Biden's Biggest Mistake
Just for the record, that headline in no way refers to the current news frenzy over President Joe Biden's apparent retention of classified documents at an organization he controlled. It is indeed a subject worthy for another column, mostly to scoff at the false equivalency being offered up by the Republicans. There is an enormous difference between what Biden's team did and what Trump and his team were caught doing. In Biden's case, the documents were found and immediately they did the right thing -- they notified the National Archives and voluntarily turned all the documents over. Trump refused official requests for over a year, lied that he had turned over all the classified documents, got subpoenaed, lied some more about turning them all in and finally had a search warrant executed which turned up over 100 more classified documents. But there are plenty of people currently pointing all of this out, which is why this column is not about this at all. Biden's assumably accidental retention of a handful of classified documents may have been a political mistake (since already team Trump is saying "See? Everyone does it!"), but it is not the biggest one Biden has made to date.
The biggest political mistake Biden has made as president was to undercut -- twice -- the efforts by congressional Democrats to deal with the debt ceiling while they still had the chance. Later this year, this may come back to bite not just Biden but all of us. In what could be a catastrophic way.
The really odd thing about Biden's stance is that he wasn't adequately asked to explain it at the time. When some in Congress were proposing to just abolish the debt ceiling concept entirely -- which would have been far and away the most responsible thing to do -- Biden bizarrely called the effort to do so "irresponsible." No reporter that I am aware of ever asked Biden or the White House to explain this head-scratcher. How would preventing Republicans from holding the full faith and credit of the American government hostage have been ir-responsible, Joe? That simply makes no sense, but as I said, nobody seemed to have the same reaction I did, so no reporter pressed for further clarification.
This all happened way back in October, before the midterm election happened. Republicans were expecting to achieve majorities in both houses of Congress, and they weren't being shy about what they planned to do with them. Kevin McCarthy promised, should he become speaker of the House, to use the debt ceiling as leverage to force spending cuts (including to Social Security and Medicare) upon Biden and the Democrats. Republicans truly, deeply care about the national debt and the deficit... when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. When one of their own holds the White House, they don't care in the slightest about any of it (as they've proven time and time again). But when a Democrat is in charge, Republicans always try to make it the biggest political issue that exists.
Biden knows what the stakes were. In response to McCarthy's statement, here's what he had to say, back then:
If you're worried about the economy, you need to know this Republican leadership in Congress has made it clear they will crash the economy next year by threatening the full faith and credit of the United States -- for the first time in our history putting the United States in default -- unless we yield to their demand to cut Social Security and Medicare. Let me be really clear: I will not yield. I will not cut Social Security. I will not cut Medicare, no matter how hard they work at it. And folks, we know what the Republican Congress will do if they regain power. They're telling us straight-up about it.
Biden obviously understood the gravity of the situation and what was being threatened. Which was why his reaction to the Democrats in Congress who were pushing for abolishing the debt ceiling once and for all was all the more surprising (and confusing):
But [President Joe Biden] also ruled out taking one of the more extreme measures to avoid such a fight, saying he opposes eliminating the debt limit altogether as a means of averting future confrontations. Such a move, he said, would be "irresponsible."
As I said, there was no follow-up question, so we have no way of knowing what he meant by this extraordinary statement. But by saying this, Biden completely tanked the effort to get rid of the debt ceiling forever. He undercut the Democrats who were arguing for such a move.
Then in December, when the final piece of legislation from the Democratic House and Senate was being put together -- a large bill which funded the federal government all year long, to avoid having the incoming Republican House get their destructive mitts on it -- the White House did not insist that a debt ceiling hike be included. They could have. They could have pressured the responsible Republicans they were working with to do the right thing and remove this hostage-taking ability from the House Republicans as well. They could have raised the debt ceiling to such a level that no further raise would have been necessary for the remainder of Biden's term. This would have made all kinds of sense, but again, Biden failed to do so.
This was a mistake of epic proportions, as we're all going to see later this year. Because that hostage is indeed going to be taken. Republicans are going to try to use the debt ceiling as leverage, and they don't care what happens as a result. If the economy collapses, they'll try to blame Biden for the disaster. If they are successful (which is highly doubtful), they'll be able to cut Social Security and Medicare and then they'll somehow try to blame all of that on Biden too. They see it as a win-win game to play. They've already changed the House rules to make it easier for all this to happen.
Biden also seems confident that he's going to win this political standoff. After all, he was part of the administration of Barack Obama and has already seen such negotiations happen with a Republican House. Back then, Republicans eventually were forced to back down and do the right thing. This time around, that may not happen. Biden seems way too overconfident about the outcome, to put it mildly.
When this has happened before -- when Republicans have brought things to the brink -- they have always been shamed into backing down by two applications of pressure. The first is public opinion, as the people see the GOP position as being insanely reckless and idiotic and fiscally suicidal. Which is a fair read of the situation. The second, even bigger, pressure point comes from Wall Street and corporate America, who take Republicans aside to explain in no uncertain terms how catastrophic it would be for the full faith and credit of America to be cut off at the knees. The stock markets often fall dramatically while the debate is happening, as a signal to the politicians. Both of these combined pressures have always forced the Republicans to back down in the end. But the new crop of MAGA Republicans is crazier than ever, which means they might not be susceptible to such persuasions.
The outcome is already clear -- or at least "the outcome which should happen." The Democrats in the Senate will pass a "clean" hike of the debt ceiling, as the White House demands, and send it over to the House. Kevin McCarthy won't be able to bring it to the floor, because if he does so he will risk being deposed from the speaker's chair. But there's an end-run in the House which could save the day. If enough responsible Republicans join with the Democrats, they can force a "discharge petition" and vote to bring the bill to the floor anyway, even without the speaker's approval. Then the bill can pass with the same reasonable Republicans voting with the Democrats not to blow up the world's economy in a tantrum. This will exacerbate the ongoing civil war within the Republican Party, but there are indeed quite a few GOP House members who hail from districts that either Joe Biden won or that Joe Biden only narrowly lost. These Republicans will be worried about their own chances of re-election, so it is actually their own sense of self-preservation which might save the day.
This battle is just beginning. We are about to enter a period where we officially have exceeded the debt ceiling, but where it is possible for the Treasury to "borrow from Peter to pay Paul" -- use accounting tricks to keep the federal money flowing. These "extraordinary measures" will get us into the summer. That's when the real battle will happen -- when we are approaching the point where there just aren't any more smoke-and-mirrors accounting tricks to make it work anymore.
But it will be a subject for political posturing and speculation until we hit that crisis point. For half a year, we'll all be discussing the prospects and angles and political ramifications. Which we just didn't have to do. Joe Biden could have solved this problem pre-emptively. He didn't. Not only did he fail to do so, he actually pulled the rug out from under the Democrats who had the best solution to the problem of them all -- abolishing the ridiculous and redundant debt ceiling concept once and for all, which would have forever ended this political hostage-taking by the Republicans.
This could all lead to Republicans actually driving us over the "fiscal cliff" (as it used to be called). It could result in the United States actually defaulting on its debt. Which would be an earthquake in the international financial marketplace which could wind up affecting nearly everyone on the planet.
Which is why I begin where I started. What was "irresponsible" was Biden refusing to push for the debt ceiling fight to have been resolved before the end of last year, when Democrats still controlled the House. What was "irresponsible" was to hand-deliver the hostage into Kevin McCarthy's arms. What was "irresponsible" was to continue this dangerous legal fiction for any amount of time whatsoever, instead of driving a stake through its heart once and for all.
Joe Biden failing to deal with all this -- and being incredibly counterproductive, in fact -- has been his biggest political mistake as president.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It is indeed a subject worthy for another column, mostly to scoff at the false equivalency being offered up by the Republicans.
Really? I wouldn't go there. Who knows how bad it gets? There's already an "additional batch".
The biggest political mistake Biden has made as president was to undercut -- twice -- the efforts by congressional Democrats to deal with the debt ceiling while they still had the chance. Later this year, this may come back to bite not just Biden but all of us. In what could be a catastrophic way.
I would agree that this is the biggest domestic political mistake Biden made to date.
And, I'd add that his biggest international political mistake to date with decidedly domestic political consequences was pushing for Ukrainian membership in NATO AND taking that potential (though never gonna happen) NATO membership off of the negotiating table before Russia decided to start an all-out war in Ukraine. In what is quite obviously a catastrophic way - for Ukraine, for the rest of the world and for Biden's, ah, vision for a new US-led world order.
Too bad that one of my favourite US national security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski (RIP) is no longer with us to advise Biden as he might have persuaded my still favourite US president to act more responsibly.
But [President Joe Biden] also ruled out taking one of the more extreme measures to avoid such a fight, saying he opposes eliminating the debt limit altogether as a means of averting future confrontations. Such a move, he said, would be "irresponsible."
Well, I have learned - the hard way - to never dismiss out of hand a decision that Biden makes about things like this because he usually turns out to be the guy who knows best.
Though, I would also have loved to hear him wax lyrical about why he thinks eliminating the debt limit would be irresponsible - I'm surprised that he didn't explain it, ad Bidenitum! :-)
Agree w EM that it's likely him and his people have some things in mind and they're not being pie-in-the-sky.
Don't count on a discharge petition. The Speaker has all kinds of ways of making that one wait a while. We learned the gory details when Boehner had an immigration bill from the Senate.
If nothing else is "successful," there's no way the donor class (and above) lets that happen. They lose way too much money. I'm guessing that as a card to hold back, Biden knows he's got that one.
For a host of reasons, from historical to modern day, I completely agree that the Debt Ceiling concept is dumb and bad.
They should have gotten rid of it if they could (Manchin was a NO, I think); they should have taken it off the table if they couldn't make it go away.
