Democratic Party

More stories

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    How to Enforce a Debt Deal: Through ‘Meat-Ax’ Cuts Nobody Wants

    by

    The debt-limit legislation includes a provision meant to force both sides to pass additional bills following through on their deal: the threat of automatic cuts if they fail to do so.The bipartisan legislation Congress passed this week to suspend the debt ceiling and impose spending caps contains an arcane but important provision aimed at forcing both sides to follow through on the deal struck by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy.The 99-page measure suspends the $31.4 trillion borrowing limit until January 2025. It cuts federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by effectively freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1 percent growth in 2025.But it also contains a number of side deals that never appear in its text but that were crucial to forging the bipartisan compromise, and that allowed both sides to claim they had gotten what they wanted out of it. To try to ensure that Congress abides by the agreement, negotiators used a time-tested technique that lawmakers have turned to for decades to enforce efforts to reduce the deficit: the threat of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts if they do not finish their work.Here’s how it works.A 1 percent cut unless spending bills are passed.Congress is supposed to pass 12 individual spending bills each year to keep the government funded. But for decades, lawmakers, unable to agree on those measures, have lumped them together into one enormous piece of legislation referred to as an “omnibus” spending bill and pushed them through against the threat of a shutdown.The debt-limit agreement imposes an automatic 1 percent cut on all spending — including on military and veterans programs, which were exempted from the caps in the compromise bill — unless all dozen bills are passed and signed into law by the end of the calendar year. Mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare and Social Security would be exempt.A wrinkle is that, because the fiscal year that drives Congress’s spending cycle ends before the calendar year does — on Sept. 30 — Congress would still need to pass a short-term bill to fund the government from October through December to avoid a shutdown.Republicans and Democrats both dread the cuts.The measure is a version of a plan offered by Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, a key vote to advancing the bill through the Rules Committee, who said he believed it would help avoid the Democratic-controlled Senate using the specter of a shutdown to force the House to swallow a bloated spending bill at the end of the year.“You get threatened and ransomed with a shutdown,” Mr. Massie said in an interview in late April describing the plan. “They’ll tell you, ‘If you don’t pass the Senate bill, there’s going to be a shutdown.’ I think we need to take that leverage away from anybody who would risk a shutdown to get more spending. Just take that off the table.”Some Republicans, including defense hawks, are livid about the measure, arguing that it would subject the Pentagon to irresponsible cuts. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee and its defense subcommittee, called it a “harmful” provision that would leave a “threat hanging over” the Defense Department.“It would trigger an automatic, meat-ax, indiscriminate, across-the-board cut in our already inadequate defense budget and in the domestic, discretionary nondefense funding,” Ms. Collins said.Democrats, too, have a major incentive to avoid the cuts, since they have resisted reducing funding for federal programs all along.Without spending bills, major parts of the debt deal will die.Both parties stand to lose victories gained through handshake agreements during negotiations if Congress cannot pass its appropriations bills. Neither the White House nor House Republicans have published a full accounting of the agreements that do not appear in legislative text, but some have become clear.The deals allow Republicans to claim they are making deep cuts to certain spending categories while letting Democrats mitigate the pain of those cuts in the funding bills.One unwritten but agreed-upon compromise allows appropriators to repurpose $10 billion a year in 2024 and 2025 from the I.R.S. — a key priority of Republicans, who had opposed the additional enforcement funding championed by Mr. Biden and Democrats.Another side agreement, sought by Democrats, that would evaporate if the spending bills were not written designated $23 billion a year in domestic spending outside military funding as “emergency” spending, basically exempting that money from the caps in the deal.Jim Tankersley More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Military Spending Emerges as Big Dispute in Debt-Limit Talks

