House of Representatives

More stories

  • 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 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    When Will the U.S. Run Out of Cash? The Answer Is Complicated.

    by

    The federal government is essentially living paycheck to paycheck, making the X-date hard to pin down.In letters to Congress and warnings to business leaders about the catastrophic consequences if the United States defaults on its debt, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has repeatedly offered an important caveat.She cannot give the exact date when the federal government will run out of cash.The United States reached its statutory $31.4 trillion debt limit on Jan. 19, forcing the Treasury Department — which borrows huge sums of money to pay nation’s bills — to begin using accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures to conserve cash and avoid breaching the cap.On Monday, Ms. Yellen reiterated previous warnings that the Treasury Department could deplete its cash reserves by June 1. Still, the exact day when the United States will reach the so-called X-date is nearly impossible to determine.“These estimates are based on currently available data, and federal receipts, outlays and debt could vary from these estimates,” Ms. Yellen has told lawmakers in her letters. “The actual date Treasury exhausts extraordinary measures could be a number of days or weeks later than these estimates.”While Treasury has the most sophisticated cash management system in the world and employs teams of highly trained economists, its coffers are a blur of payments going out and tax revenues coming in. When its cash balance runs painfully low — as was the case on Wednesday, when the Treasury General Account started the day with less than $100 billion — pinpointing the X-date becomes even harder to predict. In many respects, that is because the moment that a default would occur is a moving target.Big bills are coming due.Ms. Yellen has been eyeing early June as a pivotal month since her first warnings to Congress about the debt limit in January. The reason: The federal government spends a lot of money in a short period of time around June 1, and it is impossible to predict exactly how much revenue is going to be coming in and when.In a report published on Thursday, the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank that carefully tracks federal spending, estimated that the government would spend $101 billion on June 1. Most of that money — $47 billion — will go toward Medicare, while the rest will be directed to veterans’ benefits, military pay and retirement, civil service retirement and supplemental security income. On June 2, the government has to pay $25 billion in Social Security benefits and another $2 billion for Medicaid.During those two days, the government is projected to spend about $140 billion and bring in only $44 billion in tax revenue, leaving the nation’s coffers operating on fumes.Revenues sputter as refunds flow.One big problem this year is that tax revenues have been coming in at a more tepid pace than anticipated.Severe storms, flooding and mudslides in California, Alabama and Georgia this year prompted the Internal Revenue Service to push the April 18 tax-filing deadlines in dozens of counties to October.Another surprising reason that cash is running lower than some budget experts projected is that the I.R.S. is starting to operate more efficiently. As a result of the $80 billion that the agency received as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year, it has been able to ramp up hiring and chip away at the backlog of unprocessed tax returns.Because the I.R.S. has been processing returns more quickly, it is also paying out refunds more quickly and draining the amount of available cash.June 15 is a critical day.If Ms. Yellen can find enough coins in Treasury’s couch to pay the bills until June 15, the United States could find itself with a bit of breathing room.That is because June 15 is when third-quarter payments are due from corporations and people who are required to pay their tax bills throughout the year or choose to make payments every three months to avoid having large bills due in April.The Congressional Budget Office said in a report last week that an expected influx of quarterly tax receipts on June 15 and the availability of additional extraordinary measures would probably allow the government to continue financing operations through at least the end of July.The government could receive approximately $80 billion in tax revenue that day. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that those funds could be sufficient to keep the federal government afloat until June 30. At that time, Ms. Yellen would also have some additional extraordinary measures at her disposal — a suspension of investments into retirement funds for federal workers — that would allow her to unlock an additional $145 billion and potentially delay a default until well into July.It’s too close to call.The lack of clarity about the X-date has made it difficult for lawmakers to know how much pressure they are under to strike a deal. The government may not know how quickly cash is running out until right before the country faces default.But pressure is still mounting. Congress is likely to take days — if not weeks — to pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling. And even if President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy strike an agreement, there is no guarantee that the House and Senate will easily pass the legislation.The legislative calendar gets increasingly complicated as summer approaches.Mr. McCarthy and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, would need to navigate legislation reflecting that agreement through their respective chambers, and the days left to do so are rapidly dwindling. The House is scheduled to be in session for only six days before the end of the month. The Senate is set for just five and is scheduled to be out of Washington beginning on Monday before the Memorial Day weekend.Mindful that lawmakers are loathe to reschedule their recesses, analysts have been watching the legislative schedule closely as they try to read the debt limit tea leaves. If no deal is signed into law by Memorial Day and Ms. Yellen does not announce that the X-date is delayed, that could raise the likelihood of a short-term suspension of the borrowing cap to give Congress more time to act.“The congressional calendar is king and will dictate urgency and passage dates for a bill, as has historically been the case,” Henrietta Treyz, the director of economic policy at Veda Partners, said in a note to clients this month. More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How Past Debt Limit Crises Shaped Biden’s No-Negotiation Stance

    by

    Battles in 2011 and 2013 taught President Biden not to lean on a House speaker who has little room to negotiate and to keep debt ceiling talks separate from the budget.As a debt limit crisis loomed in 2011, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. described early negotiations with Republicans as civil, at one point suggesting that the process was about finding out who was willing to trade their side’s bicycle for the other side’s golf clubs.The genteel vibe came to a halt that summer, when Speaker John A. Boehner walked away from a deal because he was not able to wrangle the Republicans in his caucus. Months later, congressional leaders agreed to raise the debt ceiling and cut trillions in federal spending to avoid default.The bitter compromise convinced Mr. Biden of two things, according to a half-dozen current and former advisers: Do not negotiate with a speaker who cannot reach a deal — Mr. Boehner’s caucus was arguably less radical than the current bloc of House Republicans — and do not turn the process of avoiding government default into a discussion about budgeting.“That was kind of a terrifying transition, because all of the sudden you’re negotiating over whether or not you’re going to default,” Jacob J. Lew, the Treasury secretary under President Barack Obama, recalled of the 2011 saga.Mr. Lew added, “It left you with the real sense that this could just as easily have failed.”Twelve years later, the government is again at risk of defaulting on its debt for the first time, and Republicans in the House are again demanding spending cuts in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt limit.. Faced with the highest-stakes economic obstacle of his presidency and left with the searing memory of Obama-era fights, Mr. Biden has held firm that the discussion over raising the $31.4 trillion debt limit must take place separately from spending negotiations, advisers say.That has not always been the case. Republicans have pointed out in recent weeks that, as a senator, Mr. Biden railed against budget deficits during the Reagan presidency. In 1984, he presented a proposal to freeze federal spending for a year. He said his plan would “shock the living devil out of everyone in the U.S. Senate,” but it went nowhere.And as vice president, Mr. Biden tied the debt limit and budget issues in 2011, when he was negotiating for the Obama administration. In remarks to reporters on Tuesday, Mr. Biden suggested that he only did that because he had been instructed to get a deal done.“I got a call that morning at 6 o’clock saying that the Republican leader would only talk to me, and there was no time left,” he said. “And so I sat down, and I got instructions from the White House to settle it. And that was my job. But I had no notice.”In the spring of 2011, Mr. Biden and a bipartisan group of congressional leaders met frequently to hash out their differences. In early meetings, the group gathered at Blair House, where foreign dignitaries stay when they visit Washington. That summer, Mr. Boehner broke off negotiations, in large part because rank-and-file Republicans would not agree to raise taxes on the wealthy. A complex deal was reached weeks later, leaving Mr. Obama to explain to Democratic voters why he was not able to raise taxes and had agreed to at least $2.4 trillion in spending cuts.According to Mr. Biden’s aides, the scar tissue remains.The second debt ceiling battle of the Obama presidency, in 2013, was another test of a divided government: Mr. Obama flatly refused to negotiate, and Republicans, suffering from plunging poll numbers and the political toll of a downgrade in the country’s credit rating, eventually backed down.Mr. Biden has since argued that there should be no strings attached to raising the federal debt limit, which is the cap on the amount of money that the United States is authorized to borrow to fund the government and meet its financial obligations, including paying out social safety net programs and funding the salaries of the armed forces.Biden aides point out that the obvious: Relations between Republicans and Democrats have become even more fraught in the past decade. The last time a divided government threatened to take debt limit negotiations to the brink, Twitter was still nascent, and the idea of a President Donald J. Trump was little more than a sideshow.Now, in an era in which a large group of House Republicans remains loyal to Mr. Trump and would like to inflict pain on Mr. Biden as a matter of political principle, there is little compromise to be found on matters of substance, including the budget.“When your demand is keep the economy from falling off, and their demand is everything else, how do you meet the middle on that?” Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said in an interview. “My recollection is that everyone believed that we would never go down that path again.”Republicans argue that, rather than taking the nation’s debt obligations hostage, they are responding to Democrats who have long been blind to the ballooning interest costs that accompany the debt. President Biden emphasized the consequences of a potential default with congressional leaders during a meeting at the White House on Tuesday, his advisers said.Doug Mills/The New York TimesIn a meeting with Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday, several advisers said, the president tried to emphasize the consequences of default and to get leaders to agree that it must be avoided at all costs. But Biden administration officials acknowledge that even if everyone agrees default must be avoided, working back from there will be the painful part.“There’s a very big gap between where the president is and where the Republicans are,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, who has warned that the United States could default as soon as June 1, said on Monday.Mr. Biden said that he had asked the group to meet again on Friday, and that staff members would meet throughout the week. Two advisers said they expected similar meetings would take place regularly. Still, officials on both sides are not overly optimistic that a painless agreement will be reached in the short term.On Tuesday, Mr. McCarthy said that he “didn’t find progress” in the meeting and criticized the president’s suggestion that he may look at invoking a clause in the 14th Amendment that would compel the federal government to continue issuing new debt should the government run out of cash.“I would think you’re kind of a failure in working with people across the sides of the aisle or working with your own party to get something done,” Mr. McCarthy said.Mr. Biden and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, stay in regular contact, aides say, but the president’s advisers are reluctant to pin hopes on Mr. McConnell finding a way out of the debt ceiling morass.The president also has an untested Democratic ally in Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House minority leader, who would need to marshal the votes necessary to deliver on any compromise. (Mr. Pfeiffer pointed out that during past debates, Mr. McConnell has swooped in at the last minute, “when he has the most leverage,” reaching an agreement “that is basically enough for him, it passes, then he leaves town.”)On Tuesday, Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he was not interested in reaching any sort of short-term deal that would avert default.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThere will be little common ground over the budget. Mr. Biden wants to expand federal spending and reduce future debt by taxing corporations and high earners, a plan his administration argues could reduce the growth in the deficit by some $3 trillion over the next decade. Republicans want to extend the tax cuts approved by Mr. Trump, which would expire at the end of 2025.Late last month, Mr. McCarthy pushed a spending bill through that would cut deep into the president’s domestic agenda and slash discretionary spending, though Republicans have not outlined what might be cut and why. Since then, the Biden White House has been happy to fill the void, accusing Republicans of wanting to cut everything from veterans’ health care spending to Social Security. (Mr. McCarthy has called this a “lie.”)Ahead of the next meeting, the president’s advisers said they did not expect Mr. Biden’s message to change but suggested that both sides would have to make concessions. Mr. Biden’s comment on Tuesday that he might be willing to support rescinding unspent coronavirus relief funds — and fulfilling a Republican demand — could be the sort of compromise that would prevent talks from calcifying.But Mr. Biden’s aides also expect him to stress the political stakes for Republicans over the next few weeks should they refuse to budge on the debt limit. He will do so not just from the White House but from congressional districts.On Wednesday, the president was in the Hudson Valley region of New York, where Representative Marc Molinaro, a Republican whose district includes parts of the area, has accused him of playing a “game of chicken.” 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

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Is the Debt Limit Constitutional? Biden Aides Are Debating It.

    by

    As the government heads toward a possible default on its debt as soon as next month, officials are entertaining a legal theory that previous administrations ruled out.A standoff between House Republicans and President Biden over raising the nation’s borrowing limit has administration officials debating what to do if the government runs out of cash to pay its bills, including one option that previous administrations had deemed unthinkable.That option is effectively a constitutional challenge to the debt limit. Under the theory, the government would be required by the 14th Amendment to continue issuing new debt to pay bondholders, Social Security recipients, government employees and others, even if Congress fails to lift the limit before the so-called X-date.That theory rests on the 14th Amendment clause stating that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”Some legal scholars contend that language overrides the statutory borrowing limit, which currently caps federal debt at $31.4 trillion and requires congressional approval to raise or lift.Top economic and legal officials at the White House, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department have made that theory a subject of intense and unresolved debate in recent months, according to several people familiar with the discussions.It is unclear whether President Biden would support such a move, which would have serious ramifications for the economy and almost undoubtedly elicit legal challenges from Republicans. Continuing to issue debt in that situation would avoid an immediate disruption in consumer demand by maintaining government payments, but borrowing costs are likely to soar, at least temporarily.Still, the debate is taking on new urgency as the United States inches closer to default. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned on Monday that the government could run out of cash as soon as June 1 if the borrowing cap is not lifted.Mr. Biden is set to meet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California at the White House on May 9 to discuss fiscal policy, along with other top congressional leaders from both parties. The president’s invitation was spurred by the accelerated warning of the arrival of the X-date.But it remains unclear what type of compromise may be reached in time to avoid a default. House Republicans have refused to raise or suspend the debt ceiling unless Mr. Biden accepts spending cuts, fossil fuel supports and a repeal of Democratic climate policies, contained in a bill that narrowly cleared the chamber last week.Mr. Biden has said Congress must raise the limit without conditions, though he has also said he is open to separate discussions about the nation’s fiscal path.A White House spokesman declined to comment on Tuesday.A group of legal scholars and some liberal activists have pushed the constitutional challenge to the borrowing limit for more than a decade. No previous administration has taken it up. Lawyers at the White House and the Justice and Treasury Departments have never issued formal opinions on the question. And legal scholars disagree about the constitutionality of such a move.“The Constitution’s text bars the federal government from defaulting on the debt — even a little, even for a short while,” Garrett Epps, a constitutional scholar at the University of Oregon’s law school, wrote in November. “There’s a case to be made that if Congress decides to default on the debt, the president has the power and the obligation to pay it without congressional permission, even if that requires borrowing more money to do so.”Other legal scholars say the limit is constitutional. “The statute is a necessary component of Congress’s power to borrow and has proved capable of serving as a useful catalyst for budgetary reform aimed at debt reduction,” Anita S. Krishnakumar, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote in a 2005 law review article.The president has repeatedly said it is the job of Congress to raise the limit to avoid an economically catastrophic default.Top officials, including Ms. Yellen and the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, have sidestepped questions about whether they believe the Constitution would compel the government to continue borrowing to pay its bills after the X-date.ABC News asked Ms. Yellen amid a debt-ceiling standoff in 2021 if she would invoke the 14th Amendment to resolve it.“It’s Congress’s responsibility to show that they have the determination to pay the bills that the government amasses,” she said. “We shouldn’t be in a position where we need to consider whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That’s a disastrous situation that the country shouldn’t be in.”The government reached the borrowing limit on Jan. 19, but Treasury officials deployed what are known as extraordinary measures to continue paying bills on time. The measures, which are essentially accounting maneuvers, are set to run out sometime in the next few months, possibly as soon as June 1. The government would default on its debt if Treasury stopped paying all bills. Economists have warned that could lead to financial crisis and recession.Progressive groups have encouraged Mr. Biden to take actions meant to circumvent Congress on the debt limit and continue uninterrupted spending, like minting a $1 trillion coin to deposit with the Federal Reserve. Internally, administration officials have rejected most of them. Publicly, Biden aides have said the only way to avert a crisis is for Congress to act.“I know you probably get tired of me saying this from here over and over again, but it is true,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said on Thursday, after referring a question about the 14th Amendment to the Treasury Department. “It is their constitutional duty to get this done.”But inside the administration, it remains an open question what Treasury would do if Congress does not raise the limit in time — because, many officials say, the law is unclear and so is the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to tax and spend.Officials who support invoking the 14th Amendment and continuing to issue new debt contend the government would be exposed to lawsuits either way. If it fails to continue paying its bills after the X-date, it could be sued by anyone who is not paid on time in the event of a default.Other officials have argued that the statutory borrowing limit is binding, and that an attempt to ignore it would draw an immediate legal challenge that would most likely rise quickly to the Supreme Court.There is a broad consensus on both sides of the debate that the move risks roiling financial markets. It is likely to cause a surge in short-term borrowing costs because investors would demand a premium to buy debt that could be invalidated by a court.The Moody’s Analytics economist Mark Zandi modeled such a situation this year and found it would create short-term economic damage but long-term gains if courts upheld the constitutional interpretation — by removing the threat of future brinkmanship over the limit.“The extraordinary uncertainty created by the constitutional crisis leads to a sell-off in financial markets until the Supreme Court rules,” Mr. Zandi wrote in March. Economic growth and job creation would be dampened briefly, he added, “but the economy avoids a recession and quickly rebounds.”Obama administration officials considered — and quickly discarded — the constitutional theory when Republicans refused to raise the limit in 2011 unless the president agreed to spending cuts. Treasury lawyers never issued a formal opinion on the question, and they have not yet this year, department officials said this week.But in a letter to the editor of The New York Times in 2011, George W. Madison, who was Treasury’s general counsel at the time, suggested that department officials did not subscribe to the theory. He was directly challenging an assertion by the constitutional law professor Laurence H. Tribe, who wrote in an opinion essay in The Times that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had pushed to embrace the 14th Amendment interpretation, which Mr. Tribe opposed.“Like every previous secretary of the Treasury who has confronted the question,” Mr. Madison wrote, “Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress.” More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    What’s in the House G.O.P. Debt Limit Bill

    by

    Republicans revealed a proposal on Wednesday that would cut federal spending and unravel parts of the Biden administration’s policy agenda in exchange for lifting the nation’s borrowing cap.WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a bill that would cut billions in federal spending and roll back some of President Biden’s policy priorities in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling for one year.After trying and failing to coalesce lawmakers around a budget blueprint of their own, Republican leaders have instead framed the legislation as an opening offer to Democrats and a way to get the White House to come to the negotiating table.Mr. Biden has insisted that Republicans raise the debt limit without any conditions and said that he would not meet with them to discuss spending cuts until they passed their own fiscal plan.Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he would put the new legislation, which Republicans claim would save the nation $4.5 trillion, to a vote next week.Negotiations have so far been frozen, and time is running short: The United States, which has already hit a $31.4 trillion cap on how much money it can borrow, could run out of money to pay its bills as soon as June.That could have catastrophic effects, potentially leading to a global financial crisis and a painful recession in the United States.While the two sides could soon begin talks, Mr. Biden is unlikely to accept few, if any, of Mr. McCarthy’s proposals. Here is a look at what is in the bill.Rescind unspent Covid-19 relief fundsRepublicans proposed rescinding pandemic relief funds that have not yet been spent, which they estimated would return about $50 billion to $60 billion to the government’s coffers.In 2020 and 2021, Congress approved about $4.6 trillion in stimulus funding, which was intended to help the country recover from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Most of that money has been spent.But there is some leftover funding for programs that provide grants to health care providers, medical care for veterans, pension benefits and aid for public transit agencies. Some of the programs have unspent money because applications are still open or their funds do not expire until next year. Others, including one devised to help aircraft manufacturers pay for compensation costs, are not expected to use all of their allotted funds.Biden administration officials have pushed back on the effort, since they expect a majority of unspent relief funds to be used before they expire.Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he would put the new legislation regarding the debt ceiling to a vote next week. Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesCap spending to fiscal 2022 levelsHouse Republicans have long complained that federal spending is out of control, and the conference began the year with the aspiration of balancing the budget in 10 years. But that would require deep spending cuts to popular federal programs, something G.O.P. leaders have been unable to coalesce their conference around. The bill instead aims to assuage conservatives by proposing freezing spending to last year’s levels.That would effectively force budget cuts. As costs of government programs rise with inflation over time, lawmakers would have to cut some programs to stay under the cap. That would require Republicans to identify spending cuts totaling $3.6 trillion over a decade, by their own calculations, and this bill does not outline them. Instead, House Republican leaders are punting those decisions to the Appropriations Committee.One fight appropriators will have to resolve is how to balance the cuts between defense-related spending and spending on other domestic programs, like environmental protection and education. House Republicans in particular have been loathe to adopt any cuts to military spending, but leaving those budgets intact would require steeper cuts to other programs.Democrats have sought to make that part of the proposal politically toxic. They released a memo on Thursday accusing Republicans of seeking to kill manufacturing jobs by cutting government subsidies for low-emission energy technology.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said in a briefing that the White House was still reviewing the plan but broadly called it unserious and harmful to Americans “who are struggling everyday to make ends meet.”Even if Republicans succeeded in imposing the caps, there is no guarantee they would produce anywhere close to the promised savings. Lawmakers in the future could simply vote to ignore them, as they did frequently with the spending caps that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed on to avoid a debt default in 2011.Roll back some of the Biden administration’s climate measuresThe bill would undo major parts of the Biden administration’s landmark health, climate and tax law, which Democrats passed last year and named the Inflation Reduction Act.Republicans proposed repealing an array of energy tax credits in the law that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions, including those that incentivize the use of previously owned electric vehicles and the production of clean electricity and fuel. Republican lawmakers claim the move would save about $271 billion to $1.2 trillion.The Republican plan also includes proposals in a separate energy bill that House G.O.P. lawmakers passed last month to bolster domestic energy production. Although that bill has not passed the Democratic-controlled Senate, it includes provisions that would expand mining and fossil fuel production in the country and speed up the construction of necessary infrastructure by reforming a permitting process that can take up to five years.Claw back funding from the Internal Revenue ServiceRepublicans also vowed to “defund Biden’s I.R.S. army” by rescinding the bulk of new funding that the tax collection agency was given to improve customer service and crack down on tax cheats.The Inflation Reduction Act approved $80 billion in additional funding for the I.R.S., which has been struggling to deal with backlogs of tax filings and answer taxpayer calls because of declining resources over the years.The funding has come under intense scrutiny from conservatives, who claim that they will be used to increase audit rates for average taxpayers. I.R.S. officials have reiterated that they will not raise audit rates above “historical levels” for taxpayers who earn less than $400,000 a year and will focus on increasing compliance among large corporations and wealthy people.Cutting that spending would actually add to federal deficits, the Congressional Budget Office estimated. That’s because the money is projected to help the I.R.S. crack down on taxpayers who do not pay what they owe — bringing in an estimated $200 billion in new revenue over a decade. That revenue would be lost if the funding is taken away.Impose stricter work requirements for food stamp and Medicaid recipientsThe proposal would enact more stringent work requirements for recipients of food stamps and Medicaid benefits, which Republicans claim would help attract more people to the work force and save about $110 billion to $120 billion. Republican leaders backed down from pursuing more drastic requirements after lawmakers who are facing challenging re-election battles in swing districts raised concerns.The measure would make able-bodied adults without dependents who receive both federal food assistance and Medicaid benefits subject to work requirements until they are 55 years old, raising the current age from 49. It also seeks to close a loophole Republicans have claimed that states abuse, which allows officials to exempt food assistance recipients from work requirements.The legislation bill would repeal the Biden administration’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt.Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBlock student loan forgivenessThe bill would repeal the Biden administration’s actions to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of borrowers making under $125,000 a year. The move would wipe out more than $400 billion in debt, although the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared to be deeply skeptical of the legality of the plan ahead of an expected ruling by June.Republicans would also block a second student-loan change the Education Department has announced, which would reduce payments for future borrowers who go on to earn relatively low incomes after college. The department has estimated that plan would cost more than $100 billion over a decade, though the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model pegs the cost at about $350 billion.Raise the debt limit through March 2024In exchange for the spending cuts and policy changes, Republicans would raise a statutory cap on how much the United States can borrow through March 2024, or until the nation’s debt grows to $32.9 trillion.That length of extension would be much shorter than Mr. Biden would prefer, guaranteeing another economy-rattling showdown as the presidential campaign heats up next year.The United States could default on its debt if both parties fail to reach an agreement. That could potentially lead to a financial crisis, damaging economic output and causing a deep recession if the country is unable to pay all its bills on time.The country might not be able to afford salaries for federal workers or Social Security checks, among other things. A debt default could also have global repercussions and destabilize bond markets across the world, since U.S. Treasury bonds are typically seen as one of the safest investments.Christopher Cameron More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    House G.O.P. Eyes Rescinding Unspent Covid Money as Part of Its Fiscal Plan

    by

    Estimates put the amount of leftover money between $50 billion and $70 billion. But even if Republicans could claw it back, it would not make much of a dent in the deficit.WASHINGTON — House Republicans demanding spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s debt limit have rallied around a seemingly straightforward proposal: recalling billions of dollars in coronavirus relief funds that Congress approved but have not been spent.Top Republicans regard the idea of rescinding unspent pandemic emergency money — an amount estimated to be between $50 billion and $70 billion — as an easy way to save money while avoiding more politically perilous options like cutting funding for popular federal programs. Their focus on the idea reflects how, after toiling unsuccessfully for months to unite their rank and file around a fiscal blueprint, G.O.P. leaders have become acutely aware that they have few options for doing so that could actually pass the House.On Wednesday, Speaker Kevin McCarthy highlighted the measure when he finally unveiled House Republicans’ proposal to raise the debt limit for one year in exchange for a series of spending cuts and policy changes. The party plans to vote on the legislation next week.“The American people are tired of politicians who use Covid as an excuse for more extreme inflationary spending,” Mr. McCarthy said in a speech on the House floor. “If the money was authorized to fight the pandemic, what was not spent during the pandemic should not be spent after the pandemic is over.”But going after the leftover money scattered across the patchwork of government programs used to dole out the relief funding — dozens of different accounts — is easier said than done.And even if House Republicans can find a way to identify and get their hands on the comparatively small sums of leftover money, it would do little to shrink the nation’s $1.4 trillion deficit. Additionally, the federal budget analysts who calculate the deficit have already accounted for the fact that some of the money Congress allocated for pandemic relief programs will likely never be spent.House Republicans have identified the move as just one way to rein in federal spending, which they say must be done in exchange for their votes to raise the debt ceiling, which is expected to be breached as early as June.But the challenges around what has widely been considered one of the simplest options underscore how difficult it will be for the party to meet the lofty goals Republican leaders laid out at the beginning of the year. They have already abandoned their aspiration of balancing the federal budget in 10 years and have been unable to reach consensus on freezing spending levels and other cuts that would shave down the deficit without touching Medicare or Social Security.