GREG SARGENT & JONATHAN BERNSTEIN WASHINGTON POST
The way is now seemingly clear to avoid a government shutdown: The House passed a “clean” Continuing Resolution that it paired with defunding the Affordable Care Act; the Senate will presumably delete the Obamacare provision and send the clean CR back to the House; and the House will then pass it with mostly Democratic votes, with any sighs of relief drowned out by Tea Party cries of “sell out!”
But, wait — what’s a “clean” CR, anyway? Typically, what that means is that both parties agree to keep the status quo in place for now. “Clean” means no policy changes. And so this clean CR, designed to keep the government operating for the first 10 weeks or so of the fiscal year, locks in sequestration for that long. Liberals noticing that have concluded that conservatives, the Obamacare sideshow aside, have already won, that they might win even more, and that perhaps Barack Obama is pretty much okay with sequestration, anyway.
The question is whether David Dayen is correct when he writes that “pushing sequestration into FY 2014 will probably cement it for the rest of the year.” And indeed, a while back, I was asking why Democrats weren’t fighting on CR spending levels. At that point, Greg Sargent did some reporting that I remembered today when these posts (and even more Twitter comments) were showing up. Here’s Greg’s reporting:
Aides have said Senate Dems would probably pass a temporary funding measure at current levels — if House Republicans do. And let’s face it: President Obama has not signaled he wants a fight over temporary funding, so there probably won’t be one. Progressive groups are wary of Dems accepting GOP austerity spending levels. So would it be a cave?
Here’s the answer, as supplied by a Senate Democratic aide. The view from the Dem side is that the House GOP is currently imploding amid potentially irreconcilable divisions over how aggressively to confront Obamacare. If House Republicans pass something temporarily funding the government at current levels, i.e. $988 billion over 10 years, and Senate Dems demand more — say, at the rate of their $1.058 trillion budget — that ultimately won’t help Dems.
Here’s why. If they demand more, there is no chance Boehner can get such a thing through the House He may not even try. Instead, Republicans can shift some blame for the looming government shutdown on to Democrats. The cause of the shutdown will become the dispute between Dems and Republicans, in which Dems are asking for more spending, instead of the cause merely being GOP intransigence and disarray. In that case the ensuing blame game could be far less advantageous to Dems. Indeed Dems might ultimately have to acquiesce to the lower spending levels. Then the story would be that Republicans held the line; Dems caved; and thus was a shutdown averted.
Dems believe that even if Republican leaders somehow muddle their way through by passing something funding the government at current levels, they’ll be in an even weaker position when the debt limit fight starts up in earnest, because conservatives will have already swallowed a defeat and will be in an even less compromising mood later. And so, at that point, Boehner will be in even greater need of Dem help to avoid disaster — setting up the possibility of a bigger deal that includes a debt limit hike (unofficially; the official position is there’s no negotiating over it) and a longer term replacement (say, one year) for the sequester that includes some new revenues. Would Republicans ever agree to new revenues? Maybe not. But remember, if the sequester replacement deal is only one year, the amount of needed revenues would be relatively small and could be accomplished with relatively easy closings on a handful of tax loopholes. And at that point, with default and economic havoc looming, he’d likely be under extreme pressure from the business community and even some Senate Republicans to reach a deal with Dems.
Anyway, that’s the thinking, as best as I understand it.
