As I write this the news out of our nation's capitol is all about gridlock and other variations on the concept of gridlock. The "debt ceiling" is being hit in a few days. Legislation appears to be hopelessly stalled on every front. The big $3.5 Build Back Better bill seems to be in trouble. Efforts to do something about voting rights are stalled. Immigration reform is stalled after the Senate Parliamentarian said it was not a "primarily fiscal" issue". We are squabbling about what to do about the thousands of Haitians who magically appeared on our borders a few days ago. Angst about the Afghanistan Withdrawal blankets everything. I could go on.
So, it's all hopeless, right? No! First of all, the roadblock standing in the way of progress on each and every one of these issues is a man-made one. (If I could pin even one blockage on a woman I would use different language. The only possible candidate is Nancy Pelosi. It's hard to come up with a credible reason to blame her for any of this.) All these impasses can be resolved by a simple change in the behavior by the appropriate people.
Beyond that. there's this. It's how the system works. All the people involved in these impasses have constituencies they are responsible to. Someone is not going to get everything they want. So how do the losers tell their supporters that they failed to deliver? They say "I tried - really hard. I strove mightily, but in the end I was unsuccessful." If their supporters don't believe this statement then they are in big trouble. It helps if they are seen to be publicly striving mightily before they give up at what everybody agrees is the last possible second.
The debt ceiling is somewhat of an outlier in this list. Most of the items are new initiatives. The debt ceiling crisis is a routine crisis. It involving a routine piece of obscure bookkeeping. It has reached crisis state many times before. It will no doubt do so again a few years down the road.
It is also a crisis that shouldn't even exist. I am indebted to Rachel Maddow for bringing to my attention the origin story of this idiotic piece of anti-governance. (She relied upon, and credited the sources she used, but I am going to spare you.)
It turns out that World War I is the culprit. When World War I started in 1914 there was a broad isolationist consensus in this country. From Washington's "beware of foreign entanglements" to the time when War broke out, the U.S. had found it advantageous to sit on the sideline of major conflicts. The President at the time, Wilson, was a committed isolationist.
And isolation worked to the advantage of the U.S. The country made a bloody fortune selling Apples, Zinc, and everything in between, to the combatants. On the other hand, all the major European powers of the time pretty much bankrupted themselves. They spent what they had and what they could borrow in an effort to win, or more importantly not lose, the War.
The U.S. ended up with a much larger economy and a greatly expanded manufacturing capability. It also ended up holding a large part of the debt these countries had run up, so our financial and banking segments were much larger by the end of the war. This transfer of wealth between nations was on a previously unheard of scale. It single handedly vaulted the U.S. from being a second or third rate power to being a first rate power. And the change took only a few years.
Before the War the British had the economic and financial resources necessary to maintain the British Empire, still the largest empire ever to exist in the entirety of recorded history. By War's end they no longer did. They also sacrificed a generation or more of manpower to the slaughter that was trench warfare. To a substantial extent, the same story applied to all the European powers.
That left them short of the economic and financial resources necessary to maintain their various foreign empires. It also left them with a critical manpower shortage. It takes a large number of men to populate the various colonial armies necessary to maintain control over foreign holdings. It also requires a substantial number of men to operate the bureaucracy that is critical to keeping the machinery of empire running smoothly.
By the end of the war, the British Empire in particular was a dead man walking. It's just that it took a another generation and another war for this to become obvious. Meanwhile, the fat foreign contracts had caused a giant growth spurt in U.S. industry and agriculture. In the U.S. jobs were plentiful, the pay was good, and the country was at peace.
But the U.S. did eventually enter the War. So, what caused the U.S. do a "180"? It turns out that this is a subject that I have never delved into deeply. I am not going to do it now. If you want to take a deep dive on your own, I recommend three books by Barbara Tuchman. They are The Guns of August, The Proud Tower, and The Zimmermann Telegram. She is a good writer. If you have an interest in history, you will find them well worth your time.
