Comprehensive is Bullshit

Any conservative that has ever argued with a liberal about immigration has been foiled by one word: “comprehensive.” Liberals use it as a convenient deflection; it only really makes sense to conservatives. After all, why do a half-assed job when the whole ass is required? The problem is that instead of fixing portions of the problem, we end up holding out for the whole shebang. After all, why on earth would building a border fence be contingent upon clarifying a path to citizenship for existing illegals?  If that logical framework makes sense to you, you’re either a liberal or have never been taught the meaning of “non sequitur.”

               

To astute readers, this is starting to sound familiar in the context of current events. Indeed, compromise on the debt limit is more and more implausible the larger the framework of the deal. Both Obama and Boehner are looking for something that they can call “comprehensive” because each has an eye towards his legacy. Yet the deal’s size pits dearly held programs against staunch conservative principles. That’s not a coincidence or a problem; conservatives and liberals have a substantive gulf in ideologies and disagree about boatloads. The actual problem is that by agreeing that a deal has to be broad in scope, conservatives have vastly underplayed their hand. Indeed, precisely the opposite is the most effective legislative structure of a debt deal. Here’s how it should go down:

Speaker Boehner should call the House to session tomorrow morning with no fewer than 100 legislative proposals. Each should mention a specific spending cut and a specific monetary increase to the debt ceiling. For example:

• Cut funding to the State Department by 5%; increase debt ceiling by $75B.
• Cut all funding to the United Nations; increase debt ceiling by $100B.
• Cut funding to the Department of Education by 15%; increase debt ceiling by $50B.
• Reform baseline budgeting procedures; increase debt ceiling by $1.5T.

(Please note, these numbers are completely arbitrary. I’m not a congressman and I don’t have research staffers. Also, the specifics also aren’t that important for an essay on legislative tactics.

Indeed, these collective cuts should increase the debt ceiling by vastly more than the President requested. The result is that Democrats in the Senate and the President will have the opportunity to select from a veritable buffet of spending cuts. Republicans will be given the cover of increasing the debt ceiling many, many times over. If the President rejects all of the bills, Republicans can argue that the government is shutting down because the President is recalcitrant in protecting exorbitant research grants for the NEA or subsidies to peanut farmers in Georgia.

Politically it’s a Bacon Explosion for Republicans: it gets conservatives exactly where they want while still allowing Senate Democrats the leeway to select the programs that they can do without. Certainly they won’t be happy about it, but I think just about everyone in Washington wants an escape rope from the debt ceiling debate. This is precisely when astute negotiators win the dispute.