Charlie Rangel (Photo: Getty)

Congressman Charlie Rangel sat down with a small group of reporters yesterday for a wide-ranging discussion at his office. One of the main topics was the brewing battle over the debt ceiling and Politicker asked the congressman for his take on the idea President Barack Obama can avoid a fight with congressional Republicans who won't raise the debt cap by having the Treasury Department mint a $1 trillion coin.

"I'm working on the design, one for the president and one for me," Mr. Rangel said with a smile.

We wondered whether that meant he wanted to see his portrait depicted on the coin.

"No, I want one of the coins," the congressman responded as the assembled reporters laughed. "The president gets one, he puts it in the treasury. I get one, I keep it. Makes sense to me."

Earlier in the conversation, Mr. Rangel criticized Republicans who have said they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts because he said they are solely focused on slashing "so-called entitlements" that are social programs for "vulnerable" portions of the population.

"They're still going to come back and talk about spending. Theres' a lot of money still left, but it appears as though the Republicans are targeting entitlements, entitlements, entitlements. I'll leave it up to you as to why, if you owe $16 trillion and you're trying to cut back spending that you would find out what part of the community is the least able to defend themselves against cuts," said Mr. Rangel.

He went on to describe Republicans' focus on cutting entitlements as being against the religious principles of many conservatives.

"It seems almost unchristian. Especially those who run around saying they're guided by, 'What would Jesus do?,' to pick Social Security, which is a supplement for pensions for the aged....To pick Medicaid, which you take when you have to be two things to be eligible; you have to be sick and you have to be poor," Mr. Rangel said. "Then, of course, the last thing is Medicare, which means that you have to be old and sick. Now, with all of the programs that we have, it seems as though that the ones that we're concentrating on are these three so-called entitlements."

Mr. Rangel also weighed in on the idea President Obama could also dodge the debt fight by unilaterally raising the ceiling using authority given to him by a provision in the 14th Amendment. President Obama has said his lawyers were "not persuaded" that this approach would be legal.

In Mr. Rangel's interpretation of the amendment, the president does indeed have the authority to unilaterally raise the borrowing ceiling. Though he said he doesn't "see how it could be unconstitutional" to bypass the debt debate with the 14th Amendment, Mr. Rangel said he would defer to President Obama and his lawyers on the issue.

"I'm not going to go against constitutional scholars," said the congressman. "But I'd be proud of the president if he found constitutional support that he believed in. I'd say, 'Right on.'"

Though President Obama has dismissed the idea he would use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling without an agreement from Congress, he has also said he doesn't plan to negotiate on the issue. Mr. Rangel said he's not sure what the president's ultimate strategy will be for raising the debt ceiling without congressional support, but he's looking forward to watching it all play out.

"He had said that he is not going to negotiate the debt ceiling, so I have no idea what that means, but I'm going to be a spectator to that one boy," Mr. Rangel said. "I'm going to have a front row seat."

First, State G.O.P. Chairman Ed Cox remarked on Gillibrand's "political transformation."

"In just over 2 years in the United States Senate, she has gone from upstate conservative Democrat Congresswoman to downstate liberal, representing the views of the most radical elements of her party," he said.

Then, Fred Dicker mocked her for running for President in 2016 (Gillibrand has not said she is running for President, ever.)

And now State Sen. Ruben Diaz wonders if Gillibrand couldn't vote for the debt ceiling deal because it didn't contain new revenues from upper income earners, how come she didn't speak out in favor of a millionaire's tax in Albany?

Diaz:

After voting ‘no’ on the Debt Ceiling vote, United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has publicly criticized this legislation as an "unbalanced approach” that “did not include new taxes on the wealthiest Americans and the elimination of loopholes benefiting corporations."

But I never heard her nor any Democrat from New York City (except for Senator Tom Duane and me) criticize Governor Andrew Cuomo for not including a Millionaires Tax in the Governor Cuomo’s Budget that was clearly balanced on the backs of the poor and needy.

To the contrary, Democrats praised Governor Cuomo for passing his Budget. Even Tea Party activists applauded him!

Senator Tom Duane and I were the ONLY symbolic Democrat dissenters on this issue. Except for the two of us, the entire NYC delegation of Senators praised the Democratic Governor for his Budget while Senator Duane and I were seen as pariahs.

The Albany Budget and the Washington debt ceiling deal are not exactly equivalent, but there are parallels to be made. Both resulted in deep spending cuts, and just as it happened New York, there were no tax increases in Washington to raise the debt ceiling.

Now it is the same people who are criticizing Washington for doing the very same thing that Governor Cuomo did to New York. This is the Janus-faced nature of some of my colleagues in government trying to have it both ways.

Let’s remember that Governor Andrew Cuomo started the whole thing. He has set the trend.

Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot have your cake and eat it too."

