impose a serious time constraint to get it passed (and thus what might be in it). I'm pretty sure that's McConnell's intent. I don't think he's daring them to overturn the filibuster - that would be a serious own goal.
The other thing it's important to note is the difference in the two parties' positions. The Democrats want a clean vote to raise the debt ceiling and preserve the US economy. The Republicans are threatening to blow it up. Mitch isn't offering a legislative compromise where each side gets something. He's making a ransom demand to not shoot a hostage that Republicans don't want shot. If the Democrats give him anything, they're just normalizing hostage taking.
They can do more than one reconciliation bill. The issue has been addressed in this thread.
To me the obvious move is simply have get fifty Democrats (Harris as tie-breaker if need be) to exempt debt ceiling suspensions from the filibuster. I think the House has already passed suspension legislation (or could easily do so). There are a number of advantages to this route: 1) there's no dollar amount Senator have to be on the record as voting for—it's a suspension, not an increase; 2) there's no need to actually get rid of the filibuster, if that's the concern (it's a carve-out, as was done for judges and cabinet officials); 3) there's no need for a two week delay.
I assume Schumer doesn't have Manchin and/or Sinema on board.This is probably also why they're not pursuing the reconciliation strategy.
Not being argumentative but this really highlights the Democrats problems and, more importantly, their extreme weaknesses. All of the problems and insurmountable obstacles in Congress are entirely self created and their political wounds are entirely self-inflicted. There's simply nothing stopping the Democrats from doing as many reconciliation bills as they want—they just need to replace their employees who are not with the program.
All of these "obstacles" are just rules and customs that Congress has made for itself. Republicans run roughshod over them. Democrats venerate them more highly than their own survival as a viable political party or even the very survival of the republic.
Yes. I'm simply pointing out a non-dysfunctional congressional party would choose methods that maximize political advantage. A debt ceiling suspension (passed by simple majority in Senate) to my eyes looks like the most politically advantageous way of dealing with the issue at hand. But unfortunately "non-dysfunctional" isn't an adjective one can frequently apply to the party of FDR.
UPDATE:
Apparently DC Dems are reading my comments:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/us/politics/debt-ceiling-filibuster-biden.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=US%20Politics
It's one more reconciliation for fiscal year 2022.
There's another consideration I think. The debt ceiling can be suspended for a specific time or raised to a specific amount. They can't suspend it by reconciliation, only raise it. That means Reps can air ads saying "Senator Manchin voted to raise the debt ceiling to 'humongous amount', " which is considered more damaging than "suspend the debt ceiling".
Which again, begs the question, if they've got 50 votes for reconciliation (which can only raise the ceiling, not suspend it) why not 50 votes for a filibuster carve-out for debt ceiling suspension? It seems to me the latter by rights ought to be an easier lift, politically.
Why would it be an easier thing to vote to eliminate the filibuster for debt ceiling by regular order vs. Just doing it be reconciliation in a seperate bill which is already allowed?
Basically, if current rules allow this to be done thru reconciliation, you do not need to change the rules. And note that a congress is not supposed to be changing the rules in the middle of a term. Which is why , when they eliminated the filibuster for judges , they technically voted to say that 50% plus one was 60% . Basically voted for interpreting the existing rule in a non mathematical way .
Now, I guess if you already raised the debt ceiling once thru reconciliation , then you would be restricted again to regular order. I assume that is not the case , unless the August debt ceiling increase counts for that .
It would be easier (politically) because it doesn't require voting for a scary-sounding new debt ceiling number and because there's no special delay required because of the detour necessary to create/vote for new reconciliation resolution.
"This would not be part of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, which is weeks away from being finished. It would be a separate, standalone debt ceiling bill, which is allowed by Senate rules." Except this is completely false. You only get 1 reconciliation bill per year. A standalone debt ceiling reconciliation bill means no other reconciliation bill until they pas a new budget in the net budget cycle, i.e. it means the entire 2022 fiscal year that started last week is done by continuing resolution with no democrat initiatives. Which is of course why McConnell wants the debt ceiling to be done that way.
Suggestion: you might learn something if you read through the comment thread before posting inanities such as the one you've just posted. Some of Drum's commenters possess actual knowledge of such matters.
To be fair, I did not know this before and looked it up and found out you are right. But I doubt you would know this fact based on media coverage which has only talked about there being one reconciliation bill per year.
I did look it up and found out my understanding based on media coverage was wrong.
I suppose the ability to do seperate reconciliation bills for spending and taxes is sort of less useful when they have to have zero net cost. If democrats want to use tax increases to offset spending, have to do it in one reconciliation bill and use up both the spending and tax ones, correct?
One thing I do not understand is why a seperate reconciliation bill for debt ceiling would be so difficult to get passed on time. If it only does one simple thing, can't that get rushed through in a day or so? Why can they get this done now in regular order but not reconciliation?
No idea. Excessive (and foolish) deference on the part of Democrats for Senate rules, apparently? The process by all accounts requires a couple of different stages when amendments are allowed. Which traditionally is an opportunity for the party in opposition to delay things and exact a political price.
In any event signs are that Democrats in Congress are indeed contemplating a move to create a filibuster carve-out. I don't find this surprising since, as I've mentioned several times, the self-interest quotient for Democrats seems high. It's cleaner, quicker and avoids a number of politically challenging stages. Democrats would be doing the country a huge favor by making "debt ceiling hostage-taking" a think of the past. Reasonable people can disagree about the proper level of federal spending. But once the government incurs debts with congressional permission, it seems sheer, self-destructive madness for a country that can create money out of thin air to impede its own ability to settle an existing tab:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-debt-ceiling.html?name=styln-debt-ceiling®ion=BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT&block=storyline_most_viewed_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=1_most_recent
Per wiki , the prior comments that you can do a seperate reconciliation bill for debt ceiling are correct and you are wrong, memyselfandi, this would not prevent a different spending and tax reconciliation.
This is news to me too and makes my prior speculation as to what was preventing democrats from doing it on their own moot .
And makes the democratic position wholly untenable and just stupid.
So democrats can just increase the debt ceiling with a seperate reconciliation bill - without a filibuster stopping it - and without interfering in any way with the current spending reconciliation bill?
So what is their excuse for not doing so if we hit the ceiling and caused chaos . That they allowed that to happen, when they always had the sole power to stop it without anything at all stopping them , simply because they insisted on doing it by regular order so it can be filibustered ?
Why not just get rid of the debt ceiling? Because there are plenty of Democrats who like it.
Not so sure about that. Also, for a number of years, the then Democratically controlled Congress was run under the "Gephardt Rule" which (details escape me) more or less obviated the need for regular debt ceiling votes.
I think the vast majority of Democrats would like to scrap it, but a modest number in both chambers fear the political consequences: you may not have noticed this, but Republicans are quite good and demagoguing stuff.
I think the Gerhard rule still exists in some version. But it was only a house rule and has only been adopted when democrats control the house. It does not apply to the senate.
I think the rule was that any passed budget is deemed to also be a house vote to raise the debt ceiling accordingly. If I remember correctly, the rule used to require both house and senate to pass the budget and now just requires the house.
This rule essentially makes the debt ceiling meaningless from house perspective as it is auto raised when the house passes the budget.
Senate could have adopted such a rule too but did not do so. If they had this whole discussion would not be relevant.
That sounds right, except, if it didn't apply to the Senate, the "rule" wouldn't have been very substantive. IOW, perhaps the Senate didn't itself formally adopt the Gephardt rule, but, when it passed spending bills already passed by the House, it was by definition approving Gephardt Rule language on the measure in question (on a bill by bill basis).
Not exactly. The rule creates an automatic spinoff bill re debt ceiling. That is then a seperate bill that the senate has to vote on. It is not language contained within the budget bill itself. You would not need a rule to do that . It is a seperate spinoff bill.
And I did notice that the rule was changed recently to now create a debt ceiling suspension rather than a dollar increase of amount of budget extra spending.
So maybe this explains some procedural issues . Now that it is a suspension, cannot be done with reconciliation? So cannot use the Gerhard rule procedural shortcut with reconciliation? Maybe that rule change was a mistake? The old way maybe there would be a ready made bill that could go thru reconciliation?
This now eliminate the filibuster idea just really is the same as allowing debt ceiling to be done by reconciliation anyway, except maybe now they can do suspension and do not have to start a new reconciliation bill? But democrats would have been able to do it today with reconciliation if they had just planned ahead and got the process started a while ago. So why didn't they?
Have to suspect the "crisis' was really the purpose as it could so easily have been avoided. Maybe to put manchin and sinema in a position where they would have been forced to vote for a filibuster exception on something?
You have to wonder what was the real intention when a crisis seems so contrived.
Now that it is a suspension, cannot be done with reconciliation?
A suspension indeed cannot be done via reconciliation, per the parliamentarian, because it deals with time only, rather than dollars and cents. If Democrats were to create a filibuster carve-out for dealing with the debt ceiling, one would hope they'd include both suspension and increases in the measure.
The notion that McConnell actually cares about the economic health of America is comical- he's doing precisely what he did with Obama: trying to tank the economy while a Democrat is in the White House.
This is scorched earth politics. This is sedition.