This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, July 14, 2011 - WASHINGTON - As the predictable "game of chicken" over raising the debt-limit finally nears the end of the road, both the frustrations and the last-minute efforts of lawmakers from Missouri and Illinois -- and across the country -- are coming to the fore.
On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had "lost his mind" with his latest debt-limit plan, and aides to President Barack Obama and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., offered contrasting versions of Obama's "call my bluff" confrontation during a White House negotiating session. The controversies came after the Moody's rating agency threatened to downgrade the U.S. government's credit if the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug. 2.
"I'm just frustrated at the games that are being played," McCaskill told the Beacon a few hours after her outburst on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show. She was reacting to McConnell's suggested fallback option that would, she said, in effect, remove Republican fingerprints from any debt-limit increase.
Under McConnell's proposal, Obama would be given the authority to order increases in the debt ceiling on his own, without direct congressional approval. Instead, Congress would vote on a resolution to block an increase. If, as would be likely, the blocking resolution passed, the president would veto it. And if Republicans and others are unable to muster the two-thirds majority needed to sustain that veto, the debt limit would be increased.
"Mitch McConnell has been lecturing us for months about certainty in the economy and then he, with a straight face, says the best way to handle this problem is to allow the debt ceiling to be raised -- but only if it's with Democratic votes and you are required to do it three different times in less than a year. That's pretty cynical," she said.
McCaskill added that taking the McConnell approach would be "a huge missed opportunity to not address some of the spending cuts we need to make, some of the reforms we need to make, some of the cleaning up of the tax code and [elimination of ] special goodies for folks."
On the Republican side, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., a loyal member of McConnell's whip team, told the Beacon that the minority leader's proposal should be regarded only as a last-ditch option. "This is not Plan B or Plan C. In fact, it's probably Plan Z," said Blunt. However, he added with a half-smile, "we may get to Plan Z."
Even though McConnell's option faces significant opposition, the Wall Street Journal reported late Thursday that a variation of that plan -- with a package of spending cuts attached to make it more palatable to House Republicans -- could emerge as the vehicle for raising the debt limit. McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., were discussing possible tweaks to McConnell's plan as a fallback option. Meanwhile, the White House talks failed to reach a deal Thursday, and Obama scheduled a news conference on Friday morning to discuss the debt-ceiling negotiations.
Blunt has been consistent in saying that he won't support an increase in the debt ceiling unless it is tied to significant spending cuts and "structural reforms" in the budget process. Last week, Blunt joined two dozen Senate Republicans in backing a "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill that calls for cutting non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 levels; imposing spending caps on segments of the government from 2012 to 2021; and requiring Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before it can raise the federal debt ceiling.
"I don't intend to vote for a debt limit that does not make significant structural changes to the way we're spending in Washington, and this bill is one of the ideas that would give us the change we need to move forward responsibly," said Blunt, who signed a pledge during his campaign last year that he would not support raising taxes.
Earlier this year, both Blunt and Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., also joined other Senate Republicans in backing a balanced budget amendment -- which may come to a Senate vote next week. House votes on similar legislation are also expected.
McCaskill told the Beacon on Thursday that she would consider supporting a balanced budget amendment if it is reasonable. "It depends on whether it's a realistic trajectory, in terms of how many years it takes us to get to the balance. It depends on if there are safeguards for emergencies, how much protection there is for Social Security -- things of that nature." She wants to scrutinize the details before deciding.
Earlier this year, McCaskill had argued for separate tracks for tackling the debt limit and the deficit problem. She joined Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would cap all federal spending -- including Social Security and Medicare -- at a declining percentage of the nation's gross domestic product over the next decade. That proposal caught flak from both the right and the left.
Illinois Senators See Bowles-Simpson Plan As Model
On the Illinois side of the river, Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, and Kirk have both made overtures to support a bipartisan compromise on reducing the deficit while avoiding government default. As one of the participants in the White House negotiations with congressional leaders, Durbin said Obama had told leaders: "You are going to meet every single day until we get it done. That determination by the president is keeping us at the table and focusing us on the mission at hand."
Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, was a member of the White House Bowles-Simpson deficit commission last year. He drew praise this week from the panel's Republican co-chair, former Sen. Alan K. Simpson, for backing its controversial proposal for sharp spending cuts, changes in entitlements such as Medicare, and tax increases tied to an overhaul of the tax system.
In a Senate speech this week, Durbin said, "I believe we can reduce this deficit if we are honest about the spending in Washington. To focus only on domestic discretionary spending -- a part of the budget that has not increased in real dollar terms in the last 10 years -- and to ignore the costs that are growing on the security side, the defense side, as well as the cost of entitlement programs, is not only being blinded to reality, it really means the cuts that are made in domestic discretionary spending are outrageously deep."
Durbin said that "what the Bowles-Simpson commission told us needed to be done was painful but necessary: Put everything on the table . . . That means all spending, all entitlements, and revenue."
On a separate track, Durbin is a member of the "Gang of Five" (formerly six, before Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., withdrew) -- a bipartisan group of senators that is trying to forge a deficit-reduction compromise that would stand a chance of Senate approval. As the White House deficit talks with congressional leaders appeared to falter this week, the Gang has stepped up its efforts.
Durbin's communications director, Max Gleischman, told the Beacon Thursday that "the Gang of 5 has been meeting this week . . . trying to reach an agreement on a plan, modeled after the Bipartisan Fiscal Commission report, which cuts the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. As of now, they haven't been able to finalize an agreement, but will continue to meet to that end."
Meanwhile, Kirk -- who has consistently sought deep spending cuts and backs a balanced budget amendment -- is also throwing his weight behind the concept, advocated by the Gang of Five, that would make about $4.7 trillion in spending cuts over a decade.
"Only a bipartisan, all-of-the-above plan, with shared sacrifices from both parties, will show the public that Congress recognizes the serious nature of the nation's current economic crisis and is willing to fix it," Kirk wrote in an op-ed this week with Sen. Mark Udall, D-Col.
"The Gang's plan is our best hope, and we would like to see all senators encourage its momentum. It deserves the full attention of those negotiating an increase in the federal debt ceiling, which must be coupled with long-term deficit reduction." They added that "we should be able to reduce spending, and raise the debt ceiling, without defaulting on our debt. The consequences of our failure are unacceptable."
In the interview with the Beacon, McCaskill said she thinks there is still a chance to reach a deficit and debt-limit deal before the deadline. "The only thing it takes to do that is just a few Republicans who are willing to compromise," she said.
"Spending cuts are essential. ... But we can't set this country on the right fiscal course if we also don't look at revenues. It doesn't have to be tax increases; we could actually add revenue to the debt and deficit problem we have without raising taxes if we just clean out some of the goodies we give to some of the folks to have a lot of power on Capitol Hill" -- such as Big Oil.
"By eliminating [the loopholes], we can lower corporate taxes, lower personal taxes and still have money we can apply towards the deficit and debt."