As the doomsday clock ticks down on America's debt limit, some members of the republican party - whether on account of pre-existing delusions or simply being emboldened by concessions offered thus far - have taken their demands to another level, insisting that any debt-limit increase be predicated ont he passage of a balanced budget amendment that would cap federal government spending at 18% of the previous year's GDP. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein has amply eplained, this is a magnificently terrible idea, and congressional democrats are understandably anathema to the thought of crippling the government's ability to provide for an aging population. But being opposed to the plan doesn't have to entail voting against it. Quite to the contrary, were I a democrat, I would insist on passing a simple one-for-one trade of raising (or, ideally, abolishing) the debt limit in exchange for passing the amendment currently under consideration.
If this seems odd, remember how amending the Constitution works: Congress, via a 2/3 majority, can propose amendments to the Constitution, which are then sent to the states to be considered by the individual states either in their legislatures or in special ratifying conventions, where 3/4 of the states (38 total, for those who don't have a calculator on hand), must vote in favor of the amendment. Does anyone actually have any concern that may happen? Between the democratic bastions on the West Coast and in the Northeast, you have already have 14 states that would in all likelihood vote against - 2 more than are needed to block any amendment. One can also realistically expect purplish states such as Colorado, Missouri, and maybe even Virginia to vote against such a radical proposal. So not only would the democrats get their debt limit increase for free, they could also let the tea party republicans walk into a embarrassing defeat at the hands of the people if and when a majority of states vote against them.
The more substantive concern is one of intraparty politics, and what kind of blowback congressional democrats would face from the left if they voted for a measure so abhorrent to their party identity. Yet with proper messaging, this sort of tumult can be pretty easily sidestepped. It would be most entertaining to see the democrats simply admit they were voting in favor of the amendment to watch republicans stumble at the ratification stage, but that's not really a viable approach since the right could use that as an excuse to scuttle the deal. More plausibly, one can look the ratification of the 18th amendment for guidance: many lawmakers who were ambivalent towards, or even outright opposed to prohibition were cajoled into voting in favor of its submission to the states on the grounds that their vote was not for the amendment, but for letting the people make their voice heard. Obviously, given the vehement opposition to the amendment provided thus far, the democratic caucus can't simply pull an about-face, but framing the compromise as giving voice to the American people rather than gutting their government should be a perfectly adequate post hoc justification when the time comes to deflect challenges from the left.
The tea party caucus, in its seemingly unending naivete, is offering the democrats a magnificent opportunity. Too bad they're just as reflexively shortsighted as their counterparts on the right.
UPDATE: President Obama is apparently threatening to veto the balanced budget amendment is passed as part of a debt limit deal, so it looks like my idea is even more moot than it was when originally posted.
No comments:
Post a Comment