Bill to end shutdown, raise debt ceiling was approved. But solution…

The bipartisan deal was achieved to avoid the default but it seem mote like a postponement of the problem. Or would you say it may lead to more comprehensive deal on many issues that were highlighted in the shutdown period? Read few comments.

Joshua ClintonProfessor of Political Science, Co-Director for the Center of the Study of Democratic Institutions, Vanderbilt University

The bipartisan plan doesn’t do anything to address the fundamental issues that are involved and it is nothing more than a temporary fix.  Calling for more negotiations to construct a longer-term solution is not likely to produce a “grand bargain” in my opinion as both sides are relatively dug in to their respective positions. While it is possible that it may produce a more comprehensive deal on many of the important issues that motivate this political debate, nothing in the recent past suggests that we should be optimistic about such an outcome.  In fact, as the midterm elections get closer I suspect each side will be  more willing to take their case to the voters in the hopes of picking up more seats rather than compromise with the other side.  Why compromise when you think you can use the issue at the ballot box?

Matthew Eshbaugh-SohaAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of North Texas

This deal appears to provide a timetable and a committee to work out the long-term budget issues.  That is a nice framework, but remember that we’ve been here before and that the sequester is a result of a committee created under similar circumstances to hash out a long-term budget deal.  They could not cut a deal, so the sequester cuts kicked in. This situation might, just might encourage lawmakers to move forward, but it is not entirely clear that Congress will not continue to move from crisis to crisis.  It may very well be that only another temporary agreement will be reached before the deadline because the parties cannot agree on a long-term solution.

The developments out of this showdown may help Congress reach a long-term deal: (1) Obamacare should be off of the table, meaning that time will not be wasted on a quixotic effort to get the president to agree to something he will not possibly agree upon; (2) because the Republicans have been dealt a stinging defeat, they may be a bit wary of pushing too far and may come to the table willing to negotiate on budget issues alone.  Both complicated the negotiations this time; if 1 is truly off of the table and if 2 encourages a straight deal on the budget, then a long-term deal…or at least a one-year budget…is more likely.

A lot can happen in a few months, of course.  Alas, the best predictor of future performance is past performance and that is not a very encouraging thought.

Bruce BuchananProfessor, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin

You are correct that the government shutdown and the debt ceiling issues will be up for new votes early next year. But the Democrats appear to believe that because the Republicans had to publicly acknowledge that their brinksmanship strategy failed, they will not try it again soon. And there is talk of a more comprehensive deal on many issues, the so-called “grand bargain,” to be approached in a spirit of compromise by both sides.

Is all this certain to play out just as described above? Of course not. The fundamental disagreements remain and will be hard to resolve. But the Republicans (who got nothing from this resolution other than an end to the dispute) seem unlikely to try the same extortion strategy again. I do expect there to be movement back toward the old “bargaining” model, where each side gets some of what it wants in return for concessions to the other.

John PitneyProfessor of Politics, Claremont McKenna College

It will be difficult for Congress to agree on solutions to long-term budget problems.

Issues such as Social Security and Medicare are extremely complicated, but policy options boil down to two simple categories:  cut benefits or raise taxes.  Democrats don’t want to cut benefits and Republicans don’t want to raise taxes.  Neither side wants to give ground to the other.

Republicans wanted to use the confrontation to draw attention to the problems of the president’s health care legislation.  Their approach backfired completely. During the period of the shutdown, the plan’s health care exchanges went into operation, and they worked very badly.  Many people had difficulty signing up for insurance or even getting information.  Without a shutdown crisis, the troubled rollout of the plan would have been the dominant news story, and Republicans could have spent all their time talking about these problems.  Instead, the dominant story was the shutdown, which put Republicans on the defensive.

Their strategy was, in a word, stupid.

David KarolAssociate Professor, American Politics, University of Maryland

In a sense it is a postponement of the problem and I don’t think the long-discussed “grand bargain” is imminent. On the other hand, I do not expect the Republicans to shut the government down or menace the debt limit again in a few months either. They feel this tactic was not a success, putting it mildly! And closer in time to the next general election (November 2014) they would be even more reluctant to try this. I think they will quietly make another small short-term deal during the winter. Perhaps it will cover the rest of this Congress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: