McConnell's Debt Ceiling Proposal Draws Fire From Conservatives

July 12, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (12)

The raging debate over what it will cost President Barack Obama to get an increase in the debt ceiling took a stunning turn Tuesday when Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell blinked.

Up to now the debate has largely been between congressional Republicans—led by House Speaker John Boehner—who have taken the firm position that the solution to the debt ceiling crisis will largely be found in spending cuts, not new revenues—and the president. For his part Obama, as he made clear in his Monday press availability, is committed to cutting entitlements—but only if they have the political “pay for” of higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations.

Enter McConnell, who has proposed a three-part solution that he apparently believes would shift all the blame for increasing the debt ceiling to the Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

[See a slide show of 6 consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised.]

According to National Review’s Rich Lowry, the McConnell Plan would “authorize the President to submit a request to Congress asking to increase the debt limit by $700 billion, and would require submission of a plan to reduce spending by a greater amount.”

“Upon receipt of the President’s request, the debt limit would be provisionally increased by $100 billion to provide breathing room and avert an August 2nd default,” with the House and Senate having 15 days to disapprove of the request, Lowry wrote based on an outline attributed to McConnell’s office.It’s a complicated plan, involving resolutions of disapproval and other parliamentary maneuvers.

If either chamber defeats the resolution (of disapproval), the remaining $600 billion increase would be allowed. If both chambers pass the resolution, it would be sent to the President for a veto or signature. If vetoed, debate on an override would be limited to one hour. If the veto is overridden (which would require a 2/3 vote) in both chambers, then the request would be denied and the provisional $100 billion increase revoked.”

If the veto is sustained in either chamber, the remaining $600 billion increase would be allowed.

For the second and third requests in fall 2011 and summer 2012, the President could request an increase of the debt limit by $900 billion once the Treasury Department determines that the country is within $100 billion of the debt limit. The president would also be required to submit a plan to reduce spending by a greater amount. Each of these subsequent requests would be subject to the same disapproval process outlined above.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

McConnell’s proposal hit the debate like ants at a picnic; especially among the groups supporting the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” approach to the problem.

“I am sincerely disappointed that Senator Mitch McConnell did not wait for the process to work,” said Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance. “The last thing Washington needs is an unlimited credit line when we can’t even pay the debt we currently owe. The only sensible policy is to cut and cap spending and balance the budget. Those are the only options that our leaders should be discussing.”

James Valvo, director of government affairs for the Tea Party-oriented group Americans for Prosperity, said his group “is opposed to any deal that abdicates Congress’s constitutional responsibility to authorize any debt it wants the country to issue. Reversing the incentives in order to shield senators and representatives from politically tough decisions is a non-starter.”

[Gallery: The Obamas Behind The Scenes]

Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring!  (where I am a senior fellow) and who has been at the forefront of the effort in support of cut, cap, and balance, criticized the McConnell approach, saying, “Instead of pushing the Obama administration to make significant immediate cuts, cap federal spending as a proportion of our economy, and pass a balanced budget amendment, the proposed three-stage mechanism is exactly the sort of Washington deal that the public distrusts. Furthermore, it fails to achieve the permanent reform that we so desperately need to avert an endless series of fiscal crises.  The recently proposed Cut Cap and Balance Act, by comparison, would force the short term, medium term, and long-term reforms that can bring us back to fiscal sanity.”

Over the next 24 hours we will know if McConnell’s proposal is a real idea or a trial balloon. Based on the way people are shooting at it, however, it’s not likely to last long.

Tags:
Obama administration,
Mitch McConnell,
Congress,
John Boehner,
deficit and national debt,
Barack Obama,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

While I am no fan of Bush, it is interesting to note how people here forget Bush had the Tech crash in 2000, followed by 9/11 and the recessions that followed on each. Yet, his deficits from 2000 - 2006 are small when compared to Obama's 2009 - 2011. With unemployment in the 4% range, what would Obama give to have either Bush deficits or unemployment figures.

On the otherhand, Congress has proven over the decades they can not be trusted with the peoples money, we need a Constitutional Amendment to Balance the Budget, allowing Congress four years to accomplish this by reducing the annual deficit by 25% per year. A 5% national sales tax which can only be implemented when the budget is balanced and proceeds on applied to the accumulated deficit principle.

Federal financing of all Federal elections with no campaign contributions allowed, remove the tax deductibility of lobbyist expenses and contributions to PAC's!

Gary Ward of HI 3:40PM July 13, 2011

You seem to forget that conservatives were indeed screaming loudly about the deficits that the Republicans in Congress kept voting for, and were part of the movement that voted out enough of them to put the Dems back in charge for a couple of years.

Unfortunately, those Dems carried on in the same way, finally forcing the conservatives to start their Tea Party movements.

Conservatives were pissed off 8 years ago and still are. That will not change until they get fiscally responsible representatives in Congress that actually do what they were voted in to do.

junior of DC 3:05PM July 13, 2011

Can u imagine, had congress conceded its checks and balances power to GW? What would the liberal democrats have said then? Fast forward to 2012 or 2016 when a Republican is in office with this same power to circumvent congress. How will Dems feel then.

Senate Minority Leader (and I use that term lightly at this moment) McConnell is suggesting Congress acquiesce its power to determine our debt ceiling as laid out in the Constitution, Amendment 14 to be able to blame the fallout on a Democrat. To ensure his re-election and "innocence" in this whole entire debacle that has become our government.

This idea is the making of an oligarchy. It will make America worse than a Bananna Republic. If both sides can't see that, then we have no hope left.

If McConnell believes that most conservatives like this idea, then he has been drinking far too much Kool-Aid.

Gallup says 2 - 1 in America are against another blank check to government and do not want a debt ceiling increase (Obama's skewed phrasing of that question aside).

What doesn't this admin or this Senator or all of Washington understand about the word NO. We promise you, that is not a suggestion. That is our mandate to government.

Stop spending. Stop sending our taxdollars overseas. Stop making job killing regulations. Bring jobs back home. End NAFTA/CAFTA. No New Stimulus (Bernanke). Get out of our way and let us fix this economy. NO Big Government. End it now. End it here, or we the people will "reset" you all come 2012. The shellacking in 2010 will look like a ripple in the pond of politics. 2012 will be the real tidal wave.

Wake up.

NoMoreKoolAid of FL 11:58AM July 13, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement