Comment: Does GOP have will to avert debt-limit disaster?

Moderate Republicans would have to oppose extremists. If they don’t the task may be up to Biden.

By Jonathan Bernstein / Bloomberg Opinion

With Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s announcement last week that the U.S. would hit its borrowing limit Thursday and begin using extraordinary measures to avoid defaulting, we officially entered debt ceiling standoff season.

The good news is that the U.S. has never been forced into default. The bad news? The one time it came close to happening has a lot in common with this year: a Democratic president, a Democratic majority in the Senate and a new Republican majority in the House. The worse news? Many House Republicans consider that 2011 episode a tremendous triumph and are seeking to repeat it.

The 2011 debacle cost the nation billions of dollars as a result of higher interest rates. What’s more, it didn’t accomplish any of the goals Republicans set out to achieve.

But that isn’t deterring congressional Republicans from engaging in debt-ceiling brinkmanship. A group of extremists within the party have even revived an especially feeble gambit from 2011; the idea that Congress could tell Treasury which debts to pay first, supposedly as a way to stave off significant damage to the economy. If the overall debt limit maneuver is like threatening to drive the economy off a cliff, then debt prioritization is akin to claiming that there is no real danger because they will first install a driver’s-side air bag that engineers say is faulty.

Republicans’ ploy is similar to 2011 in another way: Lawmakers are trying to use the debt limit to force policy changes before they have figured out what they are asking for. Hostage-taking is the point; the demands can always be figured out later.

The radical faction within the GOP, a group that includes the House Freedom Caucus and other members adding up to around a quarter of the Republican conference, probably can’t be reasoned with. So what can be done?

While it can be tough to spot voices of reason within the GOP caucus, there are perhaps 50 lawmakers who reject radicalism. Given Republicans’ slim 10-seat majority in the House, these mainstream conservatives are the key swing votes. They should make it very clear that they favor a no-strings-attached debt-limit increase and that their support, combined with that of 212 House Democrats and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, can get the measure passed.

Mainstream Republicans would still need to find a way to bring the measure to the House floor for a vote over the objections of the radical faction. One way would be to threaten to use an obscure House procedure called a discharge petition that can force House votes on measures even if the majority party refuses to advance them. Unfortunately, most experts say that a discharge petition would be ill-suited for the current situation; House scholar Josh Huder says it would be “kind of like trying to do open heart surgery with an ax.”

This won’t be easy for the GOP. Up until now, few mainstream Republicans have demonstrated a willingness to take on the radical faction publicly, in part because they share many of the same policy goals. For example, most Republicans in the House want to see spending cuts on Medicare and other permanent government programs.

But mainstream lawmakers need to save those battles for later, when annual spending bills are hashed out.

Instead, they should indicate that while they will fight hard for legislation that they support, they are interested in real change, not empty symbolism. To demonstrate that they mean business, they should vote down one of the radicals’ key demands, one that Speaker Kevin McCarthy already agreed to: a House vote this year on a budget that balances within 10 years. Although many mainstream conservatives would support such a budget as an aspirational plan, they know it would involve such severe cuts to popular government programs that it won’t be a realistic course of action.

It’s one thing to vote for a budget resolution that implies a future commitment to steep cuts to popular programs without spelling them out; it’s another thing to actually vote for specific cuts. The former might pass even if a lot of House Republicans had no intention of actually doing the latter; let alone the chances of the Senate and the president going along.

Meanwhile, the White House needs to start seriously thinking about the various ways of getting around the debt limit. Several methods have been proposed as both legal and effective.

President Biden is going to have to determine the best way to act unilaterally to protect the economy while staying within the bounds of the law and the Constitution. Fortunately, those goals are aligned; whatever presidential action appears to be most consistent with the rule of law should also be the most calming to the markets.

Unlike government shutdowns caused by Congress failing to pass spending bills, where the damage is minimal at first and then gradually grows over time, the fallout from a debt limit crisis (as we saw in 2011) begins as the deadline approaches and would escalate sharply as soon as the government failed to pay its bills.

I’m not especially optimistic that mainstream House conservatives will actually stand up to their radical peers. The history is … not good. So the White House needs to start planning right now for the best way to respond. Because they don’t want to wait until the car is halfway down the cliff.

Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. A former professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University, he wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Friday, June 2

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A map of the I-5/SR 529 Interchange project on Tuesday, May 23, 2023 in Marysville, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Set your muscle memory for work zone speed cameras

Starting next summer, not slowing down in highway work zones can result in a $500 fine.

Schwab: To discern fascism, ask the generation that fought it

A World War II-era pamphlet for U.S. troops described what they were fighting against; and why.

Saunders: ‘Heckler’s veto’ a poor conclusion to diploma quest

Shouting down a commencement speaker you don’t agree with is counter to intellectual development.

Comment: It’s up to Democrats to get rid of debt limit for good

The next time Democrats have control, they need to make sure the economy isn’t again held hostage.

Comment: Ukraine takes calculated gamble with attacks in Russia

Drone and other attacks offer strategic benefits but could backfire if Russian civilian deaths mount.

Comment: The filibuster’s days are numbered; unfortunately

Until it became the default block for all legislation, the Senate filibuster actually worked well.

File - A teenager holds her phone as she sits for a portrait near her home in Illinois, on Friday, March 24, 2023. The U.S. Surgeon General is warning there is not enough evidence to show that social media is safe for young people — and is calling on tech companies, parents and caregivers to take "immediate action to protect kids now." (AP Photo Erin Hooley, File)
Editorial: Warning label on social media not enough for kids

The U.S. surgeon general has outlined tasks for parents, officials and social media companies.

Anabelle Parsons, then 6, looks up to the sky with binoculars to watch the Vaux's swifts fly in during Swift's Night Out, Sept. 8, 2018 in Monroe. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Birders struggle with legacy, name of Audubon

Like other chapters, Pilchuck Audubon is weighing how to address the slaveholder’s legacy.

Most Read