DUG IN — With a deadline — perhaps as soon as June 1 —bearing down before the United States defaults on its debt, President Joe Biden and congressional leaders are finally meeting at the White House next week. Republican leadership says they won’t raise the debt limit without extracting cuts to the federal budget, and passed a largely symbolic bill in the House last week outlining their wants. Democrats want a debt ceiling increase with no conditions, and in particular are currently unwilling to entertain spending cuts. The staredown has Wall Street — and everyday Americans — nervous. “I respectfully urge Congress to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by acting as soon as possible,” said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, while updating Congress that they may only have until the end of the month before the U.S. can’t pay its bills. If America does default for the first time in history, the effects could be massive. The default could trigger a global recession. The federal government may stop paying out Social Security checks. Medicare and Medicaid, as well as SNAP food assistance, would also be at risk. Even if House and Senate leadership can reach a deal, they need to sell it to their members. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has already traded barbs with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), saying McCarthy “capitulated to the hard right once again” on the House’s spending-cuts and debt ceiling-increase plan. For his part, the Speaker said, “Had the president agreed to negotiate in good faith, we’d already be done.” To get a sense of the month of negotiations to come, Nightly spoke with Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of political science at George Washington University, who has written extensively on Congress and legislative politics. This interview has been edited. Factoring in the legislative calendar, how close to the debt ceiling deadline are we? There’s not very much time before the Treasury hits what we call the ‘X date,’ meaning that they’ve run out of change in their pockets to finance the obligations of the federal government. We can glance at the calendar and say, we have about a month. Realistically, though, we often think more in terms of whether or not the House and Senate are in session. [Nightly note: There are eight days left when the two chambers are in session at the same time this month.] People tend to point to that limited amount of time as a further constraint on getting lawmakers and leaders in a room to make a deal and to vote on it. In reality, though, you don’t really need 435 members and 99 or 100 senators, to make progress on a deal. And yet, time is still running out rapidly to find a deal. What are congressional leaders and Biden hoping to achieve in their May 9 meeting? There’s a lot that could go on. I think the challenge here that creates so much uncertainty is that I don’t know that the players themselves are fixed on a strategy. What people will be looking for is signals of any progress, given that both sides are currently dug in to their positions on spending cuts. I see this as kind of a semantic problem. Each side has to figure out what they want to achieve here, and whether both sides think a default is untenable. There’s still some uncertainty on the Democratic side whether or not all Republicans are willing to say we can’t default. Is there any way around each side’s line in the sand? There’s no shortage of creative legislative maneuvers to help both sides, whether that’s packaging everything into one bill or breaking up any deal they reach into different components, to give both sides political cover so that they can do a deal. But it would be helpful, I believe, for there to be an alignment of the default date with government spending deadlines, meaning the date for addressing the upcoming year fiscal spending bills lining up with the default date. We need to get both of these issues on the table so that each side can claim they’re pursuing their number one priority. Republicans want to maintain that they are pursuing spending cuts. And Democrats want to maintain that you can’t take the debt ceiling hostage, so they’re not going to negotiate over it. Put all these issues on the table so that each side can claim its most preferred outcome. What groups or people on each side are influencing party leadership on their negotiating positions? There’s been a lot of reporting about the group of factions that make up the House Republican Conference. The rightward tug of the debt bill that was passed by the House last week is a pretty good indication that Freedom Caucus members and other conservative Republicans that have a number of seats at the table are helping to influence the direction that House Republicans are going, with fairly strong support — or willingness to go along — from more moderate groups. On the Senate side, it’s a little harder to tell. I think most Democrats in the Senate seem to be aligning with the White House stance that ‘we’re not going to negotiate.’ But you have Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) who’s saying that Biden should get himself to the bargaining table. In the Senate on the Republican side, I think everyone is happy to line up behind Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who’s happy to line up behind McCarthy and not become a central figure. Are there any historical analogues to the current situation that come to mind? The most important point may be obvious, but I don’t think we talk about it enough. In periods of unified party control, like the most recent example in 2021, the opposition party barely needs to lift a finger on raising the debt ceiling. But in split party control, historically both parties have had to pony up about half the votes each. They have to reach a real compromise, rather than just peeling off a few votes. In 2011, for example, 95 Democrats voted for the debt ceiling increase, and 95 voted against (Democrats were the minority party in the House). The one thing that makes this episode look slightly different so far is there’s some uncertainty about whether Republicans, particularly conservative House Republicans, are willing to maintain their resolve, even at the cost of a default. I think we don’t know that yet. And I don’t think markets had quite paid enough attention to the possibility of a real default. That uncertainty is what we’re going to have our eyes on for the rest of May, and it’s higher than it’s been in quite awhile. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com. Or contact tonight’s author at cmchugh@politico.com or on Twitter at @calder_mchugh.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment