In addition to patent reform, the Senate took another step last night with little fanfare. They allowed for the increase in the debt limit by $500 billion, per the agreement in the debt limit deal. Under the deal, the debt limit increased right away by $400 and the President was able to request another $500 billion, but the Congress could use a resolution of disapproval to essentially disapprove of the increase. Then the President could veto that disapproval, and that could be sustained by just 1/3 of either chamber. It was a silly, Rube-Goldberg way to increase the debt limit. But Democrats actually stopped the resolution of disapproval yesterday:
The action came under an unusual legislative procedure spelled out under the August agreement to raise the U.S. debt ceiling and avoid a U.S. credit default. In a 52-45 vote, the Senate blocked an attempt by Republicans to slow down the process that will result in the $500 billion debt-ceiling increase [...]
There was a twist in this scenario Thursday evening, however. Democrats held firm, rejecting the resolution of disapproval, thereby speeding the process and increasing the borrowing limit immediately.
Only Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) broke from his party to vote with the Republicans in trying to move forward with the measure.
This didn’t have any fanfare attached to it, there was no campaign around it. The debt limit just got increased, and there wasn’t even a two-step of votes, but a one-step. This will be the case, too, when the next increase, of between $1.2 and $1.5 trillion depending on the outcome of the Catfood Commission II, comes into being. Maybe these votes on a resolution of disapproval will be valuable to Republicans come election season; I could see an ad saying “Claire McCaskill voted to increase the debt limit THREE TIMES!” or something. But that’s something Democrats would have to deal with regardless, so it’s not a big deal.
Furthermore, it appears that the FAA funding extension, which expires next week, will be extended without much of a fight as well.
House and Senate leaders appear set to extend Federal Aviation Administration funding for at least several months, without resolving disputes over aviation-union rules and other broader labor issues that previously blocked passage of a long-term agency spending bill.
Democrats and Republicans alike are seemingly eager to avoid a repeat of the partisan fight that temporarily sidelined scores of airport construction projects and furloughed some 4,000 FAA employees for nearly two weeks this summer. The lawmakers are focused on a stopgap reauthorization measure that could fund the agency for a period of several months or up to a year, according to industry and labor officials familiar with the issue.
Final details need to be worked out, these officials said, and unexpected last-minute disagreements still could prevent passage of the new legislation before the current stopgap funding expires at the end of next week. Without new spending authority, portions of FAA again would have to shut down.
Even if a spending cutoff is avoided, however, various lawmakers, airline officials and labor leaders have signaled they intend to resume a long-running battle over union-organizing rules once Congress takes up a multiyear FAA spending package.
Republicans in the House never even appointed members to a conference committee to work out differences between the two long-term authorization bills already passed in each chamber. So it’s going to be a short-term extension or nothing, and according to this, it will be a short-term extension, pushing out the final solution for up to nine months.
I think Republicans are showing themselves sensitive to criticism over hostage-taking, at least in the short term. It did damage to their party in the debt limit debate, and they’re wary of jumping into another fight of a similar ilk. The next hurdles to clear will be 2012 appropriations and surface transportation funding, both of which expire September 30. There apparently will be a continuing resolution on appropriations coming in a couple weeks, but it’s unclear what will be done on surface transportation, which is tied up in part with the American Jobs Act. There’s also the matter of disaster relief funding.
If we can get away with all of these being resolved without a mass shutdown of any kind, we will definitely be lucky. I wouldn’t have totally predicted that a month ago.



5 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Why did the Democrats do it this way? And no one gives a shit about the deficit. If McCaskill losses it will be because she has jello or a spine and Missouri residents are also fed up with not having jobs.
which won’t stop the DSCC from sending millions Nelson’s way in 2012.
Our budget is fucked (borrowing $4 for every $10 we spend)
Our borders are out of control.
Health care costs are soaring.
Higher education tuition goes up twice as fast as inflation.
Military spending is out of control.
Incomes & benefits are stagnant/declining.
Our infrastructure is crumbling.
Tens of millions have no jobs or part time jobs.
Tens of millions have McJobs with shit pay and zero benefits.
Tens of millions on food stamps.
Welcome to fuckedupistan. Our political class is a TOTAL FAILURE.
No hostage situations you say? Wow, sure a relief to hear that!
It should not go unremarked that the first $400 billion was burned though in less than five weeks. That does not mean they borrowed all that in five weeks but rather they had been playing accounting tricks to avoid the limit so is was just some bookkeeping entries. When the debt ceiling was raised congress was told the first $400 billion would last through September. That was the specific rhetoric that come out when the ‘deal’ was done. That was a lie, like everything else. I suspect that this change has even the hawks spooked. Still revenues have been lower than expected for months and are still dropping.
More than half the current week to week month to month deficit is now due to falling tax revenue. Roughly spending is 25% of GDP and revenue is less than 14%. The long term averages are around 20% and 17% respectively.
It is pretty funny Mitt proposed a spending limit of 20% of GDP, right around the post WWII average. Which as things now stand means a deficit of perhaps $700 billion. Now to be fair revenues would rise if there was ‘recovery’ but recovery isn’t going to happen. Well that’s my opinion.
Yes, we are in the shit house now, 10 years after 911 and the tv news readers ask “are we any safer now”? And every pol says we could have another attack at any time. So, are we safer? Do you feel safer? How can we be safer when we are told this nation is broke and will get poorer and poorer for years to come? How? If this is safty, can we afford it?
Did BL win? Why did the Pols let/make it happen?
Good article Dave. Thanks!