Jason Bourne wrote:
Last I checked the economy is in the tank.
Well, we've been in a year long technical recovery, so, uh, meh. Both sides tend to drastically overestimate the influence the federal government has over economic trends for political reasons. The technical recovery we are in happened roughly when most economists predicted it would happen. The anemic growth also was predictable. This was in 2008 prior to knowing what the exact content of policy in response would be. But major changes in how resources are allocated or drastic shifts in policy can fiddle with the economy at the margins. And marginal changes are all that is needed to shift tepid growth into a second recessionary spiral.
So how will and are the republicans tanking it? And please don't use the debt ceiling issue.
There has been a long-floating idea out here that the Republicans will pursue issues that will weaken the economy in the short-term in order to damage Obama's reelection prospects and/or create a more favorable environment to pushing a more radical agenda. Pushing for drastic cuts that will take government money out of the economy or policy that will destabilize markets is usually listed as the chief culprit. As to the latter, Boehner himself suggested as much when he said, "Well, first they [Republican holdouts] want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that — I don’t think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House."
Yeah, that's basically admitting that people in his party want to use economic collapse as political leverage.
Earlier I wrote this, "I think there's about a 1/3rd of Republicans in Congress who are ideologically opposed to raising the debt ceiling without a massive restructure of how the government balances its books. And I think those people would've felt the same during the Bush years. Bush's reign of profligate spending pissed off some Republicans too, after all. Another group are primarily interested in carrying this to the bitter end to maximize their returns and look like they have a spine to their voting constituency. I think the rest would prefer the country burn right now because that almost certainly means an Obama loss in 2012 as most [persuadable] voters are misinformed morons who vote based on their sense of present conditions."
I still think that's true. People can have multifaceted motivations for advocating things, but I think it's maybe 10% or so of the party leadership who are primarily animated by that concern and for others still it's more of a side-benefit or consolation prize.
There are plenty of fanatical hold outs on both sides of this debacle.
I think that misunderstands the issue significantly. The debt ceiling increases of the past, of which there have been tons, are usually a rubber stamp. That there had to be any compromise whatsoever was initiated by Republican demands. The Democrat holdouts against any compromise are a consequence of the position they are in. That's driven by the Obama administration's missteps and apparent inability to exploit public opinion, but it is what it is. This is like Suzy asking for all of a cupcake, Jane saying it should be split in two, and Suzy complaining that Jane won't compromise by giving her 3/4ths of it.