Tim Pawlenty interviewed by ThinkProgress on Feb 26, 2011 (Photo: YouTube framegrab)
Even as Democrats signaled they would sign onto a deal that would keep government open for another two weeks past this Friday's shutdown deadline, Republican presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty is urging his party to keep a federal shutdown on the table as a bargaining chip:
We've got to get back to certain principles and responsibilities and starting with getting the budget balanced and if it takes a dramatic moment or a dramatic week or a dramatic month, those kinds of line-in-the-sand moments are what we need to get politicians back up against the wall and have them make the tough decisions. They all talk about making the tough decisions and never do.
KEYES: So you would support a shutdown if it comes down to it?
PAWLENTY: If it came down to it and it was between that and not getting the budget headed in the right direction, that’s an option I think Republicans have to consider.
On Friday, Republicans proposed a two-week measure that would cut $4 billion in spending while negotiations continue on a longer deal. Democrats have indicated they will support the short-term deal because the short-term spending bill will include cuts that Democrats have already proposed. It also strips poison-pill language from the GOP's original spending bill that would essentially repeal health care reform.
While Democrats will likely support the short-term bill on a pro-rated basis, it contains the exact same level of cuts as the GOP's original bill, which called for $61 billion in cuts for the remainder of the fiscal year. Republicans have said that until a long-term deal is worked out, they will propose additional cuts, one week at a time, on the same pro-rated basis.
As long as Republicans identify cuts that Democrats have already agreed to, that will keep government open for another few weeks, but the big unanswered question is this: What happens when Republicans propose making cuts that Democrats find unacceptable?
The obvious political downside of agreeing to that approach is that by the time an impasse arrives, Democrats will have already agreed to all the spending cuts they find palatable, leaving them without much in the way of bargaining chips. The upside, however, is that when the conflict comes, Democrats will be able to say that they've already supported billions in cuts and that it's time for the GOP to make concessions.
Whenever the impasse arrives, it seems like the smartest thing for Democrats to do would be to propose making cuts in tax expenditures for oil companies. Republicans will scream that reducing tax expenditures is a tax hike, but that's only true if you think getting rid of special corporate tax breaks is the same thing as raising taxes.
If that's what Democrats are planning—and they refuse to blink when that moment comes—things could play out better for the party than I had originally thought. Of course, that's a big if, but to the extent you have GOP hard-liners like Tim Pawlenty openly urging their party to keep the prospects of a shutdown alive despite Democratic willingness to compromise, the fundamentals would be in place for a narrative friendly to Democrats—especially when the GOP must defend unpopular cuts.
Despite the potential political upside that such a standoff could bring, the administration is urging Republicans to work on a long-term deal instead of these short-term weekly cuts. But unless the GOP decides to cooperate, and it shows no signs that it will, a long-term deal will be impossible, and within the next few weeks, the very real possibility of Republicans forcing a federal shutdown will return.