White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was thrown back on his heels last week when ABC's Jake Tapper asked a simple question: Is a short-term debt limit deal worse than default?
"Both are bad; I can't choose which is worse for you," Carney replied.
His answer, after all of the White House's talk about the economic Armageddon that would occur should the U.S. fail to raise the debt limit, appeared ridiculous. To be fair, Carney was just parroting his boss's ridiculous rejection of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's offer of a year-long deal that cuts the deficit by $1.7 trillion over 10 years. "This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this," said The Great Compromiser. "Don't call my bluff."
So why don't Republicans just call his bluff already? Why don't they tie the debt limit increase to significant cuts, send it over to Harry Reid in the Senate and say: You want a debt limit increase? Fine. Pass these cuts.
For them, it's cut, cap, balance--or bust.
They simply don't have the votes. There are 240 Republicans in the House, and 38 of those members have signed a pledge that states they will not for any debt limit increase unless it's attached to spending cuts, a statutory cap on spending, and "Congressional passage (not mere support) of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses."
So why don't
2/3 majority
Eric Cantor suggested a year long deal that cuts the deficit by $1.7 trillion over 10 years. "This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this" The Great Compromiser.
The key to rolling The Great Compromiser is passing a bill with signficant, but reasonable cuts, and drop it in Harry Reid's lap.
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica}
The first year is "the only year that counts because it's the only year we can make law about."
CHAFFETZ:
For Plan B, House conservatives, and a variety
"critical to this is a real balanced budget amendment."
"We're already giving more than I thought we would give by allowing the president to spend trillions of additional dollars."
If a bill included substantial cuts, but no BBA, could it get his vote? "No," said Chaffetz, "we're not going to solve the problem."
Didnt' have a BBA tied to Ryan plan, why are you insisting on it now? "Because we need a straightjacket. Congress has shown no ability to control spending."
a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote to repeal the Bush tax cuts. That's a non-starter for Democrats, just as Obama's insistence on a tax rate hike is a non-starter for Republicans.
two-thirds of the House to repeal the incandescent light bulb ban.
Ramesh Ponnuru writes: "What a congressman who pledges to increase the debt limit only if a spending-limit amendment passes is really saying is that he opposes increasing the debt limit. Because there is no way that two-thirds of Congress is going to pass this amendment now, or ever."
asdfadf