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesOver the span of two years and six laws, Congress approved about $4.6 trillion in federal spending to help the nation respond to and recover from the coronavirus pandemic. While most of that money has already been spent, either by federal agencies or state or local governments, tens of billions of dollars have yet to be earmarked for specific use.An internal document circulated by House Republican leaders laying out a draft of their fiscal demands in exchange for raising the debt limit until May 2024 estimated that there is $50 to $70 billion in leftover federal coronavirus relief funds scattered across federal agencies and programs. The Government Accountability Office reported in February that there was about $90 billion remaining.That money is spread across dozens of programs, and many agencies are still doling out money, including the Health and Human Services Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Transportation Department.The bulk of it is intended for grants to health care providers, medical care for veterans, pension benefits and aid for public transit agencies that saw ridership levels plummet during the pandemic. Although Biden administration officials expect much of the remaining funds to be spent eventually, officials believe some programs with leftover money are largely over, including one designed to help aircraft manufacturers pay for compensation costs during the pandemic, which had about $2.3 billion left as of January.The funds could be unspent for various reasons. Transit agencies could already be using some to fund operations, but may not have submitted reimbursement requests to the federal government because they have more than a year left to spend the money. Funds for public health have been set aside for research, vaccine distribution and refilling stockpiles of personal protective equipment. A program that provides assistance to financially troubled pension plans is accepting applications through 2026 because of its extensive review process.Economists and policy researchers said rescinding the unspent funding would help trim the deficit — but only by a relatively small amount.Even if lawmakers were able to rescind, for example, $70 billion in relief funds, it likely would not result in a $70 billion reduction of the deficit, according to economic researchers. That is because researchers at Congress’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office who project the deficit have already assumed that not all pandemic relief funds would be spent and factored that into their calculations.Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of the conservative American Action Forum and a former C.B.O. director, said it would “make good sense” to rescind unspent relief funds if there were a substantial amount left and they were not needed, but the total savings would be relatively scant. He argued that it would be more effective for lawmakers to instead focus on slowing the growth of benefit programs such as Social Security or Medicare.“If you’re genuinely worried about the fiscal future and the unsustainable nature of the federal budget, good, but this won’t solve any of those problems,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “This is a one-time reduction in spending that looks backward, not forward, and the real issues are in front of us.”Marc Goldwein, the senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, said the federal government should pursue some of the relief money that is not being used and try to recoup funds by investigating cases of potential fraud, though it would be a “little too late” now.“We shouldn’t have a bunch of money sitting out there that’s not being used if it’s not needed, but we just shouldn’t expect much budget savings from it,” Mr. Goldwein said.The White House has pushed back on the proposal and signaled that it would not support a move to rescind a significant amount of the funds.Gene Sperling, a senior White House adviser, said that about 98 percent of the funding in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan has already been spent or is “on the train to go out to people and places as it was specifically intended to by the law.”Rescinding the unspent funds, he said, would “lead to significant pain for veterans, retirees [and] small businesses.”“This is a one-time reduction in spending that looks backward, not forward, and the real issues are in front of us,” said Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of the conservative American Action Forum and a former C.B.O. director.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesCongressional negotiators have previously attempted to offset the costs of other bills by rescinding unspent Covid money provided to state and local governments, including last year, when Democrats tried to cover the cost of a $15 billion pandemic relief bill in part by rescinding funding earmarked for state and local relief funds.But a revolt from Midwestern House Democrats — whose states would have been disproportionately affected by the clawbacks and whose governors yowled at the idea of being stripped of money they had already planned to use — ultimately led party leaders to drop the measure altogether.The episode served as a warning to state and local leaders, and ahead of the debt limit fight, some prominent mayors began publicly warning their peers to spend down the federal funds available to them quickly.Lawmakers last year also sought to offset the costs of the stand-alone pandemic aid bill by raiding the $2.3 billion in unspent money from the Transportation Department’s program to help aircraft manufacturers cover the costs of their employees’ wages during the pandemic. The idea was ultimately scuttled after the revolt around rescinding state and local funds. More