In the longer run, this isn't up to Obama or Boehner

Maybe I'm misreading Bedlam's signals, but the sharp "end point" that Chait anticipates could very well be rather blunt. "House Republicans appear more determined than ever to collect their ransom" in a debt-ceiling hostage crisis, he speculates, which is evident enough from their rhetoric. But is the speaker not engineering another fiscal-cliff escape?

First Boehner announces that he'll negotiate with the president no more. Sounds tough, although it's mostly an acknowledgement that he hasn't the Republican votes for any sane legislation. Concomitantly he announces that the House will indeed pass a debt-limit increase--but only along with corresponding spending cuts, thus meeting the House's one-party insanity rule. Again, that may sound tough as it is crazy, but what's the practical outcome? Nothing.

These maneuvers would leave the speaker only one recourse: the eleventh-hour option taken during the fiscal-cliff ordeal. The Senate acts and then the full House "considers" the act, which would mean re-limiting the debt limit.

So it could be that "the two years Obama and Boehner have spent trying to deflect, delay, and placate the mania of the tea party" may not have "finally come to an end point" after all, as Chait expects they have. They may only conclude with an inconclusive thud, since as the NYT's "Taking Note" notes:

[E]ven if [Obama] gets through February with the usual last-minute deal that infuriates the hard right despite excessive spending cuts, they will be back with the same club, again and again, until someone with resolve puts a permanent end to it.

--a "permanent end" which might, however, not come for years. For in urging an "end" the Times means an executive flanking maneuver, such as the 14th Amendment route. But President Obama, pace the NYT, is right:  

Now if the American people feel strongly about these issues and they push hard and they reward or don’t reward members of Congress with their votes, if they reject sort of uncompromising positions ... and they reward folks who are trying to find common ground, then I think you’ll see behavior in Congress change.

In brief, American voters put the bombthrowers in Congress, and American voters can take them out--meanwhile, a president can do only so much to save the voters from themselves.

Comments

[Susan Zoon]

"a president can do only so much to save the voters from themselves."

BOOM! and that's the bottom line to all this crap isn't it?

[Robert Lipscomb]

I disagree with your political calculus. Political capital is gained through winning and is lost through losing. beginning with the lame duck session of 2010, Obama has won every conflict - in the court of public opinion and in reality.

Granted he has "won on points" rather than by knockout, but he has won. The Tea Party has lost. They console themselves with moral victories.

As we say down South about college football: A couple more moral victories and the coach will be looking for a job.

Obama does want to balance the budget. He needs to balance it slowly to avoid stalling the economic recovery. At some point, even the agreed to cuts will take shape as phased-in cuts over a few years. Balancing through a series of small but significant victories suits Obama just fine - probably Boeher too.

[Peter G]

When I read your work I am often struck by how closely your vision of the political landscape is consistent with my own and that of many posters here. And yet the conclusions as to what policies and what political maneuvers are necessary to deal with these realities are often complete opposites. I do believe the nature of the beasts, or as they are more popularly known the tea partiers, make the endless conflict scenario inevitable. If this is to change in the midterm elections of 2014 certain criteria will have to be met. The US economy will need to be growing and unemployment falling. The trend on deficit should be positive (that is growing smaller) and the projected cuts, as Krugman has noted , make that likely. So whatever economic damage is done in the short term by a credit default must be constrained and limited by political maneuver. And if possible the blame for intentionally setting the house on fire laid squarely at the door of the arsons. My conclusion, a deal will be made that is satisfactory to no one but largely favors the president's position. I wouldn't say he is holding a handful of aces but Boehner has a whole bunch of jokers and virtually no wiggle room. Analogy is always suspect but militarily, in a war of maneuver the side pinned to defensive positions is usually the loser.

[shsavage]

"a president can do only so much to save the voters from themselves."

Boehner seems to be counting on the President to save the GOP from itself. At http://www.politicususa.com/obama-debt-ceiling-trap.html, Jason Easley observed:

"Obama has Boehner and his House Republicans completely boxed in. House Republicans have very few options. They can either raise the debt ceiling, or not raise the debt ceiling. Spending cuts aren’t going to factor into this equation. If House Republicans choose to let the country default, the millionaire/billionaire money machine that funds the party will almost certainly cut them off. The funders of the GOP value their wealth more than their ideology. If House Republicans allow the country to default, it could mean the end for the Republican Party."

The irony is that the House GOP thinks they've got Obama completely boxed into an impeachment trap. Theoretically, he will have committed an impeachable offense unless he completely caves in, because the Congress will have given him two diametrically contradictory sets of instructions: 1) spend the money we've authorized in the budget; 2) you can't borrow any money to cover #1. If he doesn't do either of these things, then he's "guilty," and the House crazies will surely vote to impeach him. Of course, none of the math-and-science-challenged Neandertals in the House GOP caucus can count to 60. As Easley further notes in this article,

"Some House Republicans are bound to start pushing the suicide bomber option soon. The president admitted in his press conference that he has a constitutional duty to pay these bills. If the debt ceiling is not increased, and the country defaults, Obama will have committed an impeachable offense. Should Republicans decide that they are going to sink the ship, they might decide to try to take President Obama down with them. (The House would certainly vote to impeach Obama. The Senate would certainly vote to acquit Obama, and just like Bill Clinton before him, the president’s popularity would likely reach a record high.)"

So the real question is, "Who's in whose trap?"

[Robert Lipscomb]

@shsavage: The question is less, "Will Obama write the checks?" and more "Will the checks bounce?".