The Government Shutdown Countdown Lowdown MEGATHREAD

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't think that there is a solution to this problem that Boehner isn't capable of fucking up.  I agree that the Senate needs to act now, because Boehner probably isn't capable of acting until forced into it.

It would be glorious to see Republican rebels shove a discharge petition up Boehner's ass, but that isn't going to happen.  That would be a vote of no confidence, and thus to nakedly honest for current US politics.

It's easy to blame Boehner but I list him last on my list of blame precisely because he is so weak. Boehner's weakness with his caucus is well known, and honestly needs to be considered by the other parties to the negotiations. Similar to how Kennedy considered Khruschev's position vis-a-vis the politburo in the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations.

[crazy canuck]

Is it too much to ask that someone to be the adult in the Republican party. 

[lustindarkness]

Are bills paid once a month? I don't think so, I imagine there are bills paid every day.

Not every day.  Saw a timeline, I think in the Economist.  Bond coupons are twice a year, SS checks are once a month, I think (you tell me) federal/military checks are once a month.  It's not like the US has to pay a cable bill on the 18th then an electricity bill on the 19th.

I'll see if I can hunt down that article.

Does not compute.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Is it too much to ask that someone to be the adult in the Republican party.

There might exist somewhere a Republican member of the House willing to get crucified by the Tea Party to save the country. I'm not convinced Boehner is that guy. He has stuck himself out there before, when he voted with only 85 members of his caucus to approve the legislation preventing the Fiscal Cliff, for example. But he could at least hide behind the fact he was preventing some portion of automatic tax increases with that.

Kennedy's advisers probably included people who didn't think they should give a fuck about Khruschev's domestic problems with the politburo. But Kennedy and IIRC McNamara understood that Khruschev was the guy they were negotiating with, and whatever "should" be their concerns K wasn't doing something that got him deposed and sent to retire in Siberia. I wouldn't bet the future of the country and the world economy on John Boehner being willing to go to Siberia just because Democrats are doing better in the national Gallup poll and feel they have "won" this battle. Maybe the narrow shoulders of John Boehner will surprise us, but if I was in the White House I'd be leery of staking so much on them.

[grumbler]

It's easy to blame Boehner but I list him last on my list of blame precisely because he is so weak. Boehner's weakness with his caucus is well known, and honestly needs to be considered by the other parties to the negotiations. Similar to how Kennedy considered Khruschev's position vis-a-vis the politburo in the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations.

Weakness isn't an excuse, its a weakness.  Excusing stupidity because of weakness lets Reid and Pelosi off the hook for all the horrible shit that got mixed into what started out as a fairly decent (though horribly inadequate) original health care reform.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I should also note accepting a two-year delay of the medical device tax is a win. It's something that many Democrats want and it avoids any of the various things Republicans wanted at the beginning of all of this (defund Obamacare, delay the individual mandate etc.)

During the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, Obama took the automatic revenue increases "off the table" as a concession, because as he said "I'm getting those regardless." Well, in this scenario the continuing sequester cuts (which many Dems point to as a concession on their side) are things the House GOP "is getting regardless." It's not entirely reasonable to expect in this environment that the House GOP is going to approve either a CR or a debt limit increase with no current concession. Does it seem unfair? Well, go complain to Madison or whoever it was that shot down Hamilton's plan to give us a Westminster style government. We wouldn't have this issue if his plan had carried the day.

I admit I see where the temptation has come from. The actions directed against the ACA in the beginning were ridiculous and overreaching, and the GOP has been annihilated in the court of public opinion. But at the end of the day the people answering those Gallup polls do not get to vote in the House, which means while they are promising for the long term prospects of the Democrats they get us not one inch closer to passing a debt ceiling increase or a CR. I had thought for a bit Boehner would repeat his performance from the Fiscal Cliff and just accept whatever came out of the Senate in an open vote (that's what I had hoped, because I feared that was all the White House would accept.) But if he's seriously not going to do that I don't see how Obama/Reid can in good faith not quickly come to some sort of agreement.

Yes, I understand they believed the GOP missteps entitled them to a "win" in which they conceded nothing. But it doesn't appear for sure that's actually what's going to happen. And the reality is you do have to concede things in divided government. There isn't a mechanism where the White House and the Senate can overrule the House and pass things without its consent.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's easy to blame Boehner but I list him last on my list of blame precisely because he is so weak. Boehner's weakness with his caucus is well known, and honestly needs to be considered by the other parties to the negotiations. Similar to how Kennedy considered Khruschev's position vis-a-vis the politburo in the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations.

