Before Mitch McConnell decided to delay the next debt-ceiling brouhaha till December, we were hearing daily reports about the looming economic crisis. And now we’re hearing about how the crisis will loom all over again in December.
So far, however, I have not heard a clear explanation of why exactly it matters to Democrats if Republicans don’t want to participate in the vote to raise the debt ceiling. Why does voting to raise the debt ceiling so the U.S. can pay its obligations supposedly make Democrats in Congress look bad? Doesn’t it actually make them look like responsible members of Congress?
Here is a typical discussion of this story that appeared in the New York Times prior to the December extension vote.
Republicans have made it clear that they intend to filibuster an ordinary bill to raise the debt ceiling, as they did on Monday. For Democrats to do so unilaterally, they would most likely have to use a budget process called reconciliation that shields fiscal measures from a filibuster.
Doing so is a complex and time-consuming affair. It all has to be done in the next two to three weeks, to beat the still unknown but rapidly approaching “X date” when the government defaults. Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary, told Congress on Tuesday that the deadline is Oct. 18.
Two things seem to be uncontroversial: 1) Congress has always managed the debt limit so that the U.S. can pay its obligations; 2) it’s easier to do it in a regular bill. But Republicans want Democrats to do it unilaterally without Republican votes, which requires using a filibuster-proof “reconciliation” procedure.
OK, so what? Who in America cares which procedure is used in Congress as long as the United States pays it debt obligations?
If Republican senators won’t cast any votes, it just illuminates once again that Republican senators are capricious shits who won’t do their jobs on even the most basic procedural legislation that everyone agrees has to be done. So what is the downside here for Democrats?
I’ve read three varieties of rationales why Democrats don’t want to raise the debt ceiling via reconciliation: the politics of it; the complexity of it; the riskiness of it. Do these rationales make sense?
The politics. Here’s an article in the Washington Post:
Punchbowl News reports that Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democrats are steamed because McConnell is forcing them to raise the debt limit, which is all you can do in reconciliation, rather than suspend it, which is politically easier:
“Schumer and his fellow Senate Democrats remain furious about McConnell’s handling of this issue, although there doesn’t seem to be much they can do about it. Yet it’s impossible to overstate the level of frustration among Democrats right now. Democrats say McConnell is cynically using this issue to force Democrats up in 2022, such as Sens. Maggie Hassan (N.H.) and Mark Kelly (Ariz.), to vote for a debt-limit increase.”
But again, so what if these senators vote for a debt-limit increase? This isn't some hot button issue. This is a noncontroversial issue. Everyone agrees America has to meet its debt obligations. Any person vying for the job of being a senator would have a hard time explaining why they think a procedural vote like this is not simply part of the job of being a senator.
And suppose Democrats win another round of brinksmanship and force a bipartisan vote on the debt limit: does anyone think that’s going to stop Republican politicians from casting Democratic politicians as taxers and spenders?
Other articles mention the so-called “vote-a-rama,” the part of the reconciliation process where senators can force a vote on any amendment that’s “germane” to the bill. Republicans can supposedly use this process to make Democrats cast controversial votes. But it appears there have already been three vote-a-ramas during the Biden administration. Is a fourth one really going to make a difference? (Is another required anyway as part of passing the Build Better Better bill?)
The complexity. As the New York Times article above stated, it’s a “complex and time-consuming affair.” Here’s what it says in The Hill:
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2-ranking Senate Democratic leader, on Tuesday dismissed a proposal to use the budget reconciliation process to raise the federal debt limit with only Democratic votes as a non-starter.
Durbin warned that it would take three to four weeks to amend the Senate budget resolution and set up a special path to raise the nation’s debt ceiling without any Republican support.
“That is a non-starter. Using reconciliation is a non-starter,” Durbin said emphatically.
He said he and other members of the Senate Democratic caucus have listened to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) explain the arcane process for using budget reconciliation to raise the debt limit and it’s so complicated that it takes 15 minutes to lay out the entire scenario.
“It takes him about 15 minutes for Chuck Schumer to explain how that works, what it involves — three or four weeks of activity in the House and the Senate,” he said. “This notion, ‘Oh you just stick it on reconciliation,’ is a non-starter.”
So the process is so complex that it takes 15 minutes to explain?
OK...but lots of people have jobs which involve arcane processes which could take 15 (or many more!) minutes to explain but which, in practice, we are able to readily accomplish because it's our job so we know exactly how to do it.
Could someone explain what makes a Congressional action to “raise the debt limit,” by the reconciliation process, so extraordinarily different from the types of arcane procedures that other people accomplish in their daily work, and why it requires three or four weeks to accomplish? And why would that present a problem anyway: just start the process more than a month before the deadline. It’s not like deadlines are a mysterious thing — every workplace has deadlines to meet.
The risk. Some articles have suggested it’s somehow risky to raise the debt ceiling using reconciliation. The Hill:
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday vowed that Democrats "cannot and will not" raise the nation's borrowing limit as part of a sweeping spending bill.
"Now in solving this crisis, this body cannot and will not go through a drawn-out unpredictable process sought by the minority leader. ... To do this through reconciliation requires ping-ponging separate bills back from the Senate and the House," Schumer said.
"It's uncharted waters," he added.
So apparently it’s not just a complex and lengthy process but it’s “unpredictable.” How so? Why would “ping-ponging” legislation back and forth between the two houses of Congress be considered uncharted rather than familiar waters? I thought our bicameral Congress was accustomed to doing that.
I would just like to have a clear explanation.
I don’t mind if the explanation requires 15 minutes to read.