As the American economy inched closer to collapse on Monday morning, 50 people took to the streets of Lower Manhattan, stripped naked and pantomimed life on Wall Street. One yelled about stock prices like a trader on the floor. Another swept the streets. A third pretended to sell hot dogs.

“This is a commentary on the absurdity of the situation,” said the artist behind the project, Zefrey Throwell. “It’s totally a Freudian nightmare to have people show up and work naked on Wall Street. This absurd statement I consider parallel to the lack of transparency on our financial structures.”

Mr. Throwell said that he chose Monday because it was “supposedly the meltdown date”—i.e, the day when the federal government would run out of money. By the morning, it became clear that an agreement was going to be reached, but virtually no one was happy about it. Yes, collapse had been avoided, but the whole thing felt like a resolution to a phony crisis, like bungee jumping from a railroad bridge, knowing all along you will never hit the water.

Across the political spectrum, the city seemed sunk in a midsummer malaise. There was anger, but about what exactly, no one seemed quite able to say.

“Our founding fathers in a million years would never have allowed this to happen,” said Dan Halloran, a city councilman and sometime Fox News contributor.
“The whole notion of the Revolution was to prevent an oppressively taxing government from being on top of us, and look at what we have. An oppressively taxing government that has its hand in every aspect of life. It’s like living under the crown.”

At midday, Joni Golijov, dressed in a Bugs Bunny T-shirt, made his way toward Times Square, using thick, black, electrical tape to post signs for a protest scheduled for the next day at the Charging Bull in Bowling Green.

“The ruling class in the United States is the most powerful ruling class in the world. And they have just done a really good job of making people feel isolated, of making people feel powerless,” he said. He is 21, a writing major at Columbia. “So, yeah, I am also a part of the ruling class.

“I am hoping we can have a big protest. People know their votes don’t matter, so not only are we going to not vote, we are going to put our bodies on the street.”

He said they hoped a 100 people would show up.

Protests of all sorts were planned all over the region. MoveOn (yes, it still exists) planned demonstrations at the offices of Republican members of Congress, even though the deal was ultimately endorsed by a Democratic president.

Brooke McGowen, a self-described 50-something resident of Peekskill and a laid-off census worker, was preparing a rally in front of the offices of Congresswoman Nan Hayworth, a Hudson Valley Republican. She said there would be signs and songs, and expressed hope that “the Grannies,” i.e., the Granny Peace Brigade, would show up.

“We are really angry that they are not going to be taxing the rich and the corporations more,” she said. “The rich are not going to be suffering more, like they should be.”

But why protest a Republican congresswoman then, instead of the president of the United States?

“You are right on that. The best thing would be to go right down to the White House and stand in front of the gates. Absolutely.”
Over on Staten Island, a tempest began brewing when State Senator Diane Savino wrote on her Facebook page that the Tea Party was “the new mafia.”

Frank Santarpia, the head of the local Tea Party, accused Ms. Savino of trading in ethnic slurs.

“My Facebook page is my own.” Ms. Savino. “It’s kind of like my living room. So if you are going to come into my living room you run the risk that I am occasionally going to be somewhat histrionic, because that is what I do in my living room. And when you practice extortionary politics, you run the risk you are going to get called out on it.”

Down in Washington, D.C, Charlie Rangel was cheered, briefly, to see Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona congresswoman shot by a crazed gunman earlier this year, make a triumphant return to Capitol Hill. She voted in favor, along with the majority of the Republicans. He said he was certain that even Nancy Pelosi was lobbying fellow Democrats to vote for the bill. Mr. Rangel had just finished an appearance on the Chris Matthews program and sounded hoarse.

“It was a rough one for me. Our president was mugged,” he said.

And despite growing anger among Democratic partisans, no one seemed to have the stomach or the energy to support an alternative. Even Jonathan Tasini, a labor activist who made his name with a primary challenge to Hillary Clinton and, later, Mr. Rangel, discouraged a Democratic challenge to President Obama.

“He is not going to be pulled from the left,” he said. “The only way to stop the system is to stop commerce from happening. Mass demonstrations in the streets.”
Nor is Mr. Rangel quite ready to turn his back on the president.

“It’s like Henny Youngman used to say when people would say to him, ‘How is your wife?’” Mr. Rangel said. “‘Compared to what?”’

dfreedlander@observer.com

"In order to get this done right, we very definitely had to have some revenue," he said. "But if we are going to have a compromise, and there will be no revenue, then entitlements should not be cut, and as of right now entitlements have not been cut."

Meeks was the only member of the New York City congressional delegation who voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling, and one of the few members of the Congressional Black Caucus who did so.

Meeks also said that he thought the so-called "super-committee" that is tasked with closing the deficit further would put House Democrats on equal footing with the majority.

"Being a Democrat in the House, I am a vast minority right now. If I thought about things going through the regular order in the House, knowing that also on the Senate side they need to get 60 votes, I think it would be difficult in the regular order for my voice to really be heard," he said.  But with the special commission, it’s Even Steven. So there is not necessarily a minority voice on that commission…If I was in the majority I would have felt just the opposite."

Meeks added that he could have "played politics" and voted against the measure, since it was clear that it was going to pass, but that the chance of the country defaulting was too great.  And he said it was too early to render judgment on the deal.

"When you look down the road a year from now, maybe you will be able to make a better analysis in a better way. You never know what a deal looks like right when you do it."

The one-term Senator is only one of 26 senators to do so, and puts her at odds with New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, a political mentor who helped shepherd the bill.

"There is nothing in this deal that will address the significant jobs crisis we are facing. This deal, cut behind closed doors with zero transparency, is an unbalanced approach that cuts deeply into discretionary spending while being overwhelmingly stacked in favor of large corporations who exploit loopholes and the wealthiest among us. It is simply not in the best interests of the middle class and the larger economic recovery."

In her statement, Gillibrand also echoes some of what Upper West Side--and liberal stalwart--Congressman Jerry Nadler told us yesterday, in which he enumerated the efforts he made to actually deal with the debt ceiling and the nation's staggering deficit.

“I strongly believe America must reduce its debt and rein in federal spending," she says. "Earlier this week, I supported over $2 trillion in spending cuts without additional revenues, and last December I voted to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that are blowing a hole in the deficit. However, I do not believe this proposal is a fair, well thought out, or balanced deal for our fragile economy or the millions of middle class families struggling to make ends meet. "

The vote by Gillibrand shows how far she has gone to endear herself to New York liberals, after a brief Congressional career as an upstate moderate. In 2010, the first time she faced a statewide electorate, Gillibrand was far more vulnerable to a Democratic primary than to a Republican in the general election.

The rest of Gillibrand's statement is below:

“I have not been in Washington long, but long enough to know it is broken. As I travel across New York, the people I meet are focused entirely on jobs and economic security for their families. Congress should take this charge as its own. I will continue to look for bipartisan ways to reduce the debt in a responsible way and create jobs in this struggling economy. The truth is, today we could have gone further in reducing America’s debt with a sensible compromise that both cut discretionary spending and raised revenues. It is unfortunate Congress missed that opportunity.”

And in a move that may mirror how the rest of the country reacts to the measure, G.O.P. Bob Turner is hailing its passage, while Democrat David Weprin knocks the House leadership for holding the country "hostage."

"Yet again the Republicans have proven that they will resort to extreme measures, such as holding the full-faith and credit of the United States at risk, in order to advance their radical agenda," Weprin said.  "Extremist Bob Turner would even have us cut the federal budget by 35%, an $11.5 trillion cut in spending over 10 years that is far to the right of many within his own party,” That would eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as we know it. While I am still examining the fine details of the legislation, I only hope that this type of hostage situation charade put on by the Republicans does not become the standard for the work we hope and need to accomplish in Congress.”

Turner, meanwhile, points to the bipartisanship of the deal, and says that it will go long-way to getting the country's fiscal house in order.

"This agreement is far from perfect, but it will protect Social Security and Medicare and prevent default on our debt, which would have damaged this weak economy even more.  But more importantly, it sends the signal that bipartisanship, however hard-fought, is still possible in the Congress.  Far more of that will be needed in the months and years ahead to get this economy moving again and to restore confidence in American government.

 

"Years of overspending by career politicians, on both sides of the aisle, put us in this position. This debate has been historic in that federal debt and its drag on the U.S.  economy is now a front-burner issue.  Getting the U.S. economy back on track and creating jobs must be the chief priority for every member of Congress, and, in the long-term, that will require responsible spending and balanced budgets.  That is the ultimate goal, and this moves us in that direction. As imperfect as it is, I support today's deal."

Rep. Michael Grimm

After the president and Congressional leaders came to an agreement last night on Staten Island House Republican Freshman Michael Grimm told Wolf Blitzer last night that he will vote "yes" on the measure.

This plan does have cuts and more importantly it has the caps and it also brings up the Balanced Budget Amendment, which I think is extremely important to this debate," he said. ""The American people....should vote on whether we have a Balanced Budged Amendment."

Grimm was elected with the help of Tea Party, and had always said that he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless substantial cuts were made.

"This new class and the Tea Party movement wants bold changes to Washington immediately. The reality is that Washington is systemically broken. Much worse than even I imagined, until you get here and see it. To have bold changes to something so systemically broken is going to take time. So I understand their frustrations."

Take a look:

“I really think there’s a very high likelihood of a total impasse here, which would be catastrophic," Nadler told me this morning. "And so we have to push the 14^th Amendment, and make room for the 14^th Amendment.”

