US Politics Analysis: Darkness Before An Agreement on the Federal Debt?

Take a look at the history of conservatism in the United States over the last fifty years and you see one constant tension; the fundamental concern over placing ideology before achievable political goals. It is best summed up in William F. Buckley's dictum to "support the most conservative candidate electable", but it is just as applicable to current Republican concerns to secure the best possible deal in the increasingly dysfunctional talks on the Government's budget deficit.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Senate Minority Leader, this week became the latest in a long list of Republicans, including Buckley, accused of betrayal with his proposal of a contingency plan if no long-term deal is reached on raising the debt ceiling. McConnell's idea is to allow President Obama to borrow $2.5 trillion solely on his authority before the 2012 elections, in three installments. Each time the president will need a congressional resolution of approval to raise the debt-limit, but he can veto any vote that does not have a two-thirds majority. So America can avoid defaulting, but Republicans in both houses of Congress will be able to vote their conscience and have a strong platform for their re-election campaigns next year.

McConnell's is a long-term strategy that has its obvious merits. It will be much easier for conservatives to enact their radical spending plans if they control both the Senate and the House: with a Republican presidency won on the back of that manifesto a bonus.

But in the conservative blogosphere, there is nothing short of outrage and contempt for McConnell's perceived ideological betrayal. His argument that Republicans should postpone their agenda until they have a better chance of securing their objectives, and that they should not damage the Republican “brand” of fiscal responsibility in the meantime by forcing a default, has been met by some staggering disapprobation.

Take, for instance, Erick Erickson's response. His first reaction to the news was to call for the burning of Sen. McConnell in effigy. And even with qualification of his initial anger, Erickson maintains the position that readers should "consider sending McConnell a weasel as testament to his treachery". To make his point clear, Erickson ends, “2014 cannot come soon enough to destroy the political future of this weasel.”

The next day, Erickson proudly noted that his dismissal of Sen. McConnell had drew the attention of the Wall Street Journal editorial writers, “As I (sic) first out of the gate and drew the most ire from McConnell supporters, I think it is safe to conclude they are unhappy with me. Nonetheless, let’s move beyond the rather snotty 'we are the adults and the rest of you are unwashed ignorant masses' tone of the editorial and get right to what they actually say.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial is titled "Debt-Limit Harikari: Mitch McConnell isn't selling out Republicans,' and defends his plan as a pragmatic backup if Republicans cannot get the spending cuts they want. The WSJ editors ask, “The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won't vote for one, then what's the alternative to Mr. McConnell's maneuver?”

This internecine spat over ideology before concrete results, or vice-versa, occurred in the midst of a general lowering of the tone in the debt-limit talks. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) accused Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), House majority leader, of childishness in the ongoing debt negotiations. This came in answer to Rep. Cantor's disputed revelation that President Obama had stormed out of talks on Wednesday. True or not, politicians are beginning to get jittery in Washington about the chances of forging a consensus strong enough to get deal done before the possible default deadline on 2 August.

Perhaps this is the darkest point of the discussions, with frustrations at the lack of any progress a sign of the necessary "keep the voters happy at home" precondition before an agreement can be struck. Brinkmanship, after all, is just a part of the political game in Washington. To buttress this optimism, there are tentative signs that, behind the scenes, some politicians are trying to come up with a long-term deal that could gain enough support to pass through both houses of the legislature.

On Monday, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, took to the floor of the Senate to outline the budget blueprint he has been working on for several months. At this point, the details are not particularly important --- as Sen. Conrad himself recognised they are prone to change as negotiations take place --- but the figure he is seeking is$4 trillion off the deficit over 10 years, with an equal split between increased revenues and spending cuts.

Sen. Conrad's budget is the result of six months of debates within his own Budget Committee, which has 12 Democrats, 12 Republicans, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). It follows the nine months Sen. Conrad spent on the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission, and Conrad has experience from the budget arguments, and eventual deals, of 1997 and 2001.

Sen. Conrad is also a member of the bipartisan "Gang of Five", who have been meeting over the last few days. Before Thursday afternoon's get-together, Sen. Conrad flashed to reporters a draft final deal to take to both parties.

Add to this that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), who defected from the group when it was the "Gang of Six", announced that on Monday he will reveal his plan to cut $9 trillion from the debt over the next 10 years, following his recent proposal with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) to reform Medicare, it is not too naïve to believe that he is framing his negotiating position for talks next week.Conversely, it is unlikely that Conrad and Coburn, who worked together on the fiscal commission, are talking possible compromise publicly while privately intending to scupper the talks.

Bolstering that hopeful assessment is the recognition that Sen. McConnell's suggestion of a contingency plan is not sufficient to allay the fears of a downgrade in America's credit rating. On Thursday, S&P rating agency announced that there is a “substantial likelihood” it will downgrade the US rating within 3 months, if “ we conclude that future adjustments to the debt ceiling are likely to be the subject of political maneuvering to the extent that questions persist about Congress’s and the Administration’s willingness and ability to timely honor the U.S.’s scheduled debt obligations". That, in other words, makes the McConnell idea a non-starter. And, according to the Wall Street Journal, S&P will only confirm the United States AAA long-term rating if a deal is reached in the neighbourhood of $4 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years. Which happens to be around where Sen. Conrad is trying to secure a compromise deal.

So, with the usual disclaimer that it could all change tomorrow, there is hope that the adults in Washington can get beyond the "weasel" rhetoric and accusations of childishness to hammer out a deal that moderates on both sides can swallow as a necessary evil. And for their efforts so far, never mind the alliterative value of remembering it in years to come, it would be a deserving legacy for the retiring Democratic Senator to see his name go down in history as part of the Conrad-Coburn compromise.