Weakness isn't an excuse, its a weakness.  Excusing stupidity because of weakness lets Reid and Pelosi off the hook for all the horrible shit that got mixed into what started out as a fairly decent (though horribly inadequate) original health care reform.

I'm not in a position to excuse/not-excuse Boehner. I'm just looking at cause-effect. Boehner is weak, and that is going to color what he can do. If you're on the other side of the negotiating table and you don't take that into account, you may end up not getting a deal. The Speakership has never been a dictatorship ala a Westminster system, the closest it came was probably the early 20th century. The reason Pelosi was never able to get more far reaching health care reform is because their majority in the House was built on blue dog DINOs who only barely supported health care reform at all. There isn't some magical ability Pelosi had to change that fact and get say, an actual public option passed.

[CountDeMoney]

Obama has created several falsehoods, like the claim that to negotiate on this somehow diminishes the Presidency (when it is in fact typical to negotiate over these sort of things), that have not helped at all. He's also maintained long periods of being "above communicating" with the "small people" in the House, which I think has done much to put us here.

Oh, bullshit.  #1, there's nothing to negotiate regarding the ACA in the first place, and #2, he was absolutely  right when it came to the bullshit attempt early in the shutdown to fund individual elements of the government a la carte.  Imagine setting that budgetary precedent for future presidents, he was right on point with that.
#3, the very "small people" in the House you think he's imperious to think he's an illegitimate President that isn't even a United States citizen in the first fucking place, the same fucks that have been demanding his birth certificate for 5 years, or shouting him down in an address to Congress. "Small people", my black ass.

Turning the debt ceiling from a procedural act of basic governmental accounting into an ideological circle jerk is all on the GOP debt fetishists.  You want to argue the debt, the debt ceiling's not where it's done.

[Admiral Yi]

It will be interesting to see how the medical devices tax side story plays out.  CNN aired the WH press conference today, and there were a number of questions (at one point Carney muttered, "I've answered this question three times now") about whether a repeal (delay?) of the tax was an *administration* proposal.  Carney flatly denied it, but I think he let a hint slip when he explained the president's position is once government is reopen, and the debt ceiling lifted, then he's willing to entertain any constructive proposals to improve Obamacare.  "Such as a repeal of the medical devices tax."

So that looks like the offer being floated.  Fund government, lift ceiling, after that's done Boehner gets device tax as a fig leaf, in a separate bill.

[lustindarkness]

Yi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/04/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-debt-ceiling/

So what happens on Oct. 17? Is that doomsday?

It's hard to say. At some point after Oct. 17, the federal government will only bring in enough tax revenue to pay about 68 percent of its bills for the coming month, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center. (More precisely, the government will bring in roughly $222 billion in taxes and owe roughly $328 billion between Oct. 18 and Nov. 15.)

The first missed payment won't necessarily happen right on Oct. 17, but it would likely happen soon thereafter. The government typically spends a few billion dollars per day on various items. And it will also face these large outlays in the coming weeks:

pretty chart with dates goes here. 

Many analysts think that Nov. 1 is the real "doomsday" date. It's unlikely the government will be able to make that $58 billion payment for Social Security, Medicare, military pay, and other benefits without being able to borrow more money.

Thats what I thought, treasury pays debt 24/7.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Oh, bullshit.  #1, there's nothing to negotiate regarding the ACA in the first place, and

The House GOP is essentially getting nothing out of a CR or a debt-ceiling increase. So if portions of the ACA are what they want, then it's certainly an area of negotiation. The idea that previously passed legislation is "off limits" from budget and debt-limit negotiations is questionable and out of sync with history.

I agree that the initial GOP demands represented retarded overreach.

#2, he was absolutely  right when it came to the bullshit attempt early in the shutdown to fund individual elements of the government a la carte.  Imagine setting that budgetary precedent for future presidents, he was right on point with that.

I agree with declining to fund stuff ala carte. I don't agree with his position that he should not have to negotiate at all to get a CR or a debt-ceiling increase. A CR funds the government, in ages past we'd have a budget and then appropriations. But either way, there has always been negotiations about funding the government, from 1789 til now. The idea that there shouldn't have been is insane. And remember, this all started with the CR debate, it's only run into the debt ceiling because it has persisted for 15 days.