Wilson was a two term President. His reelection campaign relied heavily on the slogan "he kept us out of war". Nevertheless, he subsequently changed his mind and supported the U.S. entry into the War. Even without the specifics, it is easy to imagine that this was a controversial decision. One way he blunted criticism to his change of heart was by addressing a key issue head on.
Wars cost money. As I have just noted, they often end up costing far more money than anyone predicted at their start. The financial travails of various European powers were well documented in U.S. newspapers of the time. The possibility of the U.S. going down the same rabbit hole could not simply be waved away. Wilson's response to this legitimate concern was to propose a law that limited the absolute amount of debt the U.S. government could run up.
That proposed law eventually went into effect. It's implementation is where the current debt ceiling crisis all started. It was a sop to the people opposed to the U.S. entry into World War I. It was supposed to be a temporary measure that could be let lapse when the War ended. But it has never been allowed to expire. The reason is simple. No benefit accrues to a politician campaigning for its elimination. What does accrue is a lot of grief.
The whole process has been streamlined over the ensuing decades. Now, a single sentence in a single clause in a single law in the many thousands of pages of laws that make up the United States Code, is now all that needs to be tinkered with. (If you see a reference to something like 21 USC 1243.1.a(3), the "USC" part stands for United States Code, the Federal law of the land. It is organized into volumes, so "21 USC" refers to volume 21. The rest just drills down deeper and deeper until you end up at a single specific clause.)
Raising the debt ceiling simply requires updating that one sentence. It now comes in one of two forms. The sentence most often specifies a single number like "the debt shall not exceed 29 Billion dollars". In an alternate form the sentence specifies a specific date like "the debt ceiling is suspended until July 31, 2021". This latter version shows just how ridiculous the whole process has become.
Whenever we are approaching whatever the current limit is, the standard response is to modify the sentence to allow the debt to go higher. This charade serves no practical purpose. The debt limit has always been raised in the past. What it does serve, then and now, is a political purpose.
Some group uses the occasion as a reason to accuse another group of "profligate" and "irresponsible" spending. And that's just the start of the nonsense that gets spewed. The responsible thing to do is to pay what you owe. Not raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. And the profligacy, if such exists, is located elsewhere.
The U.S. government has hit, or come close to hitting, the debt ceiling something like 78 times since that first version of the law was passed more than a century ago. The sensible thing, assuming getting rid of it entirely is off the table, is to just change the sentence to put off for a few more years the time when the Federal Government will again hit this entirely artificial barrier.
And it is important to remember that, with or without a debt ceiling law, the Federal Government can't spend money absent an "authorization", a special kind of law that must be passed by Congress and signed by the President. Of course, we could tie the two together by having authorizations automatically raise the debt ceiling by the appropriate amount, but that would be too sensible.
While the debt ceiling has no practical purpose, it can, and often does, serve a significant political purpose. It can be used to score political points on your opponent. This time around the Republican believe that they can score political points on the Democrats.
So they have decided that they will not support an increase in the debt ceiling. "Democrats are in charge. Let them do it all by themselves." That's their argument. The problem is that it will take 10 Republicans in the Senate to help out due to the equally idiotic "Filibuster" rule that currently controls Senate procedure.
We've been to this particular rodeo several times in the recent past. To change metaphors in mid stream, as with a remake of a movie that came out only a few years previously (Spider Man, anyone), we know how the movie ends before we even buy our ticket. If the remake of the debt ceiling crisis follows the same plot as the older version version, then we know how this version will end too. Here's a peak at the script for "debt ceiling crisis" movies.
Act one starts with important people (politicians, the press) noticing that we are getting perilously close to reaching the debt ceiling. Sides are chosen and the expenditure of vast quantities of hot air begins. But at this point there is insufficient pressure to blast either side loose, so everybody digs in. This act concludes when the debt ceiling is reached.
Hitting the debt ceiling starts act two. In the past the Treasury Department has been able to use several tricks and accounting gimmicks to stave disaster off for a while. They have now become expert at doing this. So, from the audience's perspective not much changes. In fact, the early stages act two look pretty much like act one.
In writing parlance what happens in act two is called a "try - fail cycle". The hero tries a few different things. They all fail. We applaud him for trying, but are disappointed with the lack of success.
He fails because the pressure is still insufficient to budge anyone. Some details change but the general picture stays the same. The public continues to observe the expenditure of vast quantities of hot air and not much else.
Act three starts when the Treasury runs out of gimmicks and tricks. Now the pressure starts to really build. But a lot of gimmickry continues. The government does not shut down completely. By mutual consent "essential services" continue to be provided. There is no legal foundation for this but it happens anyway because nobody objects. This is the point when pressure starts to build enough to eventually force movement.
This forces the climax, which leads to resolution and the denouement. The debt ceiling finally gets raised and the curtain descends on this particular iteration of this particular drama. Key to all this is the blame game. Whichever side ends up getting blamed the most is eventually forced to cave. That resolves the climax and we can get on with wrapping things up.
The last couple of times around blame eventually fell most heavily on the Republicans. This is one occasion where Democrats reap a substantial advantage from the fact that they actually believe in governance. The won the blame game battle before. They are geared up to win it again.
So, were are we currently? We are already in act two. (See - I told you that it differed little from act one.) The current version of the debt ceiling specifies that the money ran out at the end of July. That was almost two months ago. The Treasury has been using the now standard bag of tricks to keep things going. This has become so routine that it has garnered zero press attention.
It is expected that we will move to act three on the first of October. What's special about that date? The Federal Fiscal year runs from the first of October to the end of September. (I have no idea why.) That means that the current budget authorizations expire and presumably a new ones replaces them. Experts say that will have the side effect of using up all the gimmicks and forcing the Treasury to stop paying some bills.
The House, which is controlled by the Democrats, has already passed a bill to increase the debt ceiling. Within the next day or so Senate Democrats are poised to bring that same bill to the floor for a vote. The expectation is that all the Democrats (and the two independents that caucus with them) will vote for it. But, due to the Senate Filibuster rule, it will require 60 votes to proceed. If, as is widely expected, all Senate Republicans vote against it, then passage will be blocked.
That, in general terms, is what happened the last couple of times. The Democrats made "we want to raise the debt ceiling and keep the government open" noises, but Republicans blocked them. Eventually the press and the public came down heavily on the side of the Democrats and against the Republicans. After a shut down of greater or lesser duration (the duration depends on which one you want to talk about) the Republican caved to pressure and the debt ceiling got raised.
I don't know why Republicans don't see this issue as a loser for them and for their party. One argument in their favor is that their bad behavior hasn't caused them to suffer much. Their supporters get mad at them when Social Security checks stop getting delivered. But they either forgive or forget shortly thereafter.
There is some reason to believe that this time it might play out a little differently. The Filibuster rule is just one of many rules that govern how the Senate goes about its business. Since it's just a Senate rule, it can be changed to eliminate the Filibuster completely. All that is required is for the Senate to vote on it. A simple majority of Senators will carry the day.
Theoretically, Democrats could do it on their own as they have exactly enough votes within their caucus. But that is true only if everybody goes along. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Christian Sinema of Arizona, and perhaps other members of the Senate Democratic caucus, have publicly opposed getting rid of the Filibuster.
There are ways to modify the Filibuster without eliminating it entirely. This has actually been done several times. The most recent modification was implemented only a few years ago. The Republicans were in the majority at the time. They decided that votes on Supreme Court nominees would no longer be subject to being Filibustered.
Senator Manchin has indicated that he might support modifying the rule instead of eliminating it. But his current position is "not now". That, and no GOP support for a change, means that the status quo ante continues.
A prolonged shutdown combined with a lack of sufficient movement on the GOP side could cause Senator Manchin and others to change their current positions. If they do, I expect that we will see a revision of the Filibuster rather than its elimination. Several "talking Filibuster" options sound interesting. So, modifying the Filibuster rules is one possibility for dealing with the debt ceiling. There are others.
Democrats can't really change their stand on increasing the debt ceiling even if they want to. They have nowhere else to go. In the past the press has been reluctant to point out the obvious, that the problem is unjustified Republican obstruction.
If the press changes its tune and blasts the GOP from the start, then that might cause the GOP to pay a higher penalty than usual. And the penalty may kick in more quickly and more completely than it has in the past.
The press has spent decades providing cover for GOP bad behavior. GOP bad behavior is excused, or more commonly ignored. Evidence of the slightest Democratic misstep causes the press to immediately go into full cry.
We are currently into heavy navel gazing when it comes to the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the handling of the Haiti Refugees on the Texas border, and any number of other causes. Compare this to the press coverage of GOP recalcitrance on raising the debt limit and much else. There we see not a peep.
No political reporter who is worth her or his salt should harbor any illusions about what is going on with the debt ceiling fight. They just need to say out loud what is apparent to all. If they do that then it is possible that several GOP Senators will peel away from the current GOP obstructionist position and change their votes.
GOP Senators changing their votes is unlikely to happen. (It is also unlikely that a fight over the debt ceiling will result in a change to the Filibuster rules. But it IS possible.) Most likely the GOP will cave as a whole at some point, and some face saving "compromise" will be engineered instead.
The debt ceiling impasse will eventually be broken. I have characterized it as the one crisis that is different from the other examples of gridlock and deadlock. But the debt ceiling crisis does provide a template for how other contentious issues get resolved.
The loser is not going to toss in the towel until the story of their valiant but ultimately unsuccessful effort can believably be told. Right now everybody thinks that they still have a chance of getting everything they want. Even if that chance is slim, "it ain't over till it's over", as Yogi Berra once put it. So, they fight on.
And for the present that means that everything is now gridlocked up. The pressure has not yet built up to a high enough level to force some of the players to toss in the towel. How the debit ceiling fight will play out is guided by recent history and restricted to only a few possible options. Any of the options are possible, but it is already clear what the most likely option is (GOP cave). With the other issues, the eventual outcomes are harder to predict.
I don't believe that the Biden economic agenda is dead. The usual way these things are settled is that some horse trading is done. Everybody gets something but nobody gets everything. Progressives have made their bid. They want the whole enchilada. They want the 1.1 trillion dollar (actually only about half that represents new spending) "infrastructure" bill. And the also want the 3.5 trillion dollar Build Back Better bill.
I suspect that if the BBB bill was trimmed back to something like 2.5 billion, they would still be happy. As long it contained most of what they wanted, perhaps funded at lower levels, or spread out over more years, they would be well content.
But so far, the "moderate" faction within the Democratic Party has not made a counteroffer. (Neither have the Republicans, but they get a pass, because the rules the game is currently played by, say they are.) I suspect that the "moderates" would be happy if the whole BBB bill went away and only the "infrastructure' bill was left. But the progressives have said "hell no" to that option.
Past experience predicts that the progressives will blink. But progressives say that they are acutely aware of that history. They are not going to be denied this time around. They point to a decades long history of GOP behavior.
It teaches that you can do wildly irresponsible and unpopular things. You can, for instance, shut the government down, then cave without getting anything for your trouble. Later, you pay little or no price for your irresponsibility. What progressives want to do is both responsible and widely popular. Their mistake, as they see it, is in not adopting GOP "Scorched Earth" tactics sooner.
Nobody believes that the progressives will take a page from the Mitch McConnell playbook. But that's exactly what progressives say they are going to do this time around. It's just that nobody believes them due to a previous history of routinely caving. Their strategy looks sound to me, except for one thing. The people who can throw a monkey wrench into their playbook are, of all people, House Republicans.
"Moderate" Democrats (I keep using scare quotes because in many cases they aren't moderate - instead they are in the pocket of the powerful, pharmaceutical companies in the case of three wayward House Democrats, and the coal industry in the case of Manchin) have demanded that the infrastructure bill come up for a vote on Monday, September 27.
