The Debt Limit

A WSJ op-ed argues that "The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic... Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play." According to the op-ed:

The polls that now find that voters oppose a debt-limit increase will turn on a dime when Americans start learning that they won't get Social Security checks. Republicans will then run like they're fleeing the Pamplona bulls, and chaotic retreats are the ugliest kind. By then they might end up having to vote for a debt-limit increase and a tax increase.

The Journal is correct only in that if the Republicans do not have the courage of their convictions, bluffing will end badly.

In a separate column, Rove argues that the Government has sufficient revenue for debt payments, Social Security benefits, Medicaid and Medicare, active duty military pay, Department of Defense vendors and IRS refunds. In other words, that the political consequences of not raising the limit are bearable. As not raising the debt limit will set a hard cap on Federal spending and give the President, in effect, a line item veto to enforce, why would fiscal conservatives support raising it? The President will be politically constrained in his spending choices -- imagine the blow-back if he continued to pay six figure salaries to political appointees while cutting social security.

While Republicans have no political -- or principled -- interest in a debt limit deal, they would be wise to offer proposals that framed "Spending as a percent of GDP" as the issue. Failing that, they may have difficulty countering the President's intended claim that he "offered" the largest deficit cuts.