I've asked twice in posts today when Scott Brown is coming to town, and now I have an answer: Thursday. Which is great, because it may finally give us an answer on another so far unasked question.
Brown's supporters made a huge deal of insisting that he be seated immediately after his victory, and in fact made enough noise about their theories that his swearing-in would be unduly delayed (among which theories they counted close observation of the rules of the Senate and the laws of Massachusetts) that Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) felt compelled to chime in on the subject. From all corners came the demand that the Senate not vote on the health insurance reform bill until Senator-elect Brown could be sworn and seated.
But there's been no mention of the fact that the Senate is, beginning today, voting to raise the federal debt ceiling without Brown in his seat. Suddenly missing from all the calls to take seriously the movement -- if that's what it is -- that allegedly propelled Brown to victory is any interest in the issue that until now supposedly lay at (or at least very near) the heart of that movement: the growing federal debt.
And yet, I've not heard a single voice raised to demand that Scott Brown be seated before the Senate votes to raise the statutory limit on the federal debt by nearly a trillion dollars, from $12.104 trillion to $13.029 trillion.
Could it be because no one ever relishes voting on such a bill? Well, that should pose no problem. As a member of an out-of-power minority, ordinarily he wouldn't be expected to.
But it's often said of debt limit hikes that as distasteful as they may be, the alternative to passing them is fiscal disaster. Government shutdowns, Treasury bond defaults, and the like -- though it's also true that during emergencies in the past, workarounds have been employed that involved the issuance of government IOUs on a temporary basis.
And this time, there's an added twist. While an out-of-power minority is typically not expected to throw its support behind a debt ceiling hike, it's also never been the case that they've sought to block one using the filibuster. Yet that's what our current out-of-power minority is doing, having employed the "painless filibuster" to extract a unanimous consent agreement last month that would require 60 votes to pass the debt limit increase. Now, with what should be just 59 votes in the Democratic camp, at least one Republican vote would be needed to raise the debt ceiling, if Brown supporters' demands to "seat him now" had been complied with.
It's surprising that there's such a strong consensus for delaying health insurance reform action in the wake of Brown's election, but not the debt ceiling vote. It's hard to imagine him riding the teabagger wave into the Senate and then immediately voting to raise the debt limit. But it's also a wrinkle Republicans likely weren't counting on when they sought and won the 60 vote threshold -- that the resolution could actually fail as a result.
It's Paul Kirk's continuance in office that excuses Brown from being put on the spot about that. Not that escape hatches aren't available. The previous unanimous consent request locking in the 60 vote threshold could be undone or supplanted by a new one. Or some other Republican, perhaps someone already set to retire like George Voinovich (R-OH) could do Brown a favor and take one for the team.
Either way, it's just... interesting that someone propelled into office allegedly by a groundswell of popular concern for America's fiscal health -- at least as teabagger activists would have it -- wouldn't insist on racing to Washington to participate in this pivotal vote, and that none of the voices who insisted that their support for that agenda lay in their "fiscal responsibility" have been heard urging him on.