when the president simply said NO to the question of will we just be doing this again

That is all it is.

FEMA camps.

Essentially meaningless, it would allow them to pass a symbolic vote rejecting the debt limit increase, which Obama could then veto. Debt limit would still go up, but the GOP Senators could be on record as having voted against it.

Since it wouldn't fundamentally change anything, who cares.

Here's what I know about it...

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word

A good discussion on the next fight and how the wording of this Bill avoided actually raising the debt ceiling long term.

The Treasury Department will still be able to use "extraordinary measures" to work around the debt ceiling in the case that it is not raised by Feb. 7. This was a key White House priority.

If it's Breitbart it's probably bullshit!

Good find.

As originally described to me it sounded like it was a one-time thing just for this increase. However, after reading the text, I'm not sure that is right.

Basically, there is a new procedure for "suspending" the debt limit not only for this increase, but for future increases. Under this procedure, the President first must request that the debt limit be suspended through February 7, 2014. The suspension is effective upon receipt of a written certification by the President that the Secretary of Treasury will be unable to issue debt to meet commitments. Congress can then block the increase through by passing a joint resolution of disapproval of the debt limit suspension within 22 days of receiving the President’s certification. After February 8, 2014, the President can make a similar certification to suspend the debt limit but only for an amount that would cover previously issued obligations (or new obligations undertaken to cover previous commitments). Same procedure: debt limit is suspended unless there is a Congressional resolution of disapproval. As a practical matter, it would seem, the president couldn't keep issuing these certifications indefinitely because at some point in time, it wouldn't be enough to cover new obligations.

Why would McConnell want this if it is something that is infuriating conservatives?

I don't understand the implications for us and for them.

I appreciate your analysis.

or that my explanation will be 100 percent accurate.


If I had to translate it, based on what I was told, I'd do it as follows:

One of the issues with "raising the debt ceiling" is that it is misconstrued as authorizing new spending when, in fact, it simply allows the government to borrow to meet existing obligations. We were on the cusp of running out of available money to meet existing obligations yesterday. Normally, the solution has been to raise the debt limit from a specific dollar figure to a new, higher dollar figure. THis time, there was no specified dollar limit. Rather, the authority is to borrow between now and February 7 whatever amount is needed to pay off previously incurred obligations that come due between now and February 7. The idea is to draw into sharper focus the fact that the increased borrowing is not for new spending.

Starting on February 8, if additional borrowing is still needed to cover obligations incurred prior to October 16, the process has to repeat itself: the president certifies and congress can adopt a "legislative veto" disapproving of the additional borrowing and the president can veto it.

In short, I suspect the reason conservatives are freaked out about this is that they don't understand it and the sources they listen to are either willfully or out of ignorance describing it as being more sinister.

That's what I don't quite get.

Conservatives are saying it's a blank check for Obama.

I guess we'll see eventually.

Thank you.

They can't just filibuster, they have to pass a resolution.

There can no longer be a debt limit show down without enough congress people to overturn a veto.

Seems like a win for Obama. Interesting that McConell put that in.

I can assure you McConnell does not want to go through all that again, I'll bet he wrote that provision. It's a big win.

makes no sense for mcconnel

this gives them the ability to make protest votes with no consequences and forces Obama to veto the vote just to keep the government current on its bills. I can see where they might think the appearances would favor them on this.

Another thought is they only did the deal over the shutdown when the debt ceiling was about to be reached maybe they are planning future shutdowns over the budget but didnt want that debt ceiling crisis to get in the way?