Democrats Torn Over Strategy For Government Shutdown Fight

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

WASHINGTON -- As Democrats wait to see whether and how House Republicans will target the president's health care law during ongoing budget negotiations, a fissure has developed within their own ranks over how hard to push back.

At issue is the level of spending that would be unacceptable for a resolution to keep the government funded into the next fiscal year. Progressives are eager to draw firm lines in the sand in favor of higher caps. But Democratic officials on the Hill say the current debate is less important than those that lie ahead, pointing to the bigger battles coming in a few months time.

The disagreement is complicated by ambiguity about what House Republicans will do -– GOP leadership has already had to pull a bill because conservative members didn't think it sufficiently threatened the Affordable Care Act. But regardless, it underscores how Democrats are themselves uncertain over how best to approach the politics of deficit reduction.

Understanding the dispute requires a bit of background. The Budget Control Act of 2011 established caps on how much the government could spend during a given fiscal year. In fiscal year 2013, that number was $1.043 trillion. In fiscal year 2014, which begins in October, that number will be $1.058 trillion.

But sequestration effectively reduces those spending caps. In FY 2013, it lowered the $1.043 trillion spending cap to $988 billion. For FY 2014, it is set to decrease the $1.058 trillion spending cap to $967 billion.

Since sequestration is unlikely to be replaced anytime soon, spending in the coming fiscal year will likely be capped at $967 billion. But if sequestration is canceled down the road, the baselines will become important once again.

House Republicans want to lower the baseline for the next fiscal year to $988 billion -- in other words, the spending cap in FY 2013 under sequestration -- rather than the $1.058 trillion agreed to under the Budget Control Act.

Democrats are divided as to whether or not this would be acceptable, and conversations with sources on the Hill reveal two competing concerns. The first is that by acquiescing to this demand, Democrats believe they would be setting a terrible standard for budget fights to come and strengthening the hand of GOP leadership.

"Our argument is that it should not be ok to accept this spending level, not even in the short run," said Michael Linden, Managing Director for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress, a think tank with strong ties to the Obama administration.

"It seems to me it would be a real mistake for Democrats to help Republicans pass something that basically endorses the sequester ... the continuing resolution should be agnostic on the sequester," Linden said. "Let's fund the government at the exact same levels as in 2013. At least in that case you have not skewed the ground toward the sequester. And I think that is what Democrats should be wary of."

On the other side of that argument are Democrats concerned about mucking up the politics of the budget battles. Any continuing resolution that gets passed in September, they argue, will only last for a few months, after which the two sides will try to hammer out a longer-lasting agreement to fund the government. They believe the party can, and should, make its big demands then rather than now, when doing so could make them susceptible to charges that they were willing to risk a government shutdown for more spending increases.

"If they send us $988 billion for two to three months, we would probably go along with that if it is clean. But then we would reserve the fight over funding levels [for] when that expired," said a top Democratic congressional aide, who requested anonymity to discuss party leaders' thinking. "If we accept $988 billion in the short term, we are not marking ourselves there for the year long."

"It is tempting [to push for more money now] because they are weak," the aide added. "But they aren't going to get any stronger."

Where the White House comes down on this matter is a bit unclear. The administration has insisted that it will not sign a government funding bill that delays or defunds the president's health care law. But on the more technical question of how much money should be spent, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has only said that the president "would consider a clean CR that prevents a shutdown."

The most likely outcome, it appears, is that Democrats will push hard against a $988 billion spending level while conceding privately that they can live with it, at least temporarily. Even Linden said he would not advocate that Democrats shut down the government if they don't get their preferred budget baseline.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, introduced an alternate continuing resolution on Thursday that would set FY 2014 spending levels at $1.058 trillion while replacing the sequester for one year. But in an interview with The Huffington Post, he acknowledged that his proposal faced an uphill climb -- GOP leadership has already prevented seven votes on Democratic proposals to replace sequestration. So he's already eying the next big fight: over the need to raise the debt ceiling in late October.

"A government shutdown is bad enough, but defaulting on our country's obligation would wreak havoc on our economy," Van Hollen said. "You go from playing with fire to playing with the economic equivalent of a nuclear weapon."

Also on HuffPost:

Subscribe window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode:'autosized-1r-organic',container:'taboola-autosized-1r-organic'});_taboola.push({mode:'autosized-1r-sc',container:'taboola-autosized-1r-sc'});window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({flush:true});

The Democrats of New Jersey budget much like Chris Christie

TRENTON, there was a time in the not-too-distant past when get an economic status through the New Jersey legislature and signed by the Governor had all the drama of the operas of Wagner ring cycle.

And seemed to take the time.

Certainty was banished from the stage. Small crowds of legislators and staff rushed from the floors of the Senate and the Assembly to the Governor's Office and then to their own shelters, proposals and counterproposals.

Deals were cut late into the night and often the budget was not approved until the early morning hours, when the legislators and the handful of journalists who managed to stay awake stumbled home.

No longer as well.

After weeks of quiet negotiations with the Office of the Governor, Democrats in the legislature Thursday on a budget of $32.9 billion that largely the proposal Governor Christie, a Republican, unveiled at the end of February. It is a spare budget that grows a little more than 2 percent and adheres to conservative principles, at least in terms of State spending is concerned.

It hopes that both houses of the legislature to approve the budget on Monday, a week before the deadline on June 30 of the Constitution of the State for the step.

Much of the increase is explained by a spectacular jump in federal Medicaid funding to pay for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, program of President Obama to expand health coverage to people who do not have health insurance.

Christie has been a vocal opponent of the health law, but they agreed to expand the enrollment of Medicaid in New Jersey, one of its main features, because it will be the global share of the State's Medicaid costs.

Why the bonhomie?

Part of it is sturdy popularity of Christie. A poll from the Quinnipiac University published on June 10, Christie gave one about 70 percent favorability rating in his race against State Senator Barbara Buono (d, Middlesex). Christie also has a close relationship with the President of the Senate Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester), who share conservative tendencies of Christie on some issues. But no doubt much of this year is simply this: the legislature is up for re-election, and of course few lawmakers enjoy the idea of explaining to voters why they picked a fight with a popular Governor.

"I think that most democratic legislators recognize that with its own elections to rise, there is little to gain in having a bout of precipitation, drainage for the money with one of the most popular in the country Governors," said Brigid Harrison, Professor of political science at Montclair State University.

Christie has also been smart to cultivate relations with democratic politicians, so much so that some have supported his re-election.

"This is very unique," said Joseph Marbach, Professor of political science at the University of La Salle, of the relaxation of the budget.

Close working relationship of Christie with Sweeney and the idea that they share the conservative budget trends, has been fundamental, Marbach said.

Sweeney and the Governor "have seen eye to eye on much," Marbach said.

It is not to say that there was an absence of dissenting voices on Thursday when the Senate and Assembly budget committees voted to release the budget. Senator Loretta Weinberg (d, Bergen) voted against the Bill, saying that unfair health program of an important woman and not took steps to reduce the burden of taxes on the property of homeowners.

A member of the Committee, Senator Nellie Pou (d, Passaic), wondered aloud how it was that the State could not finance social programmes, but had the money to pay for a special election to replace the late Senator Frank R. Lautenberg.

Christie had scheduled the special election for October 16, at a cost of up to $24 million, less than three weeks before general elections scheduled for November 5. Democrats have argued that three elections in a matter of months was a waste of taxpayer money.

But those voices so far have failed to gain much attention.

The great controversy at the beginning of this year was about the income projections of Christie, legislators Democrats and the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services said were exaggerated by some $700 million.

By the time the budget was implemented on Thursday, projections of the Governor remained and democratic objections were silenced. Private Democratic aides acknowledged that although the gap between revenues reached $1 billion, about 2 percent of total spending, it could be accomplished.

The only Rejoinder of budget of the Senate and Chairman of the Committee of appropriations Paul Sarlo (d, Bergen) was the Administration to certify income. If money is short, you will have to find a way to make up the difference.

Please contact Chris Mondics

215-854-5957 or cmondics@phillynews.com. ___

Also in HuffPost:

Obama On Democrats' 2014 House Hopes: 'We've Got A Great Chance'

By Roberta Rampton

CHICAGO, May 29 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, whose agenda has been frustrated by Republicans in Washington, said on Wednesday he believed his party could reclaim control of the House of Representatives in the 2014 midterm elections but conceded it was an uphill struggle.

The party in power in the White House typically loses seats in the first midterm election after a presidential campaign, and many political analysts believe Democrats could lose seats in Congress in 2014.

But Obama, appearing at fundraisers for Democratic House candidates in his hometown of Chicago, said he believed 2014 could prove different.

"We've got a great chance to take back the House," he told more than 100 people gathered at a cocktail reception in an ornate ballroom at the Chicago Hilton, where ticket prices ranged from $1,000 per person to $5,000 per couple.

Obama, who was reelected in 2012, told donors that he is willing to work with Republicans on issues like creating jobs through national infrastructure programs, but said he has a hard time finding Republican lawmakers willing to compromise.

"We've got a politics that is stuck right now. And the reason it's stuck is because people spend more time thinking about the next election than they do thinking about the next generation," Obama said.

Obama said he is willing to work with Republicans, who currently control the House, but accused them of "obstructionism" and "an interest only in scoring political points or placating a base."

It was the fifth time since April that Obama has traveled to raise money for Democrats running for Congress in 2014.

In Chicago, about 70 people paid $10,000 per person or $32,400 per couple to attend dinner in the sculpture-filled apartment of Bettylu and Paul Saltzman, longtime Chicago Democratic activists and some of Obama's earliest political benefactors.

Obama told the group, which he described as "kind of an Obama cabal," that a Democratic-controlled House is key to achieving goals he views as his legacy, like curbing climate change and gun violence.

"My only interest is making sure that when I look back 20 years from now, I say, 'I accomplished everything that I could while I had this incredible privilege to advance the interests of the broadest number of Americans,'" he said.

But he admitted winning back the House won't be easy.

"This will be hard," he said, blaming "gerrymandering" or the redistricting process which many Democratic groups have said unfairly benefits Republicans.

First Lady Michelle Obama also spoke at two Democratic fundraisers on Wednesday in Manhattan.

"We need all of you to get engaged in every special election and every midterm election all across this country," she told donors who paid between $5,000 and $25,000 to attend a fundraiser in the Manhattan apartment of fashion designer Tory Burch.

"We need you to keep on writing those checks and, if you haven't maxed out, max out. Get your friends to max out," she said, referring to caps on donations set by U.S. election law.

At a Park Avenue gala with about 350 people who paid $1,250 to $32,400 to attend, the first lady was introduced by basketball player Jason Collins, who recently came out as the nation's first openly gay major professional sports player. (Additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington; Editing by Paul Simao)

Also on HuffPost:

Get Alerts