White House to Dems: The debt deal could have been a LOT worse

The White House has a simple message to Democrats skeptical of the debt ceiling agreement the president cut with Speaker Kevin McCarthy: Don’t judge us by what’s included but what we kept out.

Top administration officials began fanning out late Saturday evening and all through Sunday to sell the deal, which would suspend the debt ceiling through January of 2025, limit federal spending through the same period, and make changes to government social welfare programs.

The calls with stakeholders and lawmakers were generally positive, according to three people familiar with the overall feedback and who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. And it left the White House feeling generally positive about cobbling the votes together from their side of the aisle to give the bill a chance of passage. The White House’s optimism is based on centrist Democrats in the House and Senate who voiced cautious optimism about the agreement until they could read full details — which weren’t released until late Sunday.

But success is far from guaranteed. Progressives have expressed frustration over new work requirements in two government assistance programs — TANF and SNAP — along with the spending caps. They gripe that the White House never should have engaged in anything resembling negotiation around the debt limit.

But White House aides stressed, essentially, that in a divided government, things could have been a lot worse.

“It protects the historic economic gains we've made, really allowing one of the strongest recoveries on record to continue by taking the threat of default off the table into 2025, it protects a set of historic legislative accomplishments that this president has had over the last two and a half years,” a White House official told reporters on a briefing call Sunday. “And it beats back a set of extreme demands” in the House GOP debt limit bill.

According to a senior administration official granted anonymity to describe the lobbying strategy, the argument being made to Democrats to vote for the bill has focused on how Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, the Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS and other programs are “all being preserved and funded” under the agreement. This is, the official added, “basically what would have happened in a standard budget negotiation with a GOP House later this year. A good outcome, consistent with past bipartisan budget agreements.”

White House officials argue the spending figures ultimately favor Democrats, even if McCarthy gets to take a victory lap talking about spending cuts. The permitting reforms advance their climate agenda. Most importantly, they add, it’s far better than default.

On top of policy, the salesmanship had a blunt political angle: The deal allows Biden to clear the 2024 general election and not have to worry about another round of debt ceiling brinkmanship until after it.

While the White House sales pitch may have been initially well received, it was colored by a gripe that the inner circle who had worked on the deal was far too insular and private with their negotiations. That extended to after an agreement was reached, when officials waited nearly 24 hours between the announcement of a deal and a call with the full House Democratic caucus to explain it.

White House officials say their light touch was designed to ensure there wasn’t a string of Democrats spiking the football, allowing Republican leaders space to line up quick support in the House. Indeed, Twitter was largely silent of responses from rank-and-file House Democrats on Saturday night, save a few promises to read the bill when it came out.

The approach marked a calculated decision to avoid giving Republicans any ammunition to defeat the bill. It was also recognition that there was no point in trying to oversell a measure that didn’t have much for Democrats to love in the first place, according to two people familiar with the outreach.

But that didn’t mean there was no sales job at all.

Democratic House members and their chiefs of staff were issued toplines and talking points within moments of the preliminary deal’s announcement Saturday night, according to two White House and Hill officials who spoke on condition their names not be used.

White House staff began one-on-one calls with lawmakers immediately, according to an administration official. Among those burning up the lines were chief of staff Jeff Zients, Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young, Director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs Louisa Terrell, top infrastructure adviser Mitch Landrieu, environmental policy adviser John Podesta, director of the National Economic Council Lael Brainard, and Steve Ricchetti, Biden’s top aide. The personal touch was designed to hit members’ top concerns more succinctly than group calls.

Since Saturday night, the senior administration officials have called more than 60 House Democrats — including leadership, ranking members and caucus chairs, according to a White House official. Similar one-on-one calls for the Senate have started but are expected to pick up in earnest Monday. Six issue-specific briefings for Congress are planned, too.

On Sunday, many lawmakers said they were withholding judgment until they saw legislative text and heard from the president. But their delay in getting details of the deal left some of them reeling.

“I don’t think they’ve done a good job about communicating with members about what’s been happening,” said one Democratic House member. “People want to know why Republicans were briefed at 9:30 p.m. [Saturday] and we’re not being briefed till 5 o’clock [Sunday]. Our leader hasn’t even been given the details.”

Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), chair of the influential Congressional Black Caucus, voiced similar concerns to the White House in a 5 p.m. Sunday virtual call with House Democrats, according to two people on the call granted anonymity to discuss the private conversation. Several caucus members chimed in to echo his complaints via the chat feature, according to people on the call.

Other constituencies were much more receptive. The New Democrat Coalition — a 98-person voting bloc of centrists who are among the most likely to support an agreement — kept in close conversation with the White House’s legislative affairs office, including Terrell and liaison Ashley Jones, said the group’s chair, Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.).

They’ve had “very, very close contact with the White House team from the very beginning for several weeks now right up until talking with them [Saturday] night,” Kuster said. “We were listened to, we were heard and we helped to influence a better agreement and that’s a positive role for us to play.”

The group came out with a statement of support — caveated that they hadn’t read the final text — on Sunday morning, an early sign of progress for the whip count.

Many progressives had feared that this year’s debt ceiling debate would mark a repeat of 2011, when Biden, as vice president, negotiated a deal with then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that left many Democrats feeling he gave away too much.

“I think there is relief it’s not as bad as it could be, but also frustration that Dems are gonna have to carry a bill that does nothing for them,” said one progressive close to the White House.

The Biden administration noted to progressives that the deal’s new work requirements in social safety net programs had a sunset provision to ensure they don’t become permanent policy. They also were told that the new work requirements for people in their 50s — which Republicans wanted — were countered by Democrats’ demands to exclude all veterans and homeless people from the conditions.

“We expect that the number of people subjected to SNAP work requirements will stay roughly the same under this agreement,” a White House official said.

That provided little solace to a number of outside groups influential with Democrats, including the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The agreement, “is not the deal the country deserves,” said CBPP president Sharon Parrott. The SNAP changes for older adults “will increase hunger and poverty among that group, runs contrary to our nation’s values, and should be rejected.”

But Biden, during brief remarks Sunday from the White House, called such claims “ridiculous assertions.”

Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.