One of the key pieces of the package President Obama put forward yesterday to deal with the so-called “fiscal cliff” is a permanent end to the debt ceiling. It would make increases in the ceiling effectively automatic, subject to a veto by two-thirds of Congress.

This proposal did not just prompt howls of protestations from conservatives — it also produced a remarkable failure amongst politicians and journalists alike to understand the basics of government financing and the Constitution’s separation of powers.

In the Washington Post yesterday, Lori Montgomery called the idea “an effective end to congressional control over the size of the national debt.” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) railed against it as “a blank check.” Timothy Carney, a journalist for The Washington Examiner, lamented the legislature ceding power to the executive, effectively “castrating” Congress.

But the worst example of the theme arrived this afternoon, when Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) about the White House’s debt ceiling proposal:

MEGYN KELLY: What do you make of [the President's] request to cut the Congress out of the process when it comes to raising the debt limit? He wants a blank check now to just raise it when he needs to. Your thoughts on that?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: Well it’s outrageous. It’s like saying we’ve maxed out our credit card, so I’m gonna get a new credit card with no limit so I can keep spending. There needs to be some accountability here. So far were spending 42 cents out of every dollar in Washington in borrowed money. And that’s money that our kids and grandkids are gonna have to pay back. It’s profoundly irresponsible. So that’s a crazy idea, and I’m amazed that Secretary Geithner had the, uh, courage to float that yesterday.

Watch it:

Congress has been vested with the power to tax and spend, under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress passes budgets, which decide how much revenue the government takes in and how much spending goes out. When the Treasury Department issues new debt, it’s merely carrying out the mechanical necessities of Congress’ decisions — because carrying out the law as passed by the legislative branch is the constitutionally mandated job of the executive branch.

But since the early 20th Century, Congress has also kept in place a separate law — the debt ceiling — that places a statutory limit on how much debt the Treasury may issue. That limit has been periodically raised. It is entirely separate from the decisions to tax and spend, which set the country’s debt obligations. As the Government Accountability Office put it: “The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.”

The President does not have discretionary control over how much the country borrows. Obama’s new proposal gives him no such control. It would merely make hikes in the ceiling automatic, in accordance with the debt necessitated by budgets Congress has already passed.

Rather than a blank check, Congress has been handing the President a check for a certain amount, ordering him to cash it, then threatening to punk him by draining the account before he can reach the bank. To paraphrase a previous point made by the Center for American Progress’ Seth Hanlon, Obama’s proposal simply makes sure Congress doesn’t force him to cash checks destined to bounce.

With Republicans balking at the prospect of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top 2 percent of Americans, Democrats are losing patience. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said Friday that the House GOP will not hold a vote on a middle-class tax bill that excludes the top income brackets, even though the Senate has already approved one.

In response, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced Friday that Democrats plan to bring the legislation to a floor vote next week no matter what. The Democrats plan to use a discharge petition, which can force a bill to the floor if it has been stuck in committee for 30 legislative days. In a new statement, Pelosi dared her Republican colleagues to reject the plan to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of the country:

The clock is ticking, the year is ending, it’s really important, with tax legislation, for it to happen now. We’re calling upon the Republican leadership in the House to bring this legislation to the floor next week. We believe that not doing that would be holding middle-income tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for the rich which do not create jobs, just increase the deficit, heaping mountains of debt onto future generations.

And so, to that end, we are – we will be introducing, if the bill, if there is no announcement of scheduling of the middle income tax cut, which, by the way, has tremendous support in the Republican Caucus – I think we would get a 100 percent vote on it if it came to the floor. If it is not scheduled, then on Tuesday we will be introducing a discharge petition which you know with – if we get 218 signatures, would bring the bill automatically to the floor. That would mean that we need some Republicans who support middle income tax cuts, to sign on with us.

Watch it:

In order to make a discharge petition work, Pelosi needs 20 Republicans to sign on to the measure. Several Republican legislators, notably Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), have called for Republicans to accept President Obama’s deal on middle-class tax cuts.

The New Jersey State Senate voted yesterday to increase the Garden State’s minimum wage to $8.50 per hour, a $1.50 raise that would be effective March 1st. Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) has threatened to veto the bill, due to a provision that would automatically increase the minimum wage according to inflation.

Several New Jersey Republicans tried to use the recent Hurricane Sandy — which decimated Jersey’s shoreline — as justification for opposing the increase:

The aftermath of Sandy, which changed so much about the state, was ever-present in Thursday’s two-hour debate on the Senate floor, giving another wrinkle to a debate that’s largely a moral and philosophical battle. It was still that on the Senate floor Thursday, with Republicans saying a minimum wage increase would hurt businesses and could force layoffs, and Democrats asserting that it’s wrong for New Jerseyans to be paid so little in a place where it’s expensive to live.

Republican Sen. Jennifer Beck, R-Red Bank, said she supports raising minimum wage but said the storm made this the wrong time to do it. She told of small shore business owners “still sweeping up glass” and wondering if their businesses would survive the winter. “Our Legislature’s first response following a hurricane that devastated thousands is not a helping hand but a greater burden,” she said.

Christie also used that line of reasoning:

The Republican governor said Wednesday that he was “willing to consider a responsible minimum-wage package.” But with many businesses struggling to rebuild after Hurricane Sandy, Christie said, he has concerns about the bill, which would increase the hourly rate to $8.50 from $7.25 by March 1.

“We’ve got thousands of businesses wiped out,” he said at a news conference Wednesday in Trenton. “Is this really now the moment to say to those folks, ‘We’re going to hit you with a $1.25 increase on March 1 and [cost-of-living increases] beyond that?’”

Study after study has shown that minimum wage hikes do not, in fact, hurt business and force layoffs (even during rough economic times). And New Jersey was a premier test case: “University of California, Berkeley, economist David Card and Princeton economist Alan Krueger’s seminal study of the effect of the New Jersey 1992 minimum wage increase comparing fast food industry employment in New Jersey and Pennsylvania found no negative employment effect. In fact, it found stronger employment growth in New Jersey.”

“Let’s not hide behind the storm,” said state Sen. Stephen Sweeney (D). “This bill was opposed by many prior to that.” Sen. Richard Codey (D) added, “Can you live on $8.50 an hour? How about these people during the storm, you think they could go to the few diners that were open? They can’t do that.”

A bridge in Paulsboro, New Jersey collapsed Friday morning, derailing a train carrying highly flammable and carcinogenic vinyl chloride into Mantua Creek. The most recent reports say at least 28 people are having trouble breathing from the spill’s vapors and residents are being evacuated. Local schools are in lockdown.

This is the second time in four years that this bridge has collapsed. In 2009, the bridge buckled and plunged several coal cars into the creek. The bridge has certainly weathered a lot of wear and tear since it was built in 1873. Residents were not surprised last time it collapsed:

Gary Stevenson, a former Paulsboro fire chief whose two-year-old house is a matter of yards from the buckled bridge, said he has become accustomed to a “boom, boom, boom” noise as trains cross the span. “The exact section where they are at,” Stevenson said, pointing to Conrail workers surveying the damage. “Boom, boom. The exact section.” Conrail crews, “are there twice a week” as of late, Stevenson said. The bridge with an iron A frame dates to 1873 two years older than his grandmother’s house on whose ground Stevenson built his residence. … [Mayor John] Burzichelli observed “things could have been a lot worse.” No rail cars overturned. Burzichelli noted the affected cars were carrying coal not hazardous liquids.

Even if the Mantua Creek bridge is successfully repaired after this latest disaster, there are thousands of similar “time bomb” bridges around the country ready to collapse at any moment. The average American bridge is now 43 years old — and a 2008 Department of Transportation survey determined that 72,868 are “structurally deficient,” while 89,024 are “functionally obsolete.”

Despite the urgency of this crisis, US spending on infrastructure is projected to fall short by $139 billion or more over the next decade. Meanwhile, Republicans have pushed for a devastating cut of $871 billion in infrastructure investment.

Paulsboro Mayor Burzichelli apparently reached out to Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) for expedited repairs to the Mantua Creek bridge in 2009. Lautenberg introduced a bill in 2011 to encourage private investment in infrastructure and bolster federal funding. The bill, unfortunately, went nowhere.

As Paulsboro struggles to clean up this most recent mess, it’s worth remembering that infrastructure investment is not only desperately needed, but would also provide a huge boost to the economy. A new study found that every dollar invested in infrastructure has a return for state economies of at least $2. The effects are even more pronounced during an economic downturn.

Congressional Republicans yesterday leaked the details of President Obama’s initial outline of a deal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff.” Obama’s proposed package includes $1.6 trillion in revenue, new measures to boost the economy, an extension of both the current payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, and $400 billion in entitlement cuts. Those cuts are on top of the $1 trillion in cuts that are being enacted as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling last year.

House Republicans immediately rejected Obama’s plan, and have spent the week complaining that Obama will not detail specific entitlement cuts (which neither Democrats nor the public particularly want). But when pressed for specific entitlement cuts desired by Republicans, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has demurred, telling reporters yesterday, “You can look at our budget, where we outlined very specific proposals, where we passed in last year’s budget and the budget from the year before.”

Other congressional Republicans have echoed that sentiment. On Friday, Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) told MSNBC’s Chris Cillizza to “look at what we did before the election” to get a sense of what entitlement cuts Republicans want:

MSNBC’S CHRIS CILLIZZA: Congresswoman, thank you for joining me. We had some reporting from Kelly O’Donnell, MSNBC’s congressional report, earlier that said don’t expect any public counterproposal from Republicans. Can I ask you why not?

BLACK: Well, I think, Chris, that you can just look at what we did before the election. We have a plan on the table, both for reforming our greatest debt driver which is Social Security, actually, the Medicare is what we put the plan out for. And we also have a plan out there to avert the fiscal cliff and sequestration. So our plans are already there. And we’re just waiting for the President to actually come out with a plan. Everything we’re hearing is so one-sided. It’s all about taxes and now he’s telling us he wants to even spend $1.6 trillion more than what he had in his budget plans before.

Watch it:

Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA) said the same thing during an interview on CNBC. The House Republican budget — authored by failed Vice Presidential nominee and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan — included voucherizing the Medicare program and gutting Medicaid. Previous iterations of the Ryan budget also privatized Social Security. Now, Republicans want Democrats to embrace those proposals, despite their unpopularity.

Cillizza not only failed to follow up with Black on why Republicans think Democrats should adopt policies that voters roundly rejected in November, he didn’t challenge Black’s false assertion that Social Security is a “driver” of the debt.

Yesterday evening, the Obama administration handed the Republicans its opening bid in the ongoing bargaining over the “fiscal cliff” — the combination of tax increases, expiring stimulus measures, and spending cuts set to begin in January. The headline number in the proposal is $1.6 trillion in new revenue, along with mortgage relief, new stimulus measures, an extension of unemployment insurance, and an extension of the payroll tax holiday.

But perhaps the most striking piece of the package is a permanent end to Washington’s cyclical stand-offs over the debt ceiling. Via Joe Weisenthal, The New York Times has a good summary of the proposal Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner reportedly handed to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH):

To ensure that there are no more crises like the debt ceiling impasse last year, Mr. Geithner proposed permanently ending Congressional purview over the federal borrowing limit, Republican aides said. He said that Congress could be allowed to pass a resolution blocking an increase in the debt limit, but that the president would be able to veto that resolution. Congress could block a higher borrowing limit only if two-thirds of lawmakers overrode the veto.

The ceiling is a statutory limit on the amount of debt Treasury may issue, and currently Congress must pass legislation to raise it. Historically, this has been a routine matter as the country’s debt load has increased. Majorities of both parties have dutifully passed it, while minorities of both parties have symbolically demagogued against it.

But with the GOP takeover of the House in 2010, it became an opportunity for potentially catastrophic brinksmanship. Actually breaching the debt ceiling could lead to a whole host of dire economic consequences. Estimates put the cost of last year’s stand-off — which merely approached the possibility of a breach — at $18.9 billion in increased interest payments over ten years, one million lost jobs, and hamstrung economic growth. Standard & Poors explicitly cited the debt ceiling impasse, and Republican intransigence over tax increases, in its reasons for downgrading the United States’ credit rating.

It’s important to note the White House’s proposition would not mean all bets are off when it comes to reining in the debt. While the New York Times correctly described the White House’s proposal as “a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits,” the Washington Post’s Lori Montgomery went with the utterly wrong-headed characterization of “an effective end to congressional control over the size of the national debt.” The distinction is crucial. Congress will retain all its constitutional authority over spending and taxation, which by definition decides the size of the debt. What Congress would lose is the ability to contradict itself by refusing to allow Treasury to borrow the money required by Congress’ own spending and taxing decisions.

When Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) calls the debt ceiling an “action-forcing” opportunity, what he means is its a chance for economic blackmail.

A prominent Republican senator told a local radio station on Friday that he would consider raising marginal tax rates as part of a balanced package of entitlement reforms, going further than most of his colleagues in signaling an openness to increasing taxes on income over $250,000.

During an appearance on KTRS The Big 550 , Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said he would consider allowing President Bush’s tax cuts to expire on higher-end income if Democrats support changes to entitlement programs like Medicare:

Q: Are you open to voting for some type of compromise that would increase marginal tax rates?

BLUNT: I think I’m unlikely to do that. I think if we had real long-term entitlement reform that would offset the negative economic impact of raising tax rates,that’s something to talk about and that’s the deal.

Listen:

President Obama offered $360 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings in his FY 2013 budget, including reforming the way government health care programs pay for services to ensure that they reward quality and efficiency and not just quantity of care.

A growing number of Republicans have signalled a willingness to accept increased revenue, but Blunt is one of the few to explicitly leave the door open to raising marginal rates. On Thursday, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) predicted that Republicans in the House would also support such a proposal.

This post will be updated to reflect the growing defections.

Every day, more Republicans in Congress are backing away from Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquit’s anti-tax pledge. For more than 20 years, the pledge, which stipulates that those who sign will never — under any circumstance — vote to raise taxes while in Congress, has virtually been a requirement for Congressional Republicans. According to ATR, just 16 of the 234 House Republicans and 6 of the 45 Senate Republicans that comprise the 113th Congress did not sign the pledge.

However, the pledge may not have the staying power it once did. As of this writing, more than two dozen House Republicans — including Majority Leader Eric Cantor — and 11 GOP senators have distanced themselves from the pledge to one degree or another. Here are just a few examples or what members had to say:

— Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH): “The only pledge that keeps me up at night is the pledge I owe to the people of New Hampshire and our country to work as hard as I can to make sure America doesn’t go bankrupt.”

– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge . . . I don’t worry about that because I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”

– Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “Well, I’m not obligated on the pledge. I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, that the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I’m sworn in this January.”

– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): “When I go to the constituents, it’s not about that pledge. It’s about trying to solve problems.”

– Rep. Peter King (R-NY): “A pledge is good at the time you sign it . . . In 1941, I would have voted to declare war on Japan. But each Congress is a new Congress. And I don’t think you can have a rule that you’re never going to raise taxes or that you’re never going to lower taxes. I don’t want to rule anything out.”

– Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-IL): “I would never in a million years have considered this as some kind of a locked-in-granite pledge. Frankly, I didn’t even remember it. That shows you how obscure it was to me.”

Other Senators that have signed the pledge and distanced themselves from Norquist include Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). House Republicans also jumping ship include: Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY), Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI), Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA), Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA), Rep. Jon Runyan (R-NJ), Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH), Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), Rep. John Kline (R-MN), Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN), Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE), Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY), Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL), Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE), Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH), Rep. Dan Webster (R-FL), Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL).

– Greg Noth