ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion Enraged by GOP debt limit extortion? Blame MAGA’s moderate enablers.

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,934
113
When it comes to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s use of the debt limit as a weapon of extortion, the media relentlessly focuses on his dealings with extreme conservatives. They’re the ones, we’re told, who are pressuring the California Republican to refuse to raise the U.S. borrowing limit, threatening default and economic disaster, to squeeze Democrats for extreme spending cuts.


But this storyline lets another key GOP group off the hook: The supposedly reasonable Republicans — the moderates, the centrists, the pragmatists, whatever you call them — who could end this madness now if they chose but instead are enabling the crisis.
The White House wants a “clean” debt limit increase, allowing the government to pay for what Congress has already appropriated with no conditions. But GOP leaders are threatening not to pay our bills unless the entire federal budget is remade according to their radical vision — even though Republicans raised the debt limit without incident three times under the last GOP president.



That’s absurd. But it would not be possible without the complicity of all parts of the House GOP — the leadership, the far-right and the allegedly responsible center. If the supposed moderates wanted to, they could join Democrats to support a clean increase.
Yet in much of the coverage, their role has receded into the background. That’s puzzling because this bloc of Republicans is the focus of an underappreciated shadow war underway between the White House and McCarthy.
Take McCarthy’s newly released budget plan: It would raise the debt ceiling temporarily in exchange for drastic measures, including reducing spending to 2022 levels to most programs, imposing work requirements on assistance to poor people, clawing back funding for the Internal Revenue Service and capping future spending.

The White House is blasting McCarthy’s plan by highlighting this point: The GOP budget’s closely mirrors priorities articulated by the far-right House Freedom Caucus. As White House spokesman Andrew Bates argued, the plan shows McCarthy “caved to the most extreme MAGA hardliners.”


At bottom, this seems to be all about pressuring less extreme Republicans, which include 18 Republicans from districts Joe Biden won in 2020, self-described “governing” Republicans and members of the “Problem Solvers Caucus.” If they fear association with MAGA and the Freedom Caucus, they might ultimately support a clean debt limit hike rather than tie themselves to extremely unpopular budget cuts being used as a tool of extortion.
There’s a ways to go on this front. The “pragmatic conservatives” in the Republican Main Street Caucus are sticking with McCarthy, claiming that his budget’s core principles “unify the conference rather than divide us.” Translation: Moderates are not spooked enough to admit to any daylight between themselves and MAGA.

McCarthy has to keep things this way in that shadow war over moderates. He keeps saying he merely wants negotiations with Biden over the conditions for a debt limit hike — repackaging an absurd extortion demand as a quest for compromise — to persuade the public that Republicans are flexible and Biden is inflexible.


ADVERTISING

The essential question is whether McCarthy can keep moderate Republicans convinced that this is a winning message with swing voters. This is why McCarthy keeps demanding private negotiations with Biden: Then he could say, “See, we’re reasonably meeting with Biden and reasonably offering concessions, but the White House won’t budge!” And voters would have no way to determine exactly what Republicans are offering.
To veterans of the 2011 and 2013 debt limit fights who now work for Biden, that’s a key lesson of those battles. One senior Democrat familiar with White House thinking says Biden must avoid getting into a room with McCarthy, to deny him that opening. As that Democrat tells us, this would help him “whip up this illusion that they’re politically in a great spot, to reassure the moderates.”

Denying McCarthy this opening has worked in some ways. It might have helped prod McCarthy to release his own plan, showing his hand and opening it up to attack.


It’s possible, as GOP strategist Liam Donovan suggests, that one route to getting moderates to move is for the White House to offer concessions on spending cuts that are mostly meaningless but give them cover to argue this wasn’t a cave.
But at some point, the “reasonable” Republicans will have to step up. As Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) told us, Democrats “have 213 votes ready,” and a clean debt limit hike would certainly pass if it “comes to a vote.”
The lack of media focus on moderates has consequences. By allowing them to avoid commenting on the extreme nature of this GOP extortion, it whitewashes that effort into something more like ordinary politics. It relieves pressure on them to join Democrats to do what’s necessary to pay the country’s bills — whether cleanly or with fig-leaf concessions.
As long as all the attention is on the extremists, it’s all the easier for non-MAGA Republicans to hold out on the country. There will be no pulling back from the brink of disaster without them.

 
THEN-SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), 2006: “The tsunami of debt created by the policies of this administration has to go somewhere. … But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt other nations want to hold. The more of it they accumulate, the closer we are to the day when they will not want any more. When that happens, slowly or rapidly, our interest rates will go up, the value of their U.S. bonds will drop, and we will all have big problems. We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy. But the roots of that threat lie in the disastrous policies of this administration. Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase. In the 5 years he has been in office, President Bush has added more to our foreign debt that the 42 Presidents before him. … But he refused to take responsibility for his policies. He refused to admit that a changed world demanded a change of course. His refusal has pushed us deeper and deeper into the hole. … My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.”


BIDEN, 2004: “I was not able to participate in today’s debate and vote on the extension of the national debt limit. I was attending the funeral of a great civil rights leader in Delaware, Jane E. Mitchell. Had I been here to vote, Mr. President, I would have cast a symbolic vote against an extension of the debt limit. Today’s fiscal mess, the transformation of historic surpluses into record deficits, is not an accident. It is the inevitable outcome of policies that consistently ignored evidence and experience. When we launched out on a course of tax cutting, with expanding domestic and international obligations and responsibilities, many of us in Congress argued that we could not afford to do everything, that we needed a fiscal policy that matched our revenues with our expenditures. … We are here today because that advice was ignored, those hard choices were ducked, and the bill for our decisions will be sent to our children and grandchildren, in the form of the additional debt we will authorize today. It did not have to be this way, Mr. President. In the next Congress, the threat of massive deficits, which have made us increasingly dependent of foreign lenders to stay afloat, will still be with us. My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that have brought us to this point, and a demand that we change course.”

 
it would not be possible without the complicity of all parts of the House GOP — the leadership, the far-right and the allegedly responsible center. If the supposed moderates wanted to, they could join Democrats to support a clean increase.
There is no such thing as a "responsible center" in the Congressional GOP. I doubt there's even a responsible individual.
 
THEN-SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), 2006: “The tsunami of debt created by the policies of this administration has to go somewhere. … But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt other nations want to hold. The more of it they accumulate, the closer we are to the day when they will not want any more. When that happens, slowly or rapidly, our interest rates will go up, the value of their U.S. bonds will drop, and we will all have big problems. We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy. But the roots of that threat lie in the disastrous policies of this administration. Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase. In the 5 years he has been in office, President Bush has added more to our foreign debt that the 42 Presidents before him. … But he refused to take responsibility for his policies. He refused to admit that a changed world demanded a change of course. His refusal has pushed us deeper and deeper into the hole. … My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.”


BIDEN, 2004: “I was not able to participate in today’s debate and vote on the extension of the national debt limit. I was attending the funeral of a great civil rights leader in Delaware, Jane E. Mitchell. Had I been here to vote, Mr. President, I would have cast a symbolic vote against an extension of the debt limit. Today’s fiscal mess, the transformation of historic surpluses into record deficits, is not an accident. It is the inevitable outcome of policies that consistently ignored evidence and experience. When we launched out on a course of tax cutting, with expanding domestic and international obligations and responsibilities, many of us in Congress argued that we could not afford to do everything, that we needed a fiscal policy that matched our revenues with our expenditures. … We are here today because that advice was ignored, those hard choices were ducked, and the bill for our decisions will be sent to our children and grandchildren, in the form of the additional debt we will authorize today. It did not have to be this way, Mr. President. In the next Congress, the threat of massive deficits, which have made us increasingly dependent of foreign lenders to stay afloat, will still be with us. My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that have brought us to this point, and a demand that we change course.”

LOL...he said that knowing it was going to pass. Political theater, period. Did the Dems block it's passage while demanding massive tax hikes? Yes or no.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT