ABC News: Democrats and Republicans Reach Tentative Debt Ceiling Limit Deal (UPDATED)
ABC News is reporting that Congressional sources tell them Democrats and Republicans have now reached a tentative deal on raising the debt ceiling limit — which is no assurance that it will pass but increases the chances that there will be enough votes to avert what most experts predict would be a catatastrophic debt default that could decimate the American and world economies:
Here, according to Democratic and Republican sources, are the key elements:
*A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal).
*They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
*The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase). This deficit reduction could take the form of spending cuts, tax increases or both.
*The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress’ Thanksgiving recess).
*If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This “trigger” is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee’s recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.
*A vote, in both the House and Senate, on a balanced budget amendment.Democrats won’t like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries.
Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon’s budget.
Some thoughts:
If there is a deal what would it say about the U.S. political class? If it passes some will proclaim the system worked but this is closer to reality.
UPDATE: ABC now adds this:
As the mantra here goes, “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”
Congressional leaders have begun briefing their membership on this framework and are gauging reaction. The key question, of course, is whether there is enough support to pass it.
ABC’s Jonathan Karl adds this new detail:
As reported earlier, President Obama would get a debt ceiling increase of up to $2.4 trillion (the final amount tied to the amount of the cuts agreed to).
Here’s how that would work:
The current framework would give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two parts: roughly half of it now and the balance at the end of the year.
Each increase would be subject to a Congressional resolution of disapproval.
If Congress voted to disapprove that increase, however, the President could veto their disapproval.
This is borrowed from a proposal made a while back by Mitch McConnell.
The bottom line is the same: the president would be able to raise the debt ceiling enough to get past the 2012 election.
20 Responses to “ABC News: Democrats and Republicans Reach Tentative Debt Ceiling Limit Deal (UPDATED)”
“This solution will not be music to the ears of the Democratic Party’s liberal wing.”
Or anyone who knows anything about economics.
“This could help Obama with the country’s center”
No, they are clueless, forgetful, don’t know anything and will be swayed to see Obama as a super-left, irresponsible ideologue by the media.
I wonder if they can’t just do the same thing they did with the “temporary” Bush tax cuts: They can say “we’ll cut 1.8 trillion later” and change their mind. They can also change their mind about renewing it automatically later. So basically this would set us up for another round of negotiations in 6 months, just what Obama wanted to avoid.
Also, the trigger doesn’t have a revenue component. In other words, it’s one-sided BS that would never be possible unless republicans had taken the US economy hostage.
Terrorist tactics are not to be rewarded in any way. Would you morons get that into your heads?
The budget deal is almost a complete win for the Democrats. The trigger will never occur and the budget cuts will never happen. The Democrats are just stalling until after Nov. 2012 when they hope to regain control of the U.S. House so that the Democrats can double income taxes and not make any cuts.
The Republicans are fools to put off any decisions on cuts. That was the deal in the 1980′s and 1990′s and the cuts never occurred. Any plan to make cuts in the future is a deal to not make cuts.
Every conseravtive who says that the plan is a good deal is a idiot and a fool. Increased debt and increased spending increase the power of the Democrats. The Republicans are giving the Democrats everything they want: more spending before the election and more taxes after the election.
Your Cagle post is excellent, Joe.
I haven’t seen this reported anywhere else as a “tentative deal.” I also think it’s a mistake to worry about what the liberal base or the tea party right thinks. The TP has lost all of its credibility with mainstream conservatives in this debate. And the liberal base will fume as always. The key issue here is not fighting the debt. It’s avoiding a default. The debt fight should be connected to budget negotiations next month, not on a vote over whether or not Congress should pay debts it has already authorized.
This whole exercise is completely unnecessary and reckless.
Never mind my last comment. It HAS been reported as such many places. I apologize for my failed due diligence…
AARON ASTOR,
That the U.S. House has not voted out every budget bill needed for the CY2012 budget is just another demonstration of the failued of Speaker Boehner. All of the budgets should have been approved by the house and then the debt limit vote would have been much easier. Just raise it enough to cover the debt incurred by the budget.
The agreement gives the house and Senate an excuse to not deal with the budget until January. Once again, a failure of leadership.
I think we all know significant cuts are going to happen, but any deal that doesn’t also include increased levels (and not just token increases) of taxation on those who have continued to benefit during this economic tsunami – while everyone else has suffered to varying degrees, would in fact be a miserable joke. That said, Washington is already a joke and incapable of doing even the most simple and necessary things. So by all means, let’s just postpone making any critically important decisions, go home, play golf, yuk it up, and drink martinis instead.
JSpencer
There is no certainty that spending will be cut. If Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House in January 2013, then all of the talk of cuts (outside of cuts for defense) will be pointless. Anything cut in 2011 and 2012 will be restored.
The idea that Congress in 2011 can make any law or any policy that will affect any budget past Dec 2012 is naive.
That is why the Democrats will see this deal as a massive victory. The Republicans give up the leverage of the debt limit until after the 2012 election and all the Republican get in return are a few promises to cut spending in the future (also known as a pig in a poke).
Rotten sausage?
Lawrence O’Donell (far-lefty on MSNBC) had it right: all that’s needed in a bill is “One page — one line — changing one number.”)
They are just kicking the can down the road to December.
This is designed to take the heat of the Republicans who caused this mess in the first place, not solve any problem.
Guaranteed there will be no agreement in December.
Let the WORLD WATCH and condemn as America pays it’s debt off the backs of the poor and weakest among us while the rich fat cat it all the way to the bank.
The United States is becoming an evil, oppressive nation.
“The United States is becoming an evil, oppressive nation.”
It is moderate, sober rhetoric like that that makes compromise possible.
“It is moderate, sober rhetoric like that that makes compromise possible.”
Compromise with hostage takers.
Terrorist apologists do not get to talk about rhetoric and tone. In fact, they shouldn’t get to speak.
So the only thing necessary to justify censorship is to label someone a “terrorist apologist”?
What was an intolerable reason for censorship after 9/11 is now embraced as desirable. How times change.
You were born too late, Absalon. The attitude you express here would have fit in very well with Pol Pot.
“So the only thing necessary to justify censorship is to label someone a “terrorist apologist”?”
Label? You are the one approving of threatening your own country with economic downturn and a ruined decade if not more in order to get what you want. That is approving of terrorist tactics: no liberal commentator – even someone of your minor standing – ever approved of the Taleban threatening to kill a captive solider unless they got their way.
You have no right to claim protection under law or decency.
The claim that those who disagree with some particular person “have no right to claim to protection under law or decency” has been the bedrock of every murderous dictator in history. We can go all the way back to Sir Thomas More to identify the problem with that kind of thinking.
And you don’t even have my beliefs correct, Absalon. I have never once approved of not raising the debt ceiling, in fact, I have specifically condemned Republican tactics on that multiple times. You aren’t even capable of truthfully saying what it is you disagree with. You just lash out incoherently with blind rage.
I am curious though. What particular form of execution do you believe would be most appropriate for everyone who disagrees with you?
You mean like this guy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/31/1001184/-Rep-Raul-M-Grijalva-calls-on-Americans-to-reject-debt-ceiling-deal
Of course, unlike Logan, he gets a vote and is planning to vote no. I rather imagine Logan, if he had a vote, would vote yes.
You on the other hand Axel, would probably vote no, threatening your own (not really of course) country with economic downturn and a ruined decade.
Kinda funny, eh?
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes
Well, Grijalva’s and others’ “People’s Budget” [sic] is more like so many of the “moderates” on this site would be expecting all the time. Look at how the Bowles-Simpson recommendations were treated by the likes of them.
(More disturbingly, by Pelosi, Obama, and Reid.)
LOGAN PENZA-
I thought we weren’t talking “Penza”.
All can see that your word is as good as your selfish oppressive conservatism.