Re-writes for the really big show
by digby
Yesterday I discussed what I see as the likely outcomes of the upcoming political fights over the budget and noted that Eric Cantor had said quite openly that they would have to raise the debt limit, but could use the situation to “leverage” Republican spending cuts. I pointed out that this means the Democrats will only be capitulating voluntarily if they do so, since the Republicans have already shown their hands. The debt ceiling is not a hostage. They do not want a re-run of 1995 and they will blink.
But that doesn’t mean they aren’t going to put on quite show. Here’s one scenario from Tim Pawlenty, via ThinkProgress:
WALLACE: Back in 2005, you allowed the government of Minnesota to shutdown for nine days because of a disagreement with a Democratic legislature about taxes and spending. Should congressional Republicans take the same tough stance when it comes to raising the debt limit and federal spending?
PAWLENTY: …I’m glad we had that showdown in Minnesota. As to the federal government, they should not raise the debt ceiling. I believe we should pass legislation, allow them to seek spending, as the revenue comes in to make sure they don’t default and have a debate about what other spending could be reduced.
WALLACE: You would say to Republicans up in the building behind me do not raise the debt limit?
PAWLENTY: That’s right. To avoid the default, I would take it one step further. Send the president a piece of legislation that authorizes the federal government to sequence the pain of the bill so we don’t default on the debt obligation and then have debate about how we reduce the other spending.
I don’t know what that means, exactly, but it doesn’t matter. I’m sure there are going to be all sorts of silly things like this thrown out there to gain “leverage.” And the Democrats don’t have to listen to any of them. Cantor already said that they must raise the debt ceiling. If the Dems go along with any of this nonsense, it’s because they like the “compromise.”
h/t to bb