Keith Hennessey is smarter than me, and after reading his explanation of Mitch McConnell’s debt ceiling proposal, I still don’t like it.

The proposal, that is. I don't like it that Hennessey is smarter than me, either, but whaddayagonnado about that?

Read his whole piece, especially if you’re not entirely clear – as I was not, and may still not be – on the debt ceiling issue.

Here’s what I thought was the most important part:

The debt limit now works as an only if proposition: the debt limit is increased only if Congress votes affirmatively to authorize an increase. Increasing the debt limit therefore requires a majority of the House and Senate to cast a difficult aye vote, plus a Presidential signature. The McConnell proposal would invert this into an unless proposition: the debt limit would automatically be increased unless Congress voted to stop it. And by changing the key vote to a veto override, you would need only 1/3 of either the House or Senate to take a tough vote to allow the debt limit to increase.

In exchange for this significant increase in Presidential authority, the President would take most of the political heat for the debt limit increase, and he would be required to propose difficult spending cuts of an equal or greater amount.

But:

The McConnell proposal does not guarantee that spending will be cut. Congress would consider the debt limit resolution of disapproval and the President’s proposed spending cuts separately.

Which isn’t as good as having them tied directly together, but: at least the president would have to go first. Going first is the politically weaker position, because it gives the other side time to see what people hate most, attack that, and propose something else.

On the other hand, the president would be able to put Congress in the position of not being able to stop the debt limit increase, but not being willing to pass the specific spending cuts he proposed.

Which will lead to more debt, and more spending. Not more debt but less spending.

I don’t like it.

Hat tip Insty.

UPDATE – Larry Kudrow:

The key part of the new McConnell package is a joint committee to review entitlements in a massive deficit-reduction package. Unlike the Bowles-Simpson commission, this committee will be mandated to have a legislative outcome — an actual vote — that will occur early next year … This will be the first time such a study would have an expedited procedure mandated with no amendments permitted.

Larry Kudrow may also be smarter than me, but my first thought at reading that was: oh, good, another study commission. Problem solved!

Also, tax reform could be air-dropped into this committee’s report.

Yes, I'm sure the commission's Democrats will go right along with that.

Raise your hand if you think a study commission divided equally among Democrats and Republicans has any chance – any chance at all – of creating actual entitlement reforms that will protect both current and soon-to-be seniors and current and soon-to-be taxpayers?

Anyone?

Anyone?