You know it’s a bad sign when compromise is viewed as concession.
The fact that there is a deal in place that would save the US from default should be celebrated as great news and should be passed as soon as possible. In the words of the late Ted Kennedy, “never let perfect be the enemy of good.” But in today’s polarized environment that demands ideological purity, neither party of Congress will pass anything unless it’s pretty darn perfect. We’re seeing that with the debt limit deal that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden struck.
“I will use all powers available to me in the Senate to have amendment votes to undo this catastrophe for defense,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said, referencing the defense spending part of the deal that would be consistent with what Biden’s nearly $900 billion mark. That number has been viewed by some on the right as too low. “I support raising the debt limit for 90 days to give us a chance to correct this disaster for defense.”
Representative Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas, was also not supportive. He took to Twitter to post an infographic about his problems with the deal, writing “Why I will oppose the #DebtCeiling ‘deal.’ It’s not a good deal. Some $4 Trillion in debt for – at best – a two year spending freeze and no serious substantive policy reforms. #NoDeal‘
If enough Senators share Graham’s view, the 60 votes needed to pass the deal in the 51-49 chamber won’t be there. And if at least five Republicans share Roy’s view, the deal would not be able to pass by Republican votes alone. McCarthy’s job is at risk if the deal is seen as so bad it causes a revolt in his caucus. The solution seems simple then: the Democrats should just swoop in and give the votes needed, right? That’s what the White House expects, but a lot of them also see the deal as a poison pill.
Some of that sentiment isn’t public, which makes it hard to gauge.
Representative Susan Wild from Pennsylvania said in a closed-door meeting before the deal was announced that the White House’s deal-cutting could force Democrats to vote on issues that would be used against them in their reelection bids next year. She also said (correctly) that the White House was taking House Democrats’ votes for granted.
Now, there does seem to be some support among more centrist Democrats, such as the 98-member Democrat Coalition.
“Despite a divided government, President Biden has achieved a bipartisan agreement that will save our country from default until 2025 and protect our nation from economic collapse, while also preventing cuts to key programs that millions of Americans rely upon,” the group said in a statement.
But if the Republican revolt is too severe, then the House will need more than these moderates. They’ll need some progressives along for the ride, and some of them are wary.
Representative Ritchie Torres, a Progressive Caucus member from New York remained noncommittal Monday on voting for the deal, citing uncertainty over the new work requirements.
“I’ve said to the White House that I want to know the number of my constituents who are going to be affected before I commit publicly to a vote for or against the debt limit deal,” Torres said on “The Hill on NewsNation.” “Once I have the information I need I can make an informed decision.”
Such requirements could also be a deal-breaker for some in the Senate, like John Fetterman. He’s a progressive Democrat who will likely not back the deal if he finds the work requirements too objectionable.
This deal is one of those issues where the issues don’t matter as much as the politics. The path to 218 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate is tricky. The most likely scenario seems to be a split Republican caucus saved by about 100 or so House Democrats, followed by a narrow but ultimately successful 60-something to 30-something vote in the Senate. But for a solution that seems like a no-brainer, it’s a tense outlook.
Discussion about this post