And, I'd add that his biggest international political mistake to date with decidedly domestic political consequences was pushing for Ukrainian membership in NATO AND taking that potential (though never gonna happen) NATO membership off of the negotiating table before Russia decided to start an all-out war in Ukraine. In what is quite obviously a catastrophic way - for Ukraine, for the rest of the world and for Biden's, ah, vision for a new US-led world order.
NATO membership was NOT the cause of the invasion it’s Putin’s excuse for naked aggression against a sovereign state. It was geopolitics and demography that motivates Putin — and quite possibly any successor as well(!) and was almost inevitable.
Think this through with me, starting with the it’s not NATO part:
Putin already borders the NATO Baltic countries. If NATO on his border is the real motivation the Baltics is where he’d invade.
Due to corruption (and no territorial integrity since 2014, another NATO requirement!) Ukraine was many years away from joining. New members must be approved by all 30 NATO members. When I see how uncooperative Turkey and Hungary have been about admitting relatively non corrupt Sweden and Finland I think I will not live long enough to see Ukraine a full member.
Thanks to this invasion Sweden and Finland joining adds 800 miles of NATO on Russia’s border. So if you’re right shouldn’t Putin pull out of Ukraine because he’s already lost the war?
All of this assumes that the war didn’t start in early-2014 in Crimea and Donbas. Under Obama not Joe, I might add. We’ve had boots on the ground since then and it really shows in Ukraine’s performance.
Second, the effect of Russia’s geopolitical situation. Russia is long and flat and with tundra in the north and desert in the south cannot support a large enough population to garrison it’s borders. It’s been invaded 50 times and going back to Catherine the Great Russia has persistently invaded its neighbors to establish strategic depth around itself (see: Warsaw pact, simply the latest iteration of this historical strategy.) This strategic depth is why both Napoleon and Hitler couldn’t quite conquer Russia before the winters came, so it works!
Third, the demographics of Russia left Putin with a “it’s now or never” choice. Russians stopped having kids post 1991, and it’s population is aging faster than anyone’s besides China’s. Thirty years later, this is literally the last time that there will be enough fighting age Russian men to wage war. Russia will not survive the next twenty years (and neither with China.)
I’ve the time to research the hell of of this and here’s my favorite theory of the REAL reason for this war: Crimea.
Crimea is linked to Ukraine and depends on a two water canals flowing south from the Dnieper to grow food to feed its 2 million people. Obviously, Ukraine shut off the water back in 2014, so there’s that survival of Crimea thing right off the top. Moreover, pre-2022 the only connection from Russia to Crimea was the $3.6B Kerch bridge. Upon which unknown parties detonated a truck bomb in October. It’s damaged but still serviceable.
Crimea is super important because it has Sevastopol and unlike St. Petersburg it never freezes in winter. So Putin invaded to secure a land bridge from Russia through Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Oddly enough, he annexed them.
So I hope you understand that Joe didn’t screw up in the slightest, Putin did. Ukraine would fight back with spears and rocks before they’d be conquered and all the West has to do is foot the bill! We would be fucking idiots not to see this through to Ukrainian victory and this is certainly securing the rules based international order — dissuading China from invading Taiwan, for example.
So by all means bag on Joe over this debt limit thing. When Dems don’t do no-brainer things it makes me suspect they’re deliberately fucking up because both parties are two heads of the same snake. Ralph Nader said so.
Dream on, Caddy!
Thanks to this invasion Sweden and Finland joining adds 800 miles of NATO on Russia’s border. So if you’re right shouldn’t Putin pull out of Ukraine because he’s already lost the war?
That's what's called completely missing the point, taking your eye off the ball, conflating one idea with another unrelated one, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. Ahem.
Elizabeth Dream on, Caddy is not a real response and pisses me off!
It disrespects my good faith effort to summarize and present scores if not hundreds of hours of research on the matter — research I enjoyed, granted, but I put a lot of effort into bapping out the above on my phone.
Elizabeth Miller either do me the courtesy of telling me where and why I’m wrong or else STFU about something you know little of. Putin Apologist is not a good look, Honey.*smh*
Sorry.
And, we're done!
Except for this small note of explanation ... you know, in the name of all of your extensive researching efforts. :)
Sweden and Finland joining NATO is not in the same universe of ideas as Ukraine being a member of NATO, not by any stretch of imagination.
One more thing ... just quite recently got my first smart phone and I will never, ever use it to tap out comments on a blog, here or anywhere else! Why do you do that!?
Caddy,
If Putin invaded Ukraine to keep NATO off it’s borders, please explain “not in the universe of ideas.” What’s the difference between NATO in Ukraine versus in the Baltics and now in Finland and Sweden??
I think I can answer that in the fewest number of words by asking you if you see any difference at all in the Russian historical and modern day sphere of influence with respect to Ukraine versus Finland and Sweden.
And, why, do you suppose that for the last many decades there has been a push for Ukraine membership in NATO- and not so much for Finland and Sweden - by Biden and neoconservatives in the US national security arena?
You've done your research which should point up precisely why I wrote "not in the same universe of ideas".