Pelosi has promised that they will get their vote, and it is currently scheduled to happen. House progressives have vowed to vote "no" if that vote is not preceded by a vote on the BBB bill. Since as I write this the BBB bill is not ready for a vote, that's not going to happen.
Normally, "no" votes by the progressive caucus would torpedo the infrastructure bill, at least temporarily. (There are procedural ways to revive it.) The strategy should work because all the House Republicans are expected to vote against it.
But what if a bunch of GOP House members vote for it. It is, after all, a "bipartisan" bill. And it's full of pork that both Democratic and Republican House members can brag about when they return home to campaign in their district. If that happened then the bill would pass and progressives would be stuck holding the bag. We will soon know how this issue plays out, at lest in the short run.
In general, however, it is necessary for extreme pressure to build before various gridlocks get broken. We are not there yet. D,C. politicians are too good at performing the "canoe over the falls" trick. Once the canoe has gone over the falls (i.e., we hit the debt ceiling) the canoe's occupants (i.e. the bill) are doomed, right?
Well, it turns out that politicians are good at playing the trick where the occupants end up clinging to a rock on the lip of the falls. From there a "miraculous rescue" is effected. A "date certain", like the one currently associated with the debt ceiling, turns out to not be all that certain after all.
But "drop dead" dates do have value. They ratchet up the pressure. By themselves, they are not enough. But they are a key component of the standard process for breaking gridlocks.
If nothing else, the press likes to hang gridlock stories on drop dead dates. They then later profess childlike surprise when the problem gets resolved in spite of the fact that the drop dead date was passed. It would of considerable help if they could be bothered getting riled up well before the drop dead date instead of waiting until it is upon us.
I want to wrap things up by focusing on a broad issue. Pretty much all of the Biden agenda is currently said to be in trouble. The main problem is GOP intransigence. The press doesn't want to talk about that based on the dubious premise that it is "old news". (The fact that it has been around a long time makes this behavior by the press worse, not better.)
The press can reduce anything to two sides, the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Since they refuse to shine a light on the GOP, they have instead selected a Democratic bad guy. At this point, the designated bad guy should come as no surprise. It is Senator Manchin. There is considerable justification for this designation.
There are several ways to navigate around the various impasses. Manchin blocks all of them. If the Filibuster was history then the Democrats could pass everything with just Democratic votes. But, as noted above, he is unwilling to eliminate the Filibuster, or for the time being even significantly modify it.
A large part of the Biden agenda can be passed using another arcane Senate Rule, "Budget Reconciliation". This rule provides a way around the Filibuster. But Manchin is opposed to all the Democratic bills that can use the Reconciliation process for one reason or another.
So even using Reconciliation to pass legislation is currently impossible. And Reconciliation is another of those Senate rules that can be changed with by a simple majority. But he opposed changing the Reconciliation rule. And that means that the rest of the Biden agenda is DOA due to the Filibuster rule.
So it's all doomed, right? No! No one wants to be the bad guy. Let's say one or more canoes go over the falls. Then let's say Manchin says "I've had enough. I'm going to change my position." That's all it would take for Manchin to flip from being the bad guy to being the hero.
Democrats know that they are in big trouble if the Biden agenda goes down in flames. They are in especially big trouble if it is an "own goal", if they are widely seen as doing it to themselves. That spells trouble for lots of them, but especially Manchin. He is up for re-election in 2022 and his popularity in West Virginia has been plummeting recently.
It will take tremendous pressure to do this. That pressure will likely build and build as various canoes go over the falls. There are ways to arrange things so that various pieces of the Biden agenda don't go over the falls with the canoe. Instead they are found to be clinging to a rock. From there, heroic activity (always popular with the voters at home) can be employed to rescue them and shepherd them safely into law.
Expect a very intense thirty days. The political landscape will have changed considerably by then. For the better or for the worse? That I can't predict.
