BREAKING: McConnell Opens the Escape Hatch

[warrior1]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

We're just getting the first word on this. So the details may be subject to clarification. But Senate Minority Leader has just suggested the GOP will give President Obama his debt limit increase without any spending cuts with a legislative maneuver that in essence allows Republicans to say it's all Obama's fault.

snip

[LaurenG]

1. See I've been saying all along they are better at this because they are conniving

liars.

[elleng]

4. They are good at negotiating/intimidating, yes, because they are liars among other things,

[elleng]

2. Lets see.

'The plan is designed to give President Obama the power to raise the debt limit through the end of his first term on his own, but to force Democrats to take a series of votes on the debt limit vote in the months leading up to the election.

The development confirms suspicions that the GOP was unwilling to truly use the looming debt ceiling as leverage to force conservative-friendly changes to popular entitlement programs, but suggests strongly that Republicans plan to continue politicking on the issue of debt and deficits through the 2012 elections.'

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

5. Unfortunately, TPM is not accurately describing McConnell's proposal. What McConnell is actually

proposing is that Obama can essentially unilaterally increase the debt ceiling IF he specifies spending cuts that match the debt ceiling increase dollar for dollar. Congress can vote to disapprove of the debt ceiling increase and the spending cuts, and the President can veto such disapproval. But if Obama successfully vetoes such disapproval, the spending cuts are automatically enacted in ADDITION to the debt ceiling increase.

So this is really a lose-lose proposition for the Democrats. It gives the Republicans a 100% cuts solution. But it's actually even worse than that, because it means Republicans won't have to pay any political price for those cuts.

It is also pretty clearly unconstitutional, since it is basically a line-item veto (which the Supreme Court already ruled was unconstitutional).

[global1]

10. Just Push It Back In Their Face And Say That This Needs To Be A Shared Sacrifice &......

that along with any cuts will have to come revenue increases in the form of closing tax loopholes and raising tax on the wealthiest that have gotten a free ride throughout this financial crisis the country is going through. If they won't back revenue increases - we know who in fact is stonewalling this negotiation and that is the Repugs.

[spanone]

15. it's a trap

[Ruby the Liberal]

18. Maybe the Senate would block it for not increasing revenue?

At least Snowe and Collins have said they wouldn't support cuts-only.

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. Thats some seriously ugly stuff there with no upside.

[gkhouston]

28. Yes. It's a non-deal deal meant to make the Dems look like the ones

standing in the way of getting this settled.

[bananas]

20. Thanks for that summary. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. So why can't it work in the flip side - increased revenues to offset debt ceiling limits

Then they can vote it down, he vetos their disapproval and tax increases + debt ceiling are enacted.

Why does it have to come from the spending side of things, and with things that aren't even in the general fund budget, no less?

[wiggs]

25. Oh. This doesn't sound as good as other OPs suggest. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. More details:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1474639

[BzaDem]

33. Actually, I might have been wrong. There are currently conflicting reports.

Some say that the President MUST order spending cuts equal to the increase in the debt ceiling. This would be bad (it would give the Republicans what they want), and be unconstitutional (line item veto).

Other reports say that the President must simply recommend cuts equal to the increase in the debt ceiling, which would not go into law at all. This would be a cave by the Republicans, and would be constitutional.

It remains to be seen which reports are correct.

[Frustratedlady]

6. I hate to see McConnell involved in this. His hatred toward Obama is disgusting. n/t

[Historic NY]

7. +1 I think Obama has won the chess game......

they won't have the votes to partition out the debt ceiling raises..if Harry Reid forces them to vote... if they stall and the deadline comes its still Bohner, Mcconnel & Cantors fault..

[JuniperLea]

14. Spot on!

Indeed!

I'll be heating the crow and making the sauce... I hope no one wanted salad with that because I don't have time to shop!

:rofl:

Oh, this is good... amazing good.

[monmouth]

12. And I hate to see Cantor involved, he has skin in the game...n/t

[MADem]

31. He's doing what he's told. He'd rather have a ten foot pole, but he's got his orders. NT

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Calls from NY were effective I guess

and this is what this is about... Mitch... you just blinked... I HOPE

[yellowcanine]

9. Nice picture of Mr. Chinless Wonder.

[FormerDittoHead]

11. Ahh! The old rarely used legislative maneuver! You'd think they'd have run out of those!

This is why all of the "read the constitution" people are full of shit.

This is why all of the "the president/senate/congress can't do that" people are full of shit.

How many fucking times in the last 10 years have I see this "rarely used obscure procedure" thing used time and time again to get something done?

I remember back when "signing statements" started to be used during Bush. "What the hell are THOSE," I remember asking myself. They didn't EXIST while I was studying civics!

The point is that these guys do what they want to do when they want to do it and will just pop up one of these every time they need to actually get it done.

[spanone]

13. don't do it mr President. they are setting you up for next year.

[JuniperLea]

16. He wont...

He prefaced his speech yesterday with the idea that there will be no temporary fixes... and this isn't in his power anyway. This is Congress' job.

[spanone]

19. yep

[reformist2]

21. McConnell is pretty irrelevant, imo.

It's pretty much between Obama and Cantor.

[gkhouston]

23. Yup. He's just trying to look like he's in the game for the voters at home. n/t

[disillusioned73]

24. Interesting...

the story continues to unfold...

[EC]

26. nevermind... n/t

[AtomicKitten]

27. So McConnell is going to "allow" Pres Obama to exercise the 14th Amendment? Hookay.

The president has already aptly demonstrated in the midst of this Kabuki Theater that the GOP will not compromise and they will not raise revenue on the wealthy and corporations.

In lieu of a clean up-or-down vote, this scenario works for me.

[mfcorey1]

29. I wouldn't trust anything that Mitch McConnell puts on the table. Pure poison. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. EPIC FAIL on McConnell's part. Why? The Constitution specifically gives the U.S. House

of Representatives this power, NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!

McConnell is NOT slick! All things having to do with the budget, but especially taxing, revenues, deficit--begin in the House!

McChinless is trying to save Cantor and Boner's asses! They are fucking cowards!!