    by

    President Biden has offered to freeze discretionary spending, including for defense. Republicans want to spend more for the military, and cut more elsewhere.Funding for the military has emerged as a key sticking point in reaching an agreement to raise the nation’s borrowing limit and prevent a catastrophic default, with Republicans pushing to spare the Defense Department from spending caps and make deeper cuts to domestic programs like education.President Biden has balked at that demand, pointing to a long series of past budget agreements that either cut or increased military spending in tandem with discretionary programs outside of defense.How the sides resolve that issue will be critical for the final outcome of any debt deal. It remains possible that in order to reach a deal that prevents a default, Democrats will accept an agreement that allows military spending to grow even as nondefense spending falls or stays flat.Mr. Biden’s aides and congressional Republicans deputized by Speaker Kevin McCarthy are trying to negotiate an agreement to lift the borrowing limit before the government runs out of money to pay its bills on time, which could be as soon as June 1. Republicans have refused to raise the limit unless Mr. Biden agrees to cuts in federal spending outside of the military.The talks over spending cuts have narrowed in focus to mostly cover a relatively small corner of the budget — what is known as discretionary spending. That spending is split into two parts. One is money for the military, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will total $792 billion for the current fiscal year. The other half funds a wide range of domestic programs, like Head Start preschool and college Pell Grants, and federal agencies like the Interior and Energy Departments. It will total $919 billion this year, the budget office estimates.A separate category known as mandatory spending has largely been deemed off limits in the talks. That spending, which is the primary driver of future spending growth, includes programs like Social Security and Medicare.Administration officials have proposed freezing both halves of discretionary spending for next year. That would amount to a budget cut, compared with projected spending, under the way the budget office accounts for spending levels. Spending for both parts of the discretionary budget would be allowed to grow at just 1 percent for the 2025 fiscal year. That could also amount to a budget cut since 1 percent would almost certainly be less than the rate of inflation. That proposal would save about $1 trillion over the span of a decade, compared with current budget office forecasts.Republicans rejected that plan at the bargaining table. They are pushing to cut nondefense spending in actual terms — meaning, spend fewer dollars on it next year than the government spent this year. They also want to allow military spending to continue to grow.“It just sends a bad message and Republicans feel like it would not be in our best interest to cut spending at this juncture, when you’re looking at China and Russia and a lot of instability around the world,” said Representative Robert B. Aderholt, Republican of Alabama, who sits on an Appropriations panel that oversees Pentagon spending. “That’s been the basic position that most Republicans have.”Mr. McCarthy sounded a similar note when speaking to reporters on Thursday. “Look, we’re always looking where we could find savings and others, but we live in a very dangerous world,” he said. He added, “I think the Pentagon has to actually have more resources.”Republicans included 10-year caps on discretionary spending in a bill they passed last month that also raised the debt ceiling through next year, and party leaders said they would exempt the military from those caps. Mr. Biden has vowed to veto the bill if it passes the Senate in its current form, which is unlikely.White House officials have hammered Republicans over concentrating their proposed discretionary savings on domestic programs, saying their bill would gut spending on border enforcement, some veterans’ care, Meals on Wheels for older Americans and a host of other popular programs.“Speaker McCarthy and I have a very different view of who should bear the burden of additional efforts to get our fiscal house in order,” Mr. Biden said on Thursday at the White House. “I don’t believe the whole burden should fall on the backs of the middle class and working-class Americans.”Congressional Democrats, including members of committees that oversee military spending, have attacked Republicans for focusing largely on nondefense programs.“If you’re going to freeze discretionary spending, there’s no reason on earth why defense shouldn’t be part of that conversation,” said Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Republicans, he said, “are taking a hostage to advance their very narrow agenda. I’m not a fan of that. That’s not something I’m going to want to support.”Any agreement that increased military spending while freezing or cutting other discretionary spending would break from a budget-deal tradition that dates to 2011, when House Republicans refused to raise the debt limit until President Barack Obama agreed to spending cuts. The deal that avoided default was centered on spending caps that split their reductions evenly between defense and nondefense programs.The push to increase military funding while cutting more heavily elsewhere reflects a divide in the House Republican caucus. It includes a large faction of defense hawks who say the military budget is too small, alongside another large faction of spending hawks who want to significantly shrink the fiscal footprint of the federal government.Mr. McCarthy needs both factions to retain his hold on the speakership, which he narrowly won this year after a marathon week of efforts to secure the votes. And he will need to navigate them both as he tries to pass any debt-limit agreement with Mr. Biden through the House.Catie Edmondson More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Debt Limit Negotiators Debate Spending Caps to Break Standoff