#3, the very "small people" in the House you think he's imperious to think he's an illegitimate President that isn't even a United States citizen in the first fucking place, the same fucks that have been demanding his birth certificate for 5 years, or shouting him down in an address to Congress. "Small people", my black ass.

Irrelevant. They get votes in the House whether you like them or not, whether Obama likes them or not.

Turning the debt ceiling from a procedural act of basic governmental accounting into an ideological circle jerk is all on the GOP debt fetishists.  You want to argue the debt, the debt ceiling's not where it's done.

Except, it can be. The debt ceiling has been the flash point for entitlement negotiations in the past, for example.

I do think there is a line in the sand so to speak the President needed to draw. He couldn't let the GOP control of the House render him irrelevant and give the Republicans a platform to pass all their policy positions from the House. I agree that if he had made a few minor concessions and the GOP still refused, then don't budge. But he's not conceded anything. I understand why he started with that posture, especially given the unreasonable demands the GOP was making to begin with. But the fact that he's not come round to any negotiation at all is troubling, and the idea that he doesn't deserve some of the blame for this mess because of that is ludicrous.

The GOP being dysfunctional and the Tea Party being insane whiny babies doesn't change the reality of the situation. We have divided government, no concessions have been made to the Republicans in the House, and they are demanding some level of concessions to pass things. There is no constitutional mechanism by which the House has to pass stuff just because Obama says.

[Admiral Yi]

Thats what I thought, treasury pays debt 24/7.

Kay

[OttoVonBismarck]

My preference would be to go back to the practice of raising the debt ceiling when you budget/appropriate, as was down pro-forma under the Gephardt rule, FWIW.

I do think budget negotiations are exactly the time to have debt negotiations, but I think it should have started months ago and never gotten to the point of a shut down. I'm not saying I agree with what the GOP has done in this, but I also don't agree with the Democratic position that the Republican House is required to pass things and should be executed for daring to ask for some concession in exchange for passing legislation that essentially 'does nothing' for them. That position contravenes the concepts of give-and-take at the heart of the system we have.

As for the ACA, I find it unfortunate the medical device tax is where we're talking about reform. The medical device tax is a good thing. I was hoping we'd go with "delay the individual mandate by one year", because that's a truly meaningless fig leaf. Something like what, $95/taxpayer dinged for not getting health insurance (and most low income taxpayers would be exempted.) We're talking a small part of the program. The medical device tax represents like $30bn in revenue that would grow as the price of medical devices (which has vastly outgrown inflation) grows.

Probably the biggest area of the ACA that needs refined is the coverage rules. Pre-ACA lots of insurance didn't cover say, preventive care and routine doctor's appointments. So something they baked in to ACA is compliant plans had to provide preventive care. But they way they did it created a loophole that allows some employers to employ a strategy of offering a plan that covers routine care but covers little to no hospitalization expenses. This is perverse, because it's the opposite of what many traditionally understood health insurance to be, and would still leave people with big bills to pay on their own.

[CountDeMoney]

It will be interesting to see how the medical devices tax side story plays out.  CNN aired the WH press conference today, and there were a number of questions (at one point Carney muttered, "I've answered this question three times now") about whether a repeal (delay?) of the tax was an *administration* proposal.  Carney flatly denied it, but I think he let a hint slip when he explained the president's position is once government is reopen, and the debt ceiling lifted, then he's willing to entertain any constructive proposals to improve Obamacare.  "Such as a repeal of the medical devices tax."

So that looks like the offer being floated.  Fund government, lift ceiling, after that's done Boehner gets device tax as a fig leaf, in a separate bill.

While it's not necessarily peanuts in the larger ACA picture, it's an important element of getting ACA costs out of the medical industry.  Repeal this particular excise out of the ACA, there will be another excise removal demand next year, and one after that, until all the offsetting costs from the healthcare industries are gutted and the model no longer works. 
You want to break ObamaCare, you start with the medical devices tax, and work on another one for next year's brinksmanship of it.

[Admiral Yi]

While it's not necessarily peanuts in the larger ACA picture, it's an important element of getting ACA costs out of the medical industry.  Repeal this particular excise out of the ACA, there will be another excise removal demand next year, and one after that, until all the offsetting costs from the healthcare industries are gutted and the model no longer works. 
You want to break ObamaCare, you start with the medical devices tax, and work on another one for next year's brinksmanship of it.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that half of the funding for Obamacare came from imaginary cuts to Medicare providers.