Debt-ceiling showdown: 4 reasons it's not a replay of 2011

In 2011, Congress and President Obama went to the brink of government default when congressional Republicans balked at raising the nation's debt ceiling. The spring of 2013 appears to have another debt ceiling fight in store. Here are the top four things that have changed.

2. Democrats have the momentum

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California (c.) is in no mood to give in to Republican demands on the debt ceiling.

In 2011, a newly minted Republican majority in the House set up the debt-ceiling fight as the first and best moment to flex its fiscally conservative might. With the president and House Democrats getting “shellacked” in midterm elections, as Obama put it, the wind was at the back of conservative lawmakers pining for spending cuts.

The debt-ceiling standoff of 2011 ended with more than $1 trillion in spending cuts in the way of caps on future government spending and an undefined $1.2 trillion in further spending reductions that Congress still hasn’t found (the sequester). But the solution to that crisis was what Republicans wanted – spending cuts.

In 2013, it’s Democrats who are on the upswing with a reelected president, a wider Democratic majority in the Senate, and a smaller Republican majority in the House.

More Americans identify as Democrats (47 percent) than Republicans (42 percent), according to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday, breaking an even deadlock in party identification in 2010 and 2011.

And in the most recent confrontation over the "fiscal cliff," not only did the solution come entirely in the form of more than $600 billion in higher taxes, a Democratic demand, but Democrats appear to have won the public-relations battle. A majority of Americans (52 percent) approved of the president’s handling of fiscal cliff negotiations, while only 31 percent approved of Speaker Boehner’s performance (versus 51 percent disapproving), according to a Washington Post poll.
 
Moreover, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California told reporters Friday that the fiscal cliff deal set the stage for how the sequester should be handled: It shouldn't be all cuts, but half new tax revenue. The comment points to Democrats' confidence heading into this debt-ceiling fight.

2 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.