    by

    The strategy, which was used in 2011, could allow both sides to save face but would most likely do little to chip away at the national debt.As negotiators for the White House and House Republican leaders struggle to reach a deal over how to raise the nation’s debt limit, a solution that harks back to old budget fights has re-emerged as a potential path forward: spending caps.Putting limits on future spending in exchange for raising the $31.4 trillion borrowing cap could be the key to clinching an agreement that would allow Republicans to claim that they secured major concessions from Democrats. It could also allow President Biden to argue that his administration is being fiscally responsible while not caving to Republican demands to roll back any of his primary legislative achievements.The Biden administration and House Republican leaders have agreed in broad terms to some sort of cap on discretionary federal spending for at least the next two years. But they are hung up on the details of those caps, including how much to spend on discretionary programs in the 2024 fiscal year and beyond, and how to divide that spending among the government’s many financial obligations, including the military, veterans affairs, education, health and agriculture.What could a spending cap deal look like?The latest White House offer would hold military and other spending — which includes education, scientific research and environmental protection — constant from the current 2023 fiscal year to next fiscal year, according to a person familiar with both sides’ proposals. That move would not reduce what is known as nominal spending, which simply means the level of spending before adjusting for inflation. Republicans are pushing to cut nominal spending in the first year.One reason the White House is willing to entertain holding spending essentially flat has to do with politics. Given that Republicans control the House, getting an increase in funding for discretionary programs outside the military would have been nearly impossible. Congress would not have approved increases through the appropriations process, the normal way in which Congress allocates money to government programs and agencies.Republicans have repeatedly said that they will not accept a deal unless it results in the government spending less money than it did in the last fiscal year. They have said that simply freezing spending at current levels, as the White House has proposed, does not enact the kind of meaningful cuts many in their party have long called for.But Republican negotiators have shown some flexibility around how long they would require those spending caps to last. House G.O.P. leaders are now looking to set spending caps for six years, rather than 10. Still, that is longer than the White House is proposing, with Democrats offering to cap spending for two years.“The numbers are foundational here,” Representative Garret Graves, Republican of Louisiana and one of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s lead negotiators, said on Sunday. “The speaker has been very clear: A red line is spending less money and unless and until we’re there, the rest of it is really irrelevant.”The approach is evoking debt limit déjà vu.If spending caps sound familiar, that is because they were employed during the last big debt limit fight in 2011.During that episode of brinkmanship, lawmakers agreed to impose limits on both military and nonmilitary spending from 2012 to 2021. The Budget Control Act caps were somewhat successful at keeping spending in check, but not entirely.A Congressional Research Service report published this year noted that during the decade that the caps were in place, Congress and the president repeatedly enacted laws that increased the spending limits. Certain types of expenditures — for emergencies and military engagements — were exempt from the caps and the federal government spent $2 trillion over 10 years on those programs. And spending on so-called mandatory programs such as Social Security was not capped, and those make up about 70 percent of total government spending.Still, the Congressional Research Service pointed out that spending was lower each year from 2012 to 2019 than had been projected before the caps were put in place.The strategy is no fiscal panacea.Caps that limit spending around current levels will help slow the growth of the nation’s debt, but will not cure the government’s reliance on borrowed money.The Congressional Budget Office said this month that annual deficits — the gap between what America spends and what it earns — are projected to nearly double over the next decade, totaling more than $20 trillion through 2033. That deficit will force the United States to continue to rely heavily on borrowed funds.Marc Goldwein, the senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, estimated that it would require $8 trillion of savings over 10 years to hold the national debt to its current levels. However, he said that did not mean that enacting spending caps would not be worthwhile.“We’re not going to fix this all at once,” Mr. Goldwein said. “So we should do as much as we can, as often as we can.”The group has called for spending caps to be accompanied by spending cuts or tax increases as a plan to reduce the national debt.Spending caps are not the only issue.Finding an agreement on the extent and duration of spending caps will be a critical part of getting a deal.But negotiators are still working to resolve several other issues, including whether to put in place tougher work requirements for social safety net programs including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Medicaid, and whether to expedite permitting rules for energy projects, two key Republican priorities that White House negotiators have shown some openness to.Jim Tankersley More

  • 163 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    If Debt Ceiling Standoff Can’t Be Resolved, Both Parties Will Share the Blame

    by

    While each party tries to blame the other for the crisis, some acknowledge that they would both share responsibility for a default.Is it the Biden default? Or the Republican Default on America?Even as negotiators push forward with halting talks to resolve the federal debt-ceiling standoff, members of both parties are positioning themselves to try to dodge the blame for the economic fallout if things go south. Democrats lambaste Republicans for taking the debt ceiling hostage to appease “extreme MAGA” conservatives bent on shrinking government spending. Republicans hit Democrats for waiting too long to open talks and not taking G.O.P. demands seriously.But deep down — and in some cases not so deep — officials in both parties know they are all going to pay if they don’t get a deal, the government defaults and Americans lose money and jobs and confidence about their financial well-being and future.“I would hate to be the politician trying to explain to people when the economy is in the toilet that it’s not my fault, it’s their fault,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “Yeah, that ain’t going to work. They will flush us all.”Polls have suggested Mr. Graham’s view is correct. A Washington Post-ABC News Poll released earlier this month shows that the public is divided about who will bear the blame, with a significant chunk of independents saying the two sides should share it equally.And some on Capitol Hill say the political backlash will be well deserved if Congress and the White House manage to mangle the situation so badly that public officials careen into a completely avoidable crisis and send both the economy and the retirement accounts of millions of Americans reeling.“I can’t comprehend that anyone who had the ability to prevent this much damage to our country, our economy and our world standing would allow that to happen,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, who had been among those pressing his party to engage in negotiations earlier. “It would be absolutely reprehensible. Everyone should get hammered.”But those likely reverberations haven’t yet motivated negotiators to come to an agreement and clear the way for an economic sigh of relief. Representative Garret Graves of Louisiana, the point man for House Republicans in the talks, abruptly exited a Friday negotiating session with administration representatives in the Capitol, accusing them of being “unreasonable,” and the talks were temporarily suspended. Suddenly, the path to a quick agreement that Speaker Kevin McCarthy had seen on Thursday was newly cluttered with obstacles. By the evening, talks had resumed.Such ups and downs in budget negotiations are fairly standard and can be performative as well as substantive. Both sides need to flex to show their respective forces that they are hanging tough and pushing for all they can get. But there are real differences in the positions of Democrats and Republicans on a host of issues on the bargaining table. A positive outcome is no certainty, despite regular high-level assurances that the United States cannot and will not default in the coming days.Still, should that occur, lawmakers and administration officials would like you to know that they didn’t do it.“Here we are on the brink of a Biden default,” Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, declared this week both in person and via news release, sounding a refrain becoming increasingly popular with Republicans — that this was all Mr. Biden’s doing because he refused to engage with them earlier and allow enough time to work out an agreement.Not so, counter the Democrats. “We find ourselves in the midst of a G.O.P.-manufactured default crisis because House Republicans have chosen to try and hold our economy, our small businesses, everyday Americans hostage to unreasonable ransom demands,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said.Republicans have a retort. They argue that since they squeezed legislation through the House last month that would raise the debt limit and enact spending cuts, they have bragging rights as well as immunity from any criticism because they are the only ones who have acted thus far — though it was widely known the bill could never pass the Democratic-majority Senate.“I don’t know how we own it if we raised the debt limit,” Mr. McCarthy said at the White House when asked if he was ready to face the consequences for a default. His colleagues share his view.“In my district I don’t think it would be a huge problem,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. “I did vote to raise the debt ceiling. Show me one person on the other side who did.”In addition, Republicans know it is traditionally the president who gets credit or fault for the state of the economy even if circumstances are well beyond control of the executive branch.Democrats scoff at the Republican claims. Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, dubbed the House legislation the Default on America Act, to try to capture both its impact and its dead-on-arrival status in the Senate. He and his fellow Democrats say they refuse to reward Republicans for what they view as highly irresponsible actions that are putting the nation’s economy at risk — even though both parties have used the debt limit for bargaining leverage over the years.“From the beginning, Democrats have said — I have said — that this process demands bipartisanship,” Mr. Schumer said this week. “It’s how we avoided default under President Trump. It’s how we have avoided default under President Biden, and it’s how we should avoid default this time too. Brinkmanship, hiding plans, hostage-taking — none of that will move us closer to a solution.”The two parties can continue to trade shots. But until they trade negotiating positions they can come to terms on, the threat of default hangs over Washington and the nation. And if that happens, those involved may find that the public won’t distinguish between who did or said what when, but will hold them all accountable. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Biden and McCarthy to Discuss Debt Limit as a Possible Default Looms

    by

    The president will host the House speaker and other congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday to discuss their impasse over the debt ceiling and spending cuts.WASHINGTON — President Biden will meet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy at the White House on Tuesday in a critical face-to-face confrontation that will frame their showdown over the federal debt and spending in the weeks before the nation is set to default on its obligations for the first time in history.With the American and perhaps the global economy hanging in the balance, the meeting will be the first sit-down session between the Democratic president and Republican speaker since February. But even the terms of the discussion are in dispute: Mr. McCarthy insists the president negotiate a debt ceiling deal with him, while Mr. Biden insists the meeting will just be an opportunity to tell the speaker that there will be no negotiations over the limit.The meeting in the Oval Office will feature Mr. Biden, Mr. McCarthy and three other congressional leaders: Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader in the House, and Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate. But Mr. Biden and Mr. McCarthy are the key players, locked in a political game of chicken to see who will blink first on raising the debt ceiling.With the federal government expected to default on its debt as soon as June 1 without an agreement, Mr. McCarthy and his Republican caucus have refused to raise the debt ceiling without commitments to major spending cuts. Mr. Biden has said he would discuss ways to reduce the deficit but has refused to link any spending decisions to the debt ceiling increase, arguing that Congress should simply raise the ceiling as it has for generations to pay for spending already approved.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, repeatedly referred to Mr. Biden’s meeting with Mr. McCarthy on Tuesday as a “conversation” rather than negotiations.Pete Marovich for The New York Times“We should not have House Republicans manufacturing a crisis on something that has been done 78 times since 1960,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said on Monday. “This is their constitutional duty. Congress must act. That’s what the president is going to make very clear with the leaders tomorrow.”The meeting that Mr. Biden has called, she added, will not involve any haggling over the debt ceiling. “I wouldn’t call it ‘debt ceiling negotiations,’” she said in reply to a reporter who used that phrase. “I would call it a conversation.” In fact, she was so intent on calling it a “conversation” that she used the word to describe the meeting 15 times during her briefing.Neither side expects any breakthrough at the session, scheduled for 4 p.m., but instead the leaders plan to use it to emphasize their positions in the dispute, in effect setting the parameters for the debate that will play out over the next few weeks. In recent years, such standoffs have not been resolved until the final hours and days before a deadline — or the deadline is extended.Mr. Biden has indicated that he is willing to have a separate discussion with Mr. McCarthy and the Republicans over spending that is not directly linked to the debt ceiling legislation. White House officials said the president plans to push Republicans to consider the tax increases and prescription drug savings he laid out in his most recent budget, which would reduce deficits by an estimated $3 trillion over 10 years, as part of a larger package to reduce debt accumulation over time.He is likely to challenge Republicans in Tuesday’s meeting to be more specific in the spending they would cut. He has hammered them for more than a week over the potential consequences — like reduced funding for veterans’ health services — that could result from the discretionary spending caps they included in a debt ceiling bill that passed the House late last month.Republicans have bristled at the president’s attacks on their legislation, calling them misleading. But they noted that unlike the Democrats, they at least have passed a measure to raise the debt ceiling, albeit conditioned on spending cuts. They argued that Mr. Biden and his Democratic allies have to come to the table with a counterproposal. Otherwise, they maintain, it would be the Democrats, not the Republicans, who failed to raise the debt ceiling, leading to a possible default.“They have to now step up and act like responsible leaders,” Representative Jodey C. Arrington, a Republican from Texas and the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said on CNBC on Monday. “We’ve done that, and we have set that example, and we have placed in their hands a list of proposals that we have gotten consensus on. It’s their time to respond, and the American people expect them to.” More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    What Options Biden Has in the Debt Limit Crisis

    by

    The president has not wavered in his calls for Republicans to raise the nation’s borrowing limit without condition. Privately, his aides have discussed other paths.The federal government has perhaps less than a month left before an economically devastating default on its debt.No matter who bears the political blame for a default, aides acknowledge that President Biden has a lot to lose if the nation tips into recession just as he is moving into his re-election campaign.Mr. Biden has several strategic options as he tries to prevent that from happening. All have been the subject of discussions inside the administration and with Democratic allies in recent weeks. They range from continuing to hold out for Republicans to raise the nation’s debt limit with no strings attached to preparing unilateral action to effectively bypass the limit and keep paying the nation’s bills.Some involve negotiations with Republican leaders, which Mr. Biden will insist are not related to the debt limit even though they would be.Each path carries risks, which administration officials acknowledge privately. The biggest by far is economic calamity: White House economists warned in an analysis released on Wednesday that if the country defaulted on its debt and that default continued for several months, the economy would shed eight million jobs as it entered recession.The economists also warned that merely approaching a possible default would rattle markets and drive up borrowing costs across the economy, “inhibiting firms’ ability to finance themselves and engage in the productive investment that is essential for extending the current expansion.”Here are the paths available to Mr. Biden, as his aides and allies see them.Stay the courseMr. Biden has insisted for months that lawmakers must raise the nation’s borrowing cap with no conditions attached, saying that it simply allows the United States to pay for spending Congress has already authorized. He could continue to do so, refusing to negotiate, as many progressives have urged him to do.It would be an attempt to stare down House Republicans, who last week passed a bill pairing an increase in the limit with cuts to federal spending and a reversal of Mr. Biden’s climate agenda. Mr. Biden would effectively be daring Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California to allow the government to run out of cash to pay its bills on time, which the Treasury Department estimates could happen as soon as June 1.The risk is that Mr. McCarthy refuses to give in, pointing to the House bill as evidence that Republicans had done enough to raise the debt limit. Mr. Biden would count on pressure from business groups and turmoil in financial markets to push Republicans to blink at the last moment and at least pass a bill to avoid default for a few weeks or months. But as of now, House Republicans have shown no willingness to pass such a bill, known as a “clean” debt-limit increase. Neither have a critical mass of Senate Republicans needed to advance the bill in that chamber.Shalanda Young, the White House budget director, said, “I have hope that we will find a path to avoid default.”Pete Marovich for The New York TimesNegotiate spending cuts not tied to the debt limitMr. Biden will welcome Mr. McCarthy and other congressional leaders to the White House next week for talks about fiscal policy — how much the nation taxes, spends and borrows. The president says those talks are divorced from the debt limit, but effectively, they are not.The deadline hanging over the talks is the so-called X-date, estimated for June 1; Mr. Biden’s invitation to congressional leaders was accelerated by the revised projections of when that date will hit. In contrast, the bill funding federal government operations, which Mr. Biden signed late last year, runs through the end of September.Mr. Biden could negotiate without “negotiating” by trying to broker an early agreement on spending levels for the next fiscal year, before the X-date. In exchange, Mr. McCarthy would commit to passing a clean extension of the debt limit.Business groups and even some administration officials expect any deal of that nature to center on limits on federal discretionary spending — though almost certainly not as stringent as the ones in the bill Republicans have passed. White House officials have said privately for months that they do not expect the House to approve significant spending increases for next year anyway, so some sort of limits may prove palatable to Mr. Biden, depending on the details.The risk of that strategy is that Mr. McCarthy’s most conservative members have shown no appetite for a deal of that scope. Mr. Biden will not accept those members’ more sweeping demands. That complicates the prospects for an agreement that runs through the speaker.Speaker Kevin McCarthy pointed to the bill the House passed last week as evidence that Republicans had done enough to raise the debt limit.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesBypass McCarthyMr. Biden could try to bypass the speaker and court a handful of moderate Republicans in the House and the Senate to vote to raise the limit, offering some fiscal concessions as an enticement. Bringing such a deal to the House floor could require some legislative maneuvering, like the so-called discharge petition Democrats have been keeping at the ready for months.It could also require a different approach from Mr. Biden to the congressional Republicans he needs to pass such a bill. Moderate Republicans in the House say they are receiving little friendly outreach from the White House so far. Instead, Biden administration officials have gleefully hammered them for voting to advance the Republican debt-limit bill and its deep spending cuts.This week administration officials have posted, again and again, the headshots and names of House Republicans on Mr. Biden’s official Twitter account, accusing them of voting to cut funding to veterans’ programs and Meals on Wheels. Two of the featured lawmakers were members of leadership, including Mr. McCarthy. Two others were high-profile, far-right congresswomen. The remainder — more than two dozen — were lawmakers in seats Mr. Biden won in 2020.Officials have defended that strategy. “I have hope that we will find a path to avoid default,” Shalanda Young, the White House budget director, told reporters on Thursday, after assailing budget cuts included in the Republican bill. “But it’s our job to keep coming to you, to go to the American people, and make sure people understand what this debate is about.”Go it aloneIf Mr. Biden’s chosen tactics do not produce a bill he will sign that raises the debt limit before the X-date, the president will have to choose between allowing the nation to default or pursuing what is effectively a constitutional challenge to the debt ceiling by continuing to borrow to pay the bills when the government runs out of cash.That challenge would be rooted in a clause in the 14th Amendment that stipulates that the government must pay its debts. Administration officials have debated that idea, with no resolution, for months. But even its proponents concede that it would not be a perfect solution. The move would draw an immediate court challenge and sow at least temporary uncertainty in the bond market, sending government borrowing costs soaring.Catie Edmondson More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    House Democrats Move to Force a Debt-Limit Increase as Default Date Looms

    by

    House Democratic leaders who have been quietly planning a strategy to force a debt ceiling increase to avert default began taking steps on Tuesday to deploy their secret weapon.The only clue to the gambit was in the title of the otherwise obscure hodgepodge of a bill: “The Breaking the Gridlock Act.”But the 45-page legislation, introduced without fanfare in January by a little-known Democrat, Representative Mark DeSaulnier of California, is part of a confidential, previously unreported, strategy Democrats have been plotting for months to quietly smooth the way for action by Congress to avert a devastating federal default if debt ceiling talks remain deadlocked.With a possible default now projected as soon as June 1, Democrats on Tuesday began taking steps to deploy the secret weapon they have been holding in reserve. They started the process of trying to force a debt-limit increase bill to the floor through a so-called discharge petition that could bypass Republican leaders who have refused to raise the ceiling unless President Biden agrees to spending cuts and policy changes.“House Democrats are working to make sure we have all options at our disposal to avoid a default,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, wrote in a letter he sent to colleagues on Tuesday. “The filing of a debt ceiling measure to be brought up on the discharge calendar preserves an important option. It is now time for MAGA Republicans to act in a bipartisan manner to pay America’s bills without extreme conditions.”An emergency rule Democrats introduced on Tuesday, during a pro forma session held while the House is in recess, would start the clock on a process that would allow them to begin collecting signatures as soon as May 16 on such a petition, which can force action on a bill if a majority of members sign on. The open-ended rule would provide a vehicle to bring Mr. DeSaulnier’s bill to the floor and amend it with a Democratic proposal — which has yet to be written — to resolve the debt limit crisis.The strategy is no silver bullet, and Democrats concede it is a long shot. Gathering enough signatures to force a bill to the floor would take at least five Republicans willing to cross party lines if all Democrats signed on, a threshold that Democrats concede will be difficult to reach. They have yet to settle on the debt ceiling proposal itself, and for the strategy to succeed, Democrats would likely need to negotiate with a handful of mainstream Republicans to settle on a measure they could accept.A handful of hard-right Republicans explicitly warned their colleagues on Tuesday not to go down that path. “House Republicans: don’t defect!” Senator Mike Lee of Utah wrote on Twitter.Still, Democrats argue that the prospect of a successful effort could force House Republicans into a more acceptable deal. And Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen’s announcement on Monday that a potential default was only weeks away spurred Democratic leaders to act.House Democratic leaders have for months played down the possibility of initiating a discharge petition as a way out of the stalemate. They are hesitant to budge from the party position, which Mr. Biden has articulated repeatedly, that Republicans should agree to raise the debt limit with no conditions or concessions on spending cuts.But behind the scenes, they were simultaneously taking steps to make sure a vehicle was available if needed.There were no signs on Tuesday of any momentum toward even a temporary resolution. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, brushed aside the idea of putting off a confrontation by passing a short-term debt limit increase, telling reporters: “We should not kick the can down the road.”And Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, reiterated that he intended to leave the negotiations to Mr. Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, again dashing the private hopes of some Democrats that the veteran Republican would ultimately cut a deal with them to allow the debt ceiling to be lifted, as he has done in the past.“There is no solution in the Senate,” Mr. McConnell said.The White House had no public comment on the discharge effort, according to Karine Jean-Pierre, the press secretary. Mr. Biden is scheduled next week to host Mr. McCarthy and other congressional leaders at the White House to discuss raising the debt limit. His goal at that meeting, a senior administration official said, will be to stress the importance of averting default and creating a separate negotiation to address other budget issues.The discharge petition process can be time-consuming and complicated, so House Democrats who devised the strategy started early and carefully crafted their legislative vehicle. Insiders privately refer to the measure as a “Swiss Army knife” bill — one intended to be referred to every single House committee in order to keep open as many opportunities as possible for forcing it to the floor.It would create a task force to help grandparents raising grandchildren, create a federal strategy for reducing earthquake risks, change the name of a law that governs stock trading by members of Congress, extend small business loans, protect veterans from the I.R.S., authorize a new Pentagon grant program to protect nonprofit organizations against terrorist attacks and more. The legislation was so broad and eclectic that it was referred to 20 committees, where it has sat idle for months. That was the point.Mr. DeSaulnier’s intent was never to pass the elements of the bill, though he favors them all. It was to create what is known on Capitol Hill as a shell of a bill that would ultimately serve as the basis for a discharge petition — and a way out of the debt limit standoff.“I wrote it in a way to be prepared,” said Mr. DeSaulnier, a former member of the Rules Committee who worked with Democratic procedural experts to craft legislation that could provide a debt-limit escape hatch. “I anticipated there would be these problems with the Republican caucus, whether it was abortion or the debt limit. I think it was the responsible thing as a legislator to do.”Democrats say the beauty of Mr. DeSaulnier’s bill — which Republicans have ignored — is that it long ago passed the threshold of being held in committee for at least 30 days, the minimum length of time to initiate a discharge petition to force action on legislation. Even so, in a memo sent to members on Tuesday, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis projected that even if Democrats were able to draw enough support for their plan and advance it without further delay, the measure could take until June 12 or 13 to clear Congress — many days beyond the earliest date Ms. Yellen has warned the debt limit could be reached.Democrats said the fact that their bill would fall under the jurisdiction of so many committees gave them several options for moving forward.Mr. DeSaulnier was picked to sponsor the measure because his low profile meant there was likely to be little attention to his bill. In contrast, any legislation introduced by Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, would have drawn attention immediately, and Republicans might have been able to take action to derail it.Discharge petitions have spurred action in the past by prompting House leaders to move on issues rather than lose control of the floor through a guerrilla legislative effort. But the procedure is rarely successful and has produced a law in only a handful of cases, including the approval of major bipartisan campaign finance legislation in 2002. Congressional leaders of both parties have been disdainful of such efforts, since they effectively wrest control of the House floor from the majority.Democrats say that the current situation, with a default looming, showed that they were taking prudent precautions with Mr. DeSaulnier’s bill. Besides thwarting gridlock, the legislation says its purpose is also “to advance common-sense policy priorities.”Catie Edmondson More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt Ceiling Debate Is About More Than Debt

    by

    Republicans’ opening bid to avert economic catastrophe by raising the nation’s borrowing limit focuses more on energy policy than reducing debt.WASHINGTON — Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California has repeatedly said that he and his fellow House Republicans are refusing to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, and risking economic catastrophe, to force a reckoning on America’s $31 trillion national debt.“Without exaggeration, America’s debt is a ticking time bomb that will detonate unless we take serious, responsible action,” he said this week.But the bill Mr. McCarthy introduced on Wednesday would only modestly change the nation’s debt trajectory. It also carries a second big objective that has little to do with debt: undercutting President Biden’s climate and clean energy agenda and increasing American production of fossil fuels.The legislation, which Republicans plan to vote on next week, is meant to force Mr. Biden to negotiate over raising the debt limit, which is currently capped at $31.4 trillion. Unless the cap is lifted, the federal government — which borrows huge sums of money to pay its bills — is expected to run out of cash as early as June. The House Rules Committee said on Friday that it will meet on Tuesday to consider the bill and possibly advance it to a floor vote.More than half the 320 pages of legislative text are a rehash of an energy bill that Republicans passed this year and that aimed to speed up leasing and permitting for oil and gas drilling. Republicans claim the bill would boost economic growth and bring in more revenue for the federal government, though the Congressional Budget Office projected it would slightly lose revenue.The Republican plan also gives priority to removing clean energy incentives that were included in Mr. Biden’s signature climate, health and tax law. That legislation, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, included tax credits and other provisions meant to encourage electric vehicle sales, advanced battery production, utility upgrades and a variety of energy efficiency efforts.The proposal does include provisions that would meaningfully reduce government spending and deficits, most notably by limiting total growth in certain types of federal spending from 2022 levels.The bill would claw back some unspent Covid relief money and impose new work requirements that could reduce federal spending on Medicaid and food assistance. It would block Mr. Biden’s proposal to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt and a related plan to reduce loan payments for low-income college graduates.As a result, it would reduce deficits by as much as $4.5 trillion over those 10 years, according to calculations by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington. The actual number could be much smaller; lawmakers could vote in the future to ignore spending caps, as they have in the past.Even if the entire estimated savings from the plan came to pass, it would still leave the nation a decade from now with total debt that was larger than the annual output of the economy — a level that Mr. McCarthy and other Republicans have frequently labeled a crisis.The Republican plan is estimated to reduce that ratio — known as debt-to-G.D.P. — in 2033 by about nine percentage points if fully enacted. By contrast, Mr. Biden’s latest budget, which raises trillions of dollars in new taxes from corporations and high earners and includes new spending on child care and education, would reduce the ratio by about six percentage points.Those reductions are a far cry from Republicans’ promises, after they won control of the House in November, to balance the budget in 10 years. That lowering of ambitions is partly the product of Republican leaders’ ruling out any cuts to the fast-rising costs of Social Security or Medicare, bowing to an onslaught of political attacks from Mr. Biden.The lower ambitions are also the result of party leaders’ unwillingness or inability to repeal most of the new spending programs Mr. Biden signed into law over the first two years of his presidency, often with bipartisan support.At the New York Stock Exchange on Monday, Mr. McCarthy accused the president and his party of already adding “$6 trillion to our nation’s debt burden,” ignoring the bipartisan support enjoyed by most of the spending Mr. Biden has signed into law.The speaker’s plan would effectively roll back one big bipartisan spending bill, which Mr. Biden signed at the end of 2022 to fund the government through this year. But the other big drivers of debt approved under Mr. Biden that are not singled out for repeal in the Republican bill include trillions in new spending on semiconductor manufacturing, health care for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits, and upgrades to critical infrastructure like bridges, water pipes and broadband.Some of that spending could potentially be reduced by congressional appropriators working under the proposed spending caps, but much of it is exempt from the cap or already out the door. Most of the $1.9 trillion economic aid plan Mr. Biden signed in March 2021, which Republicans blame for fueling high inflation, is already spent as well.The plan squarely targets the climate, health and tax bill that Democrats passed along party lines last summer by cutting that bill’s energy subsidies. It would also rescind additional enforcement dollars that the law sent to the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on wealthy tax cheats. The Congressional Budget Office says that change would cost the government about $100 billion in tax revenue.Taken together, those efforts reduce deficits by a bit over $100 billion, suggesting debt levels are not the primary consideration in targeting those provisions. The bill’s next 200 pages show what actually is: a sustained push to tilt federal support away from low-emission energy and further toward fossil fuels, including mandating new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and reducing barriers to the construction of new pipelines.Republicans say those efforts would save consumers money by reducing gasoline and heating costs. Democrats say they would halt progress on Mr. Biden’s efforts to galvanize domestic manufacturing growth and fight climate change.The plan “would cost Americans trillions in climate harm,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee. “And it would shrink our economy by disinvesting in the technologies of tomorrow.”Republicans have positioned their fossil fuel efforts as a solution to a supposed production crisis in the United States. “I have spent the last two years working with the other side of the aisle, watching them systematically take this country apart when it comes to our natural resources,” Representative Jerry Carl of Alabama said last month before voting to pass the energy bill now embedded in the debt ceiling bill.Government statistics show a rosier picture for the industry. Oil production in the United States has nearly returned to record highs under Mr. Biden. The Energy Department projects it will smash records next year, led by output increases from Texas and New Mexico. Natural gas production has never been higher.White House officials warn that Republicans are risking a catastrophic default with their demands attached to raising the borrowing cap. “The way to have a real negotiation on the budget is for House Republicans to take threats of default, when it comes to the economy and what it could potentially do to the economy, off the table,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Thursday.Mr. McCarthy has defended his entire set of demands as a complete package to reorient economic policy. But he mentioned energy only in passing in his speech to Wall Street.The issue he called a crisis — and the basis he cited for refusing to raise the borrowing limit without conditions — was fiscal policy and debt. Debt limit negotiations, he said, “are an opportunity to examine our nation’s finances.” More