Some Democrats have argued that the 14th Amendment gives the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval, but Obama has so far ruled it out as an option, even after his attempt to forge a "grand bargain " was rejected by Boehner.

House Republicans are set to vote on Boehner's proposal this afternoon, with Senate Democrats waiting to see how the House votes before they advance a more modest package of cuts designed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

He characterized the mood in this morning's Democratic caucus meeting as “very upset, very angry and very frustrated."

“Nancy [Pelosi] got up and said, nothing new," he recalled. "That was the extent of her comments on this. Except she said the Exxon earning reports are out: huge profits.”

Nadler said the in-fighting in the Republican caucus was not good news for Democrats, or anyone, really.

“If [Republicans] can’t get this bill passed, I don’t know how you talk to them, because this bill is 20 degrees beyond terrible," Nadler said. "If they get this bill passed, then the question is: Can they deliver their caucus for some deal that’s better than this but worse than Reid? If they can’t, then there can be no deal.

“And that’s why a lot of us are saying the president – once he’s gone to the last resort, and I think we’re at that stage – the president should use the 14^th Amendment option.”

The 14th Amendment states, in Section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Whether that provision gives president executive authority to raise the debt ceiling, without requiring the approval of Congress, remains an open question.

Nadler said he contacted the Justice Department before Memorial Day, suggesting this approach, and sent them a 1997 Tulsa Law Review article that asserted its legality.

But would sending the problem to the courts calm the jittery financial markets?

“I think it would," Nadler said. "I think the president, if he asserted that authority and spent the money, and said he’s paying the debts, that would calm the markets. Let someone try to go to court, it would take years.”

From a bargaining perspective, Nadler said the administration had been right, so far, not to push the 14th Amendment, which could distract from forging a deal, and risk raising the ire of Republicans who would accuse the president of circumventing congressional authority.

“They want to avoid that," he said. "And they should avoid that. Until they can’t.”

Nadler has carved out a role for himself as a voice of the minority caucus' liberal conscience, pushing the president to stake out a harder line in negotiating against Republicans.

"The president has totally allowed the Republicans to miscast the entire debate," Nadler lamented this morning, saying the country isn't broke and Congress shouldn't be cutting in the midst of a bad economy. “We’re playing the entire game within our 20 yard line, because we conceded everything rhetorically.”

As to whether he could support a compromise between the Boehner and Reid plans -- should one somehow emerge -- Nadler said: “I don’t know if I can vote for the Reid Plan.”

“The President placed the blame for this deadlock where it belongs—squarely on the shoulders of an extreme bloc within the House Republicans that refuses to compromise even one inch," Schumer said in a statement emailed shortly after the speech. "As the President made clear, their approach will drive the U.S. economy over a cliff, and take millions of American families’ budgets with it."

While House Speaker John Boehner continued to push his own proposal for raising the debt ceiling, in a separate address after Obama's, but Schumer said the focus should be on the plan offered by Senate Democrats, and their Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

"The only viable solution at this late stage is Senator Reid’s plan that would cut $2.7 trillion from the debt and avert a catastrophic default," Schumer said. "Reports that Speaker Boehner’s plan would perhaps cause a credit-rating downgrade give even further momentum to the Senate proposal. Americans hope Speaker Boehner will show the courage to resist the clarion call of those on the extreme right and work out a bipartisan compromise.”

It's unclear whether the president's direct appeal for the public to contact their members of Congress will have much bearing in the week remaining before the country would face default on August 2.

"What the Republicans in Congress are doing is shameful," Weprin said in a statement his campaign emailed this morning. "To put it simply, they are playing chicken with our economy and are placing our nation’s economic well-being in jeopardy for the sake of playing partisan games."

Weprin seems to have already mastered the talking points of his potential House colleagues in the Democratic delegation, accusing Republicans of looking for a deal "consummated on the backs of seniors, working families and children, while protecting tax subsidies and loopholes for Big Oil and companies that outsource jobs."

And, since he's currently candidate for higher office, Weprin made sure to cite his fiscal experience. "As someone who has spent more than 20 years working in public finance and 8 years as Chair of the New York City Council Finance Committee, I know how to balance budgets and close multi-billion dollar deficits," he said in the statement. "Destroying Medicare and Social Security isn’t the way to do it.”

Democrats won an unlikely victory in New York's last special election by hammering Republican plans for Medicare reform, but that line of attack could get more difficult. President Obama has indicated he might be willing to accept certain compromises on Medicare and Social Security, a possibility that has led to preemptive outrage from Democrats, and could take away one of Weprin's chief talking points leading up to the September 13 special election to replace Anthony Weiner.

Weprin's Republican opponent, Bob Turner, said last week that he would have voted against Congressman Paul Ryan's plan.