by Richard Cowan and David Lawder
Congress narrowly averted a partial shutdown of the U.S.
domestic security agency late on Friday night, but the forces behind the
chaotic episode remain - fractious Republicans and House Speaker John
Boehner's lack of control over them.
That
may portend more serious trouble ahead as Washington confronts fiscal
challenges on a grander scale. In five to seven months, the federal debt
ceiling will again be reached, and by October Congress must pass
spending bills to keep the government running in the new fiscal year.
Failing to deal effectively with
these issues could have much more damaging repercussions - such as a
broad government shutdown or a debt default - than a partial shutdown of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
What
happens between now and then, including the handling of a one-week
extension of Homeland Security funding, will be crucial. Some
conservatives speak of ousting Boehner, but it is unlikely they can
muster enough votes, while others made clear on Friday that they were
willing to take big risks to score ideological points.
Brinkmanship like this, reminiscent of 2013's 16-day federal government
shutdown, was supposed to be over. Republican Senate Leader Mitch
McConnell said there would be no more shutdowns after his party won
control of the upper chamber and strengthened its grip on the House last
November.
Proclamations
about Republicans showing they could govern soothed financial markets,
which were rattled by the 2013 shutdown and badly shaken by 2011 budget
fights that nearly resulted in an historic government default on its
debt.
But Friday's confused late-night
scramble renewed old concerns about dysfunctional government. The House
rejected a three-week funding extension for the agency when
conservatives rebelled because the bill did not block Obama's executive
orders on immigration. On a second try late in the evening, House
Democrats provided the votes to pass a one-week extension.
The angry conservatives'
embarrassing rebuke to Boehner showed they are more fiercely determined
than ever to rein in federal spending, shrink the government and
challenge Democratic President Barack Obama on multiple fronts.
"It’s
very possible that come September, you could face this again," said
conservative Republican Representative Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, when
asked about debt and budget fights ahead.
For
small-government teabagger agitators looking to flex their muscles
after November's election victory, any attempt to borrow beyond the $18
trillion national debt will be a red flag. Congress also faces a Sept.
30 deadline for passing spending bills that are certain to add to the
$18 trillion debt.
Unlike the upcoming debt limit
and budget issues, the DHS battle was not about government spending, but
about Obama's recent executive actions to suspend the threat of
deportation for 4.7 million illegal immigrants.
Still,
Trent Lott, a former Senate Republican leader, said some congressional
Republicans will not be able to resist further confrontations,
especially over spending bills.
"I must say, there are going to be battles for the next two years
trying to rein in Obama’s excesses with executive power and
regulations," Lott said.
More
executive actions are expected from Obama in environmental and other
controversial areas. That could mean that clashes will intensify, with
many conservatives still seeing spending power as their strongest
leverage.
Some of them
say pressing the immigration fight is part of a non-negotiable duty for
Congress to defend the Constitution. They say Obama took steps to change
immigration policy that only Congress has the authority to carry out.
"This
is not about immigration. This is about whether or not the president
has the ability to unilaterally run this country, Representative Austin
Scott of Georgia said in House floor debate on Friday.
The
Obama administration counters that its unilateral action on
immigration, after years of watching House Republicans block
legislation, and has many presidential precedents.
Many
Republicans are concerned that such fights are an election liability
and undermine the party's ability to demonstrate it can govern
responsibly. However, similar concerns have been aired with each
successive battle.
Republican Senator Mark Kirk, who could face a tough re-election in 2016, told Reuters that his party needs to change.
Referring
to the DHS fight, the Illinois senator said: "I would say that this
battle should be the end of the strategy of attaching whatever you’re
upset at the president about to a vital piece of government."
No comments:
Post a Comment