On Monday, John Boehner blamed President Obama for "the ‘crisis’ atmosphere" in DC. While doing research for a blog, I ran across information to the contrary.
The trail starts with the law that imposes the debt limit:
31 U.S.C. Subtitle III, Chapter 31, Subchapter I, section 3101 - Public debt limit
(a) In this section, the current redemption value of an obligation issued on a discount basis and redeemable before maturity at the option of its holder is deemed to be the face amount of the obligation.
(b) The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than $12,394,000,000,000, outstanding at one time, subject to changes periodically made in that amount as provided by law through the congressional budget process described in Rule XLIX [1] of the Rules of the House of Representatives or otherwise.
(c) For purposes of this section, the face amount, for any month, of any obligation issued on a discount basis that is not redeemable before maturity at the option of the holder of the obligation is an amount equal to the sum of—
(1) the original issue price of the obligation, plus
(2) the portion of the discount on the obligation attributable to periods before the beginning of such month (as determined under the principles of section 1272(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 without regard to any exceptions contained in paragraph (2) of such section).
But what is House Rule XLIX? I couldn't find it in the Rules of the House of Representatives, but I did find this:
Subparagraph (2) strikes the “Gephardt rule” that provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit, upon the adoption by Congress of the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in the House on the public debt-limit legislation.
Subparagraph (3) adds a new clause to rule XXIX that clarifies that the chair of the Committee on the Budget, rather than the entire committee, is authorized to provide guidance to the presiding officer on the budgetary impact of legislative proposals. This change reflects the current practice under majorities of both parties.
So the Rules of the House were altered specifically to create the present situation. Not "the President's crisis", but Eric Cantor's crisis as the sole sponsor of H. Res. 5 - which changed the House Rules. By disconnecting the debt limit legislation from the budget legislation, he set the stage for this separate confrontation back in January - after the lame-duck 2011 budget battle. Crisis and extortion, rather than negotiation and compromise, seems to be the new republican form of government.
I also note that "guidance" now comes, not from the bipartisan committee at large, but only from the (majority party) chair. Another little post-bipartisan power grab.
So what's my theory behind the republican-ginned default crisis?
They have gained a lot of effective political leverage from the repeated crises produced by their stonewalling. By holding the needs of the people hostage, they have gained some damaging concessions. Why stop? They have parlayed the lame-duck budget crisis into a debt-limit crisis. If they can repeat the cycle, manufacture enough uncertainty to keep unemployment depressed, drive it higher with deep spending cuts, and - most importantly - convince America to blame the Democrats, then they have a very good chance to win the next election - by default.
And, of course, opposing that agenda is just evil political manipulation. Right?
[UPDATE] 8/7/11 Origins of the debt showdown
“I’m asking you to look at a potential increase in the debt limit as a leverage moment when the White House and President Obama will have to deal with us,” said Cantor, one of several new House leaders who detailed the game plan for the coming months. “Either we stick together and demonstrate that we’re a team that will fight for and stand by our principles, or we will lose that leverage.”
Obviously, this crisis was neither improvised nor accidental - and THAT is why the far right are being referred to as "terrorists" in the old "take hostages/demand ransom" sense. They manufactured a crisis so they could leverage it to impose their ideology regardless of the consequences to the country.
Or perhaps republicans feel they have entered into their own 'Happy Time'.
Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM PT: