This is the money quote.
The fiscal cliff situation presented Republicans with a disagreeable choice between two unpleasant options. We can debate tactical decisions and roads not taken 'till the cows come home. But since we had no way to force Obama and the Senate dems to deal constructively on spending cuts, this was a pick your poison situation. Taxes were going up either way, and Obama (IMHO) actually wanted to go over the cliff so he could pocket even greater revenues while blaming Republicans for the next four years for the consequences. The issue was how to limit the damage, both economic and political. I would have voted against the Senate bill, but I understand the calculation on the other side.
We're now out of a tactical trap and steaming up to the real deal, the debt limit increase, in a matter of weeks. His Excellency Emperor Barack I of Chicago is already staking out his position. He now says that he does not deign to entertain discussion with Republicans about the debt limit. He asserts that projected baseline spending is sacrosanct, and the moral and legal equivalent of debt. That is, future spending plans are the equivalent of accrued obligations.
When last we visited the debt limit, there was some discussion on the left about challenging the constitutionality of the debt limit. More recently, Obama's negotiating offer in the fiscal cliff melodrama included a demand that Congress remove the debt limit statutorily and give the President unchecked borrowing power.
If Obama sticks with a call for statutory change, fine: we can debate that, and vote it down. If he asserts a unilateral power to ignore the debt limit, we are a matter of weeks away from a constitutonal crisis.
I know that people need to vent, and I will magnanimously allow 24 hours more for ankle biting Republicans who made an arguably wrong tactical call yesteday, when caught in a very unpleasant trap. But 24 hours is far more than enough time to waste on that. The fiscal cliff was a warmup. The real battle is about to begin.
Leadership elections, you say? Fine. I would ask John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and any other contenders for the top jobs, what they will do if the President asserts dictatorial control over borrowing.
The difference between the fiscal cliff and the debt limit situation is simple: this time, we have the bigger club. We can live with a lot less government for a lot longer than can the dems. But we have to seize the high ground politically. The House Republicans need to pass their default debt limit/spending cut package sooner rather than later, and above all avoid geting caught in more backroom deals at midnight. Pass a package as a default option, and offer to negoiate in good faith on any other propsal that the democrats bring forward under regular order ... and nothing more.
If the dems won't deal, we'll hit the fiscal cliff and borrowing authority with lapse. Since we're now borrowing 40% of everything we spend, this would be very bad. A disaster, in fact. It will be essential, once Social Security checks start getting delayed, food stamps disappear, and Medicare and Medicaid stop paying bills, that the Republicans have already passed legislation to keep the government operating. It must be clear that the shutdown is Obama's doing.
So let's get over the ankle biting fast. Can we play a move or two ahead, for a change? And plan far enough ahead to seize the high ground?
Meant to say, if the dems don’t deal we’ll hit the borrowing limit, not the fiscal cliff.