Headline News That Isn't

[_honorentheos]

I'm sure most have heard that Congress and the White House have been negotiating to avoid the US defaulting on our credit obligations. Possibly even following developments over the last few weeks. This last week Steve Mnuchin delivered a list of proposed spending offsets to Nancy Pelosi for consideration which were rejected as a first offer in the horse trading over our futures. Here's a story on the current state of the negotiations as well as what's at stake from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... explained/

What surprises me is that I have yet to see this as a major headline story on any major outlet. The politics page of the Post is all about the Trump tweets still. CNN has it buried in byline columns and even Fox News seems to be shy about taking pot shots at the House Democrats as cover for Republicans in the negotiations. Granted, no one wants this to end in an impasse that forces the US to not make critical debt payments or have our rating lowered. But this is a high stakes negotiation with far more on the line than whether or not Trump gets a border wall

So, where are the headline stories?

[_MeDotOrg]

Part of the reason is that Trump's penchant to govern by crisis. There are no long-term solutions, there is only the transactional now.

One of the things that was promised with the big tax cut was that the explosion of business would offset the tax rate cut. Of course that was total b.s. The deficit is rising far faster than it was.

North Korea is talking about resuming missile testing. Iran is seizing British tankers in the Straits of Hormuz. And Trump has the entire country focused on 4 women of color being the big threat facing this country.

I don't disagree that the deficit is another looming crisis on the horizon. It just has a hard time breaking through the daily distractions that are created every day in the news cycle.

[_honorentheos]

Those are all great points, and certainly explain why our national focus can't linger on any one thing for very long. Especially if it's complicated and not black-and-white like, "Don't say racist stuff."

The thing is, the debt ceiling negotiations could turn into a potential catastrophe being set up this week. It's not on the horizon. It's happening now. The link I provided described it this way:

The worst-case scenario of the budget drama in Washington right now is pretty dire. Congress and the White House have about a week to avoid triggering a stock-market crash, spiking interest rates and a potential credit downgrade of the U.S. economy. All that could come from the government running out of money and not being able to pay things like Social Security checks and military benefits.

Here’s why: The Treasury Department says it will run out of funds to pay its bills by September, and Congress is in town for one more week before it goes on a break for the entire month of August and a little beyond. (The United States is always running at a deficit of cash these days, with a predicted debt that will equal the size of the economy by 2031.)

And one more piece of not-great news: All of this could be setting up a potential government shutdown this fall. House Democratic leaders say they’ll agree to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a broad outline with the White House on how much money to spend in next year’s budget. They’ll spend the fall filling in the details.

I think in this case the issue is there isn't a way to make one side or the other out to be the bad guy. Both sides recognize the need to play ball or risk a fiscal Armageddon. Both sides want things the other side isn't happy to just hand over, too. But there isn't an appetite in Washington to fail and then blame the other side.

This should be front page news, though. And it seems not only is it not, most people are unaware. I first heard about it on an NPR program a couple of weeks ago and had to go look for news stories on it. I completely missed any reporting back in March when we first had to start using extraordinary measures to meet obligations. I've been wondering when it would blow up as a story and thought last week would be it but guess not. Certainly this week, though? I mean, after that the next headlines could be, "US TO DEFAULT ON OBLIGATIONS! CREDIT RATING DOWNGRADED! STOCK MARKET SELL OFF WORST IN A DECADE!"

[_Res Ipsa]

When parties are negotiating a deal that they are both committed to making, there isn’t really any big news to report. Raising the debt ceiling is a big deal when one side or the other threatens to let the US default on its debt in exchange for major concessions from the other side. In this case, neither party is giving any indication that they are willing to let a default occur if they don’t get something they want. Pelosi and Mnuchin successfully negotiated the main terms of the deal, with no public posturing. What’s left are a couple of additional terms that both parties want: the White House wants some additional budget cuts and Pelosi wants some additional funds for a veterans program.

Somebody leaked one piece of these negotiations, which was reported in the press. Pelosi had offered some cuts. The White House sent an offer with larger cuts. Pelosi rejected that deal, but rattled no sabers and drew no lines in the sand. Neither party indicated that negotiations are at an impasse.

The deadline to get this done is Thursday. But the deadline exists only because of the August recess. If they had to, Congressional leaders could call Congress back in session during August if it were necessary.

Of course, one can never tell what Trump will do, but that’s hardly new. But I suspect the effect of threatening a default on the stock market had been made clear to him.

TL/DR It’s not surprising that “Parties hammering out details of debt ceiling deal” isn’t on the front page.

[_honorentheos]

The one other story I think matches or exceeds it for potential impact right now is the escalation of tensions with Iran.

A survey right now of CNN shows it didn't make the front page of the website. Tensions with Iran did make it but down screen from talk about the Mueller Report and if Trump should be impeached.

It doesn't make the front page of Fox News in any format. Iran makes it onto the bottom of the page.

Both have top-of-page stories about the Venezuela fighter jet getting close to a US Navy aircraft. Because...? ETA: That's rhetorical. It's because Venezuela is a conservative boogie man and CNN is a mirror of what Fox reports on. The question was more that it's silly that it gets top billing as a story.

MSNBC is almost entirely coverage of the Trump tweets and aftermath. Iran tensions get picked up about half way down. It does provide links on the front page to key moments of the first Democrat debate from a month ago. Just in case you missed it or wanted a refresher on the highlighted quips and quotes to share with a friend.

Interestingly, the libertarian outlet Reason.com has a story on it's top feed about Pelosi rejecting the spending cuts as part of the deal making. It's focus is on government overspending but points for including it as meaningful enough to be a leading story in some format.

NPR's front page is from a different news planet. Their national news and politics pages are primarily focused on the Apollo 11 anniversary, Trump tweets, and then a handful of other stories that aren't really on the other sites, too.

BBC? Looking outside the US it's interesting to see where they are focused. The http://www.bbc.com/news page has the Iran issue front and center. Makes sense given the UK tanker being seized is a major part of what's going on currently. Hong Kong protests being front page also makes sense. But the top-tiered US political story? "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex criticizes President Trump's leadership at an event in New York." Jesus.

Anyway, it's one thing to not dominate the headlines. It's another to be off the radar.

[_Res Ipsa]

A snapshot of web pages on a Sunday afternoon may not be the best indication of how the media are covering a story. The last major event in the tensions with Iran was the British tanker seizure Friday, which was well-covered by the news. The only major development since then was release of radio communications, which showed England tried and failed to stop the tanker seizure. Although that’s not really major news here, it is in England because there are accusations that the British government was negligent in failing to protect it’s tankers. Politicians are firing off statements, even over the weekend, so the papers have things to report.

The US-Iran tension story has been a continuing story that began when we reneged on the agreement. As new developments occur, like tanker seizures, drone shootings, and freighter attacks, the media has been reporting on them, with both news stories and analysis of the potential consequences. But I’d suggest it isn’t reasonable to expect Sunday afternoon headlines to say “US-Iran tensions could lead to war” when there haven’t been any significant developments in the last couple of days.

[_honorentheos]

The debt ceiling negotiations is a story with meaningful consequences for peoples lives. It's getting a story here, a story there but generally not to the point it is making front pages. It certainly isn't getting the coverage of the tweets or even the anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. The Apollo 11 landing I get because it's a special anniversary of a historical moment in our national identity. But seriously, it should be getting at least some front page coverage and updates on the major networks after Pelosi sent the list of cuts back to the White House with a big "nope" on it. Mnuchin delivering the list on Thursday had a couple of hits on the Google current events news feed on Friday but as far as stories go its not on people's radar let alone there being a general idea of what's going on, who's taking what positions, or the consequences of the negotiations breaking down.

Now, I suspect part of this is intentional and both sides may not want the public to pay too much attention to it so they can have room to actually negotiate. And it could be that a rise in public attention to the story would coincide with a rise in the chances of the negotiations falling apart as partisan pressure increases. Or it could just be it doesn't drive traffic like the hot button stories do and the news outlets need clicks, so...that the story doesn't command attention isn't necessarily saying something we should be comfortable with. But Trump could tweet something about it this afternoon and it will suddenly be on everyone's lips. One can only hope.

[_Res Ipsa]

I wouldn’t lose sleep over Pelosi’s rejection of the White House’s first offer on budget cuts. It’s very common in negotiations for parties to make first offers that they know the other side won’t accept. Those offers are intended only to give the negotiators a place to negotiate from. Pelosi’s rejection of that offer isn’t front page news because it isn’t evidence of even a hiccup in negotiations.

Given that Pelosi and Mnuchin have been negotiating privately, I suspect that making the offer and rejection public was somebody’s bright idea of a way to try and put some pressure on Pelosi. Nice try. The important thing about the rejection is that neither party made a big deal out of it. And there is no relevant party that is giving any hint whatsoever that they are willing to use the debt ceiling as a hostage. Trump’s comment on Friday was that things were looking good, giving no hint at all that he intended to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip.

As the government gets to work Monday, I’ll bet we’ll see stories on where the negotiations are. If there’s a problem, they’ll be prominent. If all is going well, maybe not.

[_moksha]

Part of the reason is that Trump's penchant to govern by crisis.

Remember those secret unrecorded meetings between Putin and Trump? I think Putin advised Trump to destroy the government of the United States if he had the chance.

[_MeDotOrg]

I'm a bit surprised, but here goes:

The White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reached a tentative two-year budget deal Monday that would raise spending limits by $320 billion and suspend the federal debt ceiling until after the 2020 presidential election.

The agreement, which still must be passed through Congress, probably would prevent a debt-ceiling crisis later this year but also would continue Washington’s borrowing binge for at least two years.

“I am pleased to announce that a deal has been struck with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — on a two-year Budget and Debt Ceiling, with no poison pills,” President Trump tweeted Monday. “This was a real compromise to give another big victory to our Great Military and Vets!”

The deal was met with fierce resistance from some prominent Republicans who said that it would add too much to the debt, a backlash that will force congressional leaders to work hard this week to ensure they have enough votes for passage. The agreement also could spark concerns from some House liberals because of concessions made to the Trump administration, as both parties try to stake out positions that resonate with voters ahead of the 2020 election.

The agreement marks a significant retreat for the White House, which insisted just a few months ago that it would force Congress to cut spending on a range of programs to enact fiscal discipline. Instead, the White House agreed to raise spending for most agencies, particularly at the Pentagon.

In exchange, White House officials received verbal assurances from Democrats that they would not seek to attach controversial policy changes on future spending bills, although it’s unclear how that commitment would be enforced.

Everybody's going to play kick-the-can, instead of shut-it-down-and-then-kick-the-can.