Deal update: $2.4T in cuts and ceiling hikes — both in two parts

posted at 8:42 am on July 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

ABC reports this morning that Congressional leaders have already begun briefing their caucuses on the eleventh-hour deal that emerged from the White House last night.  Jonathan Karl notes that the deal is contingent on getting enough support from each House caucus to form a majority, and in the Senate to avoid a filibuster.  We’ll come back to that in a moment, but Karl also updates the story on the deal.  The topline numbers are apparently $2.4 trillion in matching spending cuts and debt-ceiling raises instead of $2.8 trillion, but now both are split into two parts:

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.

The AP reported earlier on the $2.4 trillion number, too, although they say the cuts will be “slightly more” than the debt-ceiling boost.  That’s still enough to get Barack Obama past the 2012 election, but not by much. It guarantees that the debt ceiling will be a 2012 election issue, although by now that was a given anyway.

However, the added McConnell wrinkle is interesting — and potentially a big win for Republicans.  Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama.  If they “disapprove,” Obama will veto the disapproval and end up owning all of the political baggage for the debt-ceiling increases.  That’s a steep price to pay for Obama just to protect himself through the next election, although he could turn it on its ear and refuse to veto the second increase disapproval and force this fight all over again.  That would, however, put the country back in “crisis” mode, and that would still be all on Obama.

This brings the deal closer to what I predicted yesterday; in fact, it almost matches it exactly.  But can the leaders get the votes for it?  If Obama endorses this deal, most Democrats will have no choice but to back it; after all, they have been doing the most Chicken Little screeching about the consequences of legislative failure.  Boehner and McConnell will lose a significant number of Republicans, but both will probably hold a majority of their caucuses.  I’d expect an agreement along these lines to pass quickly through Congress, maybe fast enough to avoid having to pass a $50 billion, two-week extension to gain time for the debate.

Update: Added “ceiling” to headline for more clarity.

Update II: McConnell tells CNN that they are “very close” to a deal.  I’d interpret that to mean that they’re shopping the deal to the caucuses to make sure they can get the votes.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

“But, but, we ought to shut down the govt & cause worldwide panic & lose in 2012 because we are principled!”
– Tea Party types

itsnotaboutme on July 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM

I guess I’m running a little slow this morning. I though the “hikes” part was “tax hikes”, and was wondering how that happened.

Count to 10 on July 31, 2011 at 8:46 AM

I apologize. I should have written some Tea Party types.

itsnotaboutme on July 31, 2011 at 8:46 AM

it’s just great to see that the president loves to play chicken with our economy.

ted c on July 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Awww, Harry Reid doesn’t get a bill that “deems” the senate to have passed a budget.

Heh.

Wethal on July 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Bipartisan socialism.

They got–another one of your kids or grandkids. You got…squat.

Its a Dem-GOP alliance vs. You.

Oh and…vote GOP!!!/

james23 on July 31, 2011 at 8:48 AM

So nothing is new. We will continue to borrow and spend like money is free and the same old morons in DC will say they fixed the system. We are screwed.

David in ATL on July 31, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Hope some rpeorter has the nerve to ask Pelosi is the world as we know it has been saved or lost.

Her House caucus is now pretty hard left after the Blue Dogs were defeated.

Wethal on July 31, 2011 at 8:49 AM

“But, but, we ought to shut down the govt & cause worldwide panic & lose in 2012 because we are principled!”
– Tea Party types

itsnotaboutme on July 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM

It really isn’t about principle. It’s that the debit ceiling offers a unique opportunity to balance the budget, and it is an open question whether the damage of not increasing it is greater than the damage of continuing to overspend.

Count to 10 on July 31, 2011 at 8:49 AM

take what u can get now..

you dont control the senate or the presidency don’t be stupid.

TimeTraveler on July 31, 2011 at 8:49 AM

it’s just great to see that the president loves to play chicken with our economy.

ted c

He liked playing other games with me!

Sincerely yours,

Larry Sinclair

honsy on July 31, 2011 at 8:50 AM

It guarantees that the debt ceiling will be a 2012 election issue, although by now that was a given anyway

This is the whole point that some of the more fanatical er, passionate types here don’t get. This is not a bad deal, we avoid default, and of course the whole debt situation will be a major issue in the next election.This is an ongoing battle that cannot be won in one fell swoop.

Southernblogger on July 31, 2011 at 8:51 AM

However, the added McConnell wrinkle is interesting — and potentially a big win for Republicans. Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama.

Ed, have you been bitten by the Establishment bug? In what world is giving a trillion-dollar-spending President the unchecked power to spend $2.4 trillion dollars more a win?

If I have a child who loves going on spending sprees and has blown through a huge chunk of the family finances, do I give him or her blank signed cheques and say – “Get these! I disapprove and you’ll own all the blame?”

Very bizarre, indeed!

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 8:52 AM

You are watching the collapse of America.

wheelgun on July 31, 2011 at 8:52 AM

So we’re going to spend the money in the next year and a half, but the “cuts” are spread out over the next ten years, years which will have massive deficits anyway…

ummm, hooray?

trubble on July 31, 2011 at 8:52 AM

But..but I thought the WH had the authority to postpone Armageddon.

Electrongod on July 31, 2011 at 8:52 AM

TimeTraveler on July 31, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Better watch out with common sense. The crazies will lynch you for that.

Southernblogger on July 31, 2011 at 8:53 AM

“But, but, we ought to shut down the govt & cause worldwide panic & lose in 2012 because we are principled!”
– Tea Party types

itsnotaboutme on July 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM

More strawmen.

tetriskid on July 31, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Where do you go beyond disgusted?

kingsjester on July 31, 2011 at 8:54 AM

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.

Oh dear.

Robert_Paulson on July 31, 2011 at 8:54 AM

The way it stands now I’d take no cuts and only give bo 500 billion to make it to 2013. Ya I know that is a 1.9 trillion cut but that’s what we need.

tim c on July 31, 2011 at 8:54 AM

But..but I thought the WH had the authority to postpone Armageddon.

Electrongod on July 31, 2011 at 8:52 AM

No, just to make the oceans recede and the planet heal.

President Canute can’t do everything, even though Evan Thomas of Newsweek once said the One was “sort of like a god.”

Wethal on July 31, 2011 at 8:54 AM

I can’t believe this is the best deal we can get. It is better than what it was but not great.

taney71 on July 31, 2011 at 8:55 AM

itsnotaboutme on July 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM

If not for Tea Party principle, the GOP would be DOA.

Robert_Paulson on July 31, 2011 at 8:55 AM

This whole mess can be thought of as a ship at sea in a terrible storm.

The Captain loves the storm because it gets the boat wet and it might even sink the boat. The Captain never liked the boat, anyway, so what the heck.

His first mate likes storms too. He likes to get the boat wet and blame everyone else for the boat being wet.

The crew realizes that being in a storm that ferocious is not a good idea. Half of them want to go back to calmer waters, the other half wants to turn the boat into the oncoming wave so the boat doesn’t roll over.

I can live with the half of the crew that want to turn the boat into the next wave as long as they listen to the other half and turn back to calmer waters.

And, oh yeah, on the way, throw the Captain, his first mate and all their friends overboard.

turfmann on July 31, 2011 at 8:55 AM

What’s getting cut and when, and why if we are cutting 2.4T do we need a debt ceiling raise? Watch for the Won to come out first and brag about the deal he got done. Now he can make it to his birthday party/fund raiser without having to come up with an excuse for not sending out Holly Rowe’s SS check. Bet his poll numbers go up, too.

Kissmygrits on July 31, 2011 at 8:55 AM

itsnotaboutme,
unnecessary

rob verdi on July 31, 2011 at 8:56 AM

“I apologize. I should have written some Tea Party types.”

Better yet, you should have refrained from posting anything at all rather than the snark.

ncjetsfan on July 31, 2011 at 8:57 AM

With the Demorats controlling the White House and the Senate, we aren’t going to get better than this.

Take the deal, not the blame.

WannabeAnglican on July 31, 2011 at 8:57 AM

Is there still a special committee and the Dec automatic cuts of nothing is resolved

cmsinaz on July 31, 2011 at 8:58 AM

“But, but, we ought to shut down the govt & cause worldwide panic & lose in 2012 because we are principled!”
– Tea Party types

itsnotaboutme on July 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM

Come back when you learn how to count.

Until then do the country a favor and never vote again.

tetriskid on July 31, 2011 at 8:58 AM

It guarantees that the debt ceiling will be a 2012 election issue, although by now that was a given anyway.

It will be a 2012 election issue, allright! But probably not in the way the GOP Establishment are hoping it to be. It just ensures that 2012 will be 2010 on steroids!

McConnell is hoping the “hobbits” will turn out and work hard to deliver the Senate and the Majority Leadership to him. Nice try. We will work hard on the Senate but you can be sure they won’t be candidates that will vote for him as Majority Leader. If he thinks is life has been hell with the likes of Rand Paul, he should enjoy his paradise while it lasts.

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 8:58 AM

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.

Yeah, screw that. KILL IT

clement on July 31, 2011 at 8:59 AM

“But, but, we ought to shut down the govt & cause worldwide panic & lose in 2012 because we are principled!”
– Tea Party types

itsnotaboutme on July 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM

The government wouldn’t have shut down. There also wouldn’t have been a default since there’s more than enough tax revenue coming in to make our interest payments. We wouldn’t have been able to pay all our bills, but this whole apocalyptic scenario Bambi and Timmy the tax cheat painted for us was a giant con job.

eyedoc on July 31, 2011 at 8:59 AM

A lot depends on (a) the baseline by which they measure “cuts” and (b) the enforcement mechanism. Gramm-Rudman worked reasonably well for a while (in a typical D.C. “all-spending-is-equal” way), but these mechanisms rarely last.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 31, 2011 at 8:59 AM

The first priority right now is to get Sir Spendalot out of office. The TPers can rip the next guy to shreds if he doesn’t address our crippling debt, and the media will be all for that with a Republican prez.To continue obstruction past this point will only doom us to 4 more years.

Southernblogger on July 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM

They’d better sell it, this nonsense has gone far enough.

rplat on July 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM

The government wouldn’t have shut down. There also wouldn’t have been a default since there’s more than enough tax revenue coming in to make our interest payments. We wouldn’t have been able to pay all our bills, but this whole apocalyptic scenario Bambi and Timmy the tax cheat painted for us was a giant con job.

eyedoc on July 31, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Don’t confuse these morons with facts.

tetriskid on July 31, 2011 at 9:01 AM

does this deal affect every debt increase down the road beyond the next 2? so what happens if (& it could be any President, not OBluffy) wants to increase it & Congress never disapproves?

the last thing we want is any President having more power

kelley in virginia on July 31, 2011 at 9:01 AM

If some Republicans hold out on this deal, will that make them hobbits or extremists?

madmonkphotog on July 31, 2011 at 9:02 AM

The best part of this deal is that the Dems in the House, Nancy included, are going to have to either vote with the President and agree to cut Medicare with no tax increases, or go against the President and vote against the deal. Same with the Senate Dems. And they will have to do this again in a few months after the report comes out.

txmomof6 on July 31, 2011 at 9:02 AM

itsnotaboutme started the comments with a total Strawman heap of nonsense. NO “Tea Party type” has advocated shutting down the government.

but for itsnotaboutme it NOT about reality!

Justrand on July 31, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Congress un-Constitutionally grants part of its Constitutional power to the Executive branch, and we’re supposed to support it because it might make the President look bad (assuming the media reports it honestly). Are these people on drugs?

dominigan on July 31, 2011 at 9:03 AM

What’s getting cut and when, and why if we are cutting 2.4T do we need a debt ceiling raise?

Kissmygrits on July 31, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Because we will be lucky if the “cuts” shave off a couple of hundred billion off the base line by the time we hit the new debit ceiling, which means yearly spending will still increase by several hundred billion each year.

Count to 10 on July 31, 2011 at 9:03 AM

Those freshman who voted with Boehner against their campaign promises only to see a pre-arranged deal go into effect must not be too happy right about now.

txmomof6 on July 31, 2011 at 9:04 AM

That the deficit is even a public issue shows the Tea Party influence, and the growing influence of conservatives generally.

The collapse of European cradle-to-grave socialism has certainly helped the conservative arguments as well.

Imagine a few years ago even having an electoral discussion on the nature and scope of government.

The voters are going to wonder “how are the politicians going to pay for all their promises?” “Tax the rich” won’t persuade the independent and middle class voters the Dems need.

Those voters know they’ll be next to have their wealth raided to pay for Dem utopia for Dem factions.

Wethal on July 31, 2011 at 9:06 AM

turfmann on July 31, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Not a bad analogy. I would add to the captain part… “And he might even get a replacement ship that’s more suited to his goals.”

dominigan on July 31, 2011 at 9:06 AM

I hope Sen. Sessions is on the Super Committee, since he is the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

txmomof6 on July 31, 2011 at 9:06 AM

thx HotAir for reporting this latest news because I can’t find it anywhere else.

depressed…

kelley in virginia on July 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Thank you Allen West

wheelgun on July 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM

The first priority right now is to get Sir Spendalot out of office. Southernblogger on July 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM

If only because Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn’t going to last forever.

Wethal on July 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM

does this deal affect every debt increase down the road beyond the next 2? so what happens if (& it could be any President, not OBluffy) wants to increase it & Congress never disapproves?

the last thing we want is any President having more power

kelley in virginia on July 31, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Did the Gang of 14 deal last beyond the Bush presidency?

Nope! RINOs will always surrender any leverage conservatives have to the Dems but they never seem to return the favor?

Will Dems, if the situation was reversed, absolutely refuse to raise the debt limit if it would score them political points – even if the Country defaults? You betcha!

We have an amateur squad facing the pros and we wonder why we keep losing.

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 9:09 AM

McConnell is hoping the “hobbits” will turn out and work hard to deliver the Senate and the Majority Leadership to him. Nice try. We will work hard on the Senate but you can be sure they won’t be candidates that will vote for him as Majority Leader. If he thinks is life has been hell with the likes of Rand Paul, he should enjoy his paradise while it lasts.

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Rnad Paul & DeMint have endorsed Ted Cruz here in Texas to take KBH’s spot. That’s already a net conservative gain of 1.

TxAnn56 on July 31, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Wethal on July 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM

That is important too. Dems are already plotting possible accidents for her as Obumbler slips in the polls.

Southernblogger on July 31, 2011 at 9:12 AM

The 2010 election was a bloodbath for the dems because their behavior between 2008 and 2010 showed them to be divisive and acting against the wishes of the electorate. In this debate, Obama held all the cards to make a default as bad as it possibly could be, and the GOP would have taken all of the blame. Like it or not, voters wanted a deal. Looking at this deal, the GOP has won — and won big. Tax hikes are off the table, the country is focused on spending and see the democrats as the problem there, and the overall message of this is “Obama got his debt increase, which he needed because he has spent so much of our money and if we didn’t give it to him the country would fail.” This entire debate has put the screeching breaks on Obama’s socialist agenda. Voters will know that if they want to avoid this in the future, they have to get rid of the democrats. With the GOP only controlling the House, and the storm of Obama/Reid/Pelosi/LSM demagoguery, it’s a stunning win for the GOP. The tide is turning.

Rational Thought on July 31, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Still feeling eeyorish
What cuts occur now..if its across 10 years means NOTHING will get cut

cmsinaz on July 31, 2011 at 9:13 AM

The first priority right now is to get Sir Spendalot out of office. The TPers can rip the next guy to shreds if he doesn’t address our crippling debt, and the media will be all for that with a Republican prez.To continue obstruction past this point will only doom us to 4 more years.

Southernblogger on July 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Yes, and giving O a pass on the debt ceiling before the election greatly improves you odds of removing him, doesn’t it, genius? Would you mind if I passed your name on to the RNC? You’re a perfect fit for the Repubs.

james23 on July 31, 2011 at 9:13 AM

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.

How is this Constitutional? Congress authorizes spending. It doesn’t “approve” of Executive branch spending by “doing nothing”.

IOW, the POTUS will be able to authorize raising the debt ceiling, unless Congress doesn’t disapprove.

This is very similar to the Congressional Pay Raise legislation where the raise is automatic unless Congress votes it down. Which has never happened. Now, the debt will increase unless Congress resolves to say NO, which POTUS can veto.

Folks, the debt ceiling just vanished. Wait….let me rephrase…the public spectacle of arguing over raising the debt ceiling just vanished. Now its automatic.

BobMbx on July 31, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Will Dems, if the situation was reversed, absolutely refuse to raise the debt limit if it would score them political points – even if the Country defaults? You betcha!

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 9:09 AM

I do not want a Republican president asking for debt ceiling increases — do you? If it comes to this again with a Republican in the White House, I hope to God he or she will call for eliminating several federal agencies to avoid default, such as education, energy, interior, HUD, etc. Let’s see what the dems do then.

Rational Thought on July 31, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Those freshman who voted with Boehner against their campaign promises only to see a pre-arranged deal go into effect must not be too happy right about now.

txmomof6 on July 31, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Yep, but you know the “sweet” aspect of this deal for the Establishment? They only need about 30 – 40 Republican votes (could be less) to pass this compromise clusterfark. And that has been Boehner/McConnell’s plan all along.

As I explained yesterday:

Boehner’s strategy all along was to get conservatives/Tea Partiers to sign on to his proposal (Step 2 of the plan I outlined in my comment @ 6:30pm). That stage was the critical stage!

If conservatives/Tea partiers had refused and the bill had failed, we would have had CCB and Reid’s plan as the only plans on the table. The ineveitable compromise would then have benefited us and we would have obtained either BBA and/or a serious cap on future spending from it.

There is not a lot of difference between the cuts contained in Reid’s bill and Boehner’s bill. So, guess what? When the compromise bill makes its way into the House, it will be much easier to paint conservatives/Tea partiers who refuse to vote for it as obstructionists and hardliners.

The media will harp on the fact that you voted for most of it the first time so why not a second time?

The changes will be as follows:

Tier 2 of Boehner’s plan will be replaced with something resembling McConnell’s blank check to Obama to raise the limit at his whim by proposing sham cuts that cannot be overturned if vetoed. Or they might even increase it beyond 2012.

TheRightMan on July 30, 2011 at 6:50 PM

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 9:17 AM

That is important too. Dems are already plotting possible accidents for her as Obumbler slips in the polls.

Southernblogger on July 31, 2011 at 9:12 AM

I’ve read that they’re already pressuring her to retire and take one for the team. Per the article, it sounded like she didn’t want to do it because Sandra Day O’Connor had had some regrets about retiring early. Here’s a link.

TxAnn56 on July 31, 2011 at 9:18 AM

From what I know I will support this since within 60 days the 2012 budget is to be proposed and approved. That fight will give my TEA Party friends plenty of clout; we already have a Ryan’s House approved budget as a starter. The Dems haven’t had a budget, just continuing resolutions (CRs) and for over 820 days the Dem Senate, against the 1974 Democratic passed law with no consequences, haven’t even propsed a budget.

amr on July 31, 2011 at 9:18 AM

What a grim start to the week…

OmahaConservative on July 31, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Nope! RINOs will always surrender any leverage conservatives have to the Dems but they never seem to return the favor?

Will Dems, if the situation was reversed, absolutely refuse to raise the debt limit if it would score them political points – even if the Country defaults? You betcha!

We have an amateur squad facing the pros and we wonder why we keep losing.

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 9:09 AM

This is what I’m concerned about in this so-called “Super Committee” they are forming. I’m also concerned that, if I’m reading the outline of the bill correctly, the BBA would only be triggered if the Super Committee did not make the requisite cuts. So, what we’ll have is a bunch of moderate republican squishes on the committee who will go along to get along and just cut the low-hanging fruit the democrats want. They will never “fail” to make cuts because that would trigger the BBA vote–which I believe the moderates really do not want. This make-up of this Super Committee is very important.

KickandSwimMom on July 31, 2011 at 9:19 AM

With reference to my comment @ 9:17 am, here is Boehner’s plan as I predicted:

Yep, the strategy is becoming clearer and clearer with every passing day:

Step 1: Reid and Boehner get together to strategize how best to pass a bill that increases the debt limit without making any meaningful spending cuts. CCB is taken off the table.

Step 2: Boehner introduces a sham proposal and forces his caucus to get their a–es in line and pass it.

Step 3: Reid takes Boehner’s bill, strips out some cuts, adds more sham cuts and some “revenue” increases; and sends it back to Boehner.

Step 4: Boehner gives a middle finger to his conservative base and passes the modified bill with the support of RINO and Democrats.

Conservatives/Tea partiers and the country get the shaft while the big Govt. Republicans and Dems are free to continue living high on the hog.

TheRightMan on July 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM

It’s Step 4, baby, so cue the howling from conservatives/tea partiers while the Establishment high-five each other and party all night long. Suckers!

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 9:20 AM

What a grim start to the week…
OmahaConservative on July 31, 2011 at 9:19 AM

No kiddin’. A lot of politicans can not quite seem to remember what happened on 11/2/10.

kingsjester on July 31, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Long term debt increases with short term cuts…since out year cuts won’t happen.

Bad deal. Pass.

JohnTant on July 31, 2011 at 9:21 AM

I’ve read that they’re already pressuring her to retire and take one for the team. Per the article, it sounded like she didn’t want to do it because Sandra Day O’Connor had had some regrets about retiring early.

TxAnn56 on July 31, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Ginsberg also wants to serve as long as Brandeis did, too.

O’Connor got played by Rehnquist, who was also thinking of retiring, but he persuaded her to go first. He though if he announced first, O’Connor might hang on, thinking two vacancies at once were too much.

Wethal on July 31, 2011 at 9:22 AM

Put this one in the win column for Republicans.

TimeTraveler on July 31, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Interesting that some arrogant RINO would define Tea Party as a “type”. How stylish. The implication being that anyone wanting to stop this upcoming disaster is a reckless bomb thrower similar to an Al Qaeda fanatic.

When you look at DC you see essentially an Old Boys (and now to some extent an Old Girls) Network. Like defense and prosecuting attorneys who shout and scream at each other all day yet, the same evening, frequent the same bars with enthusiastic camaraderie (excuse me “cocktail lounges”), the same restaurants and often the same massage parlors. Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, simultaneously for you and yet paradoxically also for me.

I admit that at first glance this “deal” looks better than all previous compromise “abortions” that have been presented. Trouble is that debt ceiling hikes only encourage more spending and, at least to me, too much wiggle room and lack of specificity in the alleged cuts. What will probably happen is a ceiling hike and little or NO cuts, the bottom line being a bigger deficit and more spending.

MaiDee on July 31, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Does this mean he can still go to his birthday party on Wednesday? meh

herm2416 on July 31, 2011 at 9:24 AM

However, the added McConnell wrinkle is interesting — and potentially a big win for Republicans. Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama. If they “disapprove,” Obama will veto the disapproval and end up owning all of the political baggage for the debt-ceiling increases.

Neither “disapproval” resolution will make it out of the Senate. Of course, then we get to blame Dingy Harry.

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Dems will have a pre-canned election campaign: “the evil republicans want to cut our military and elderly benefits” come when the special commission can’t make a decision this fall. How can our Republican leaders be so damn clueless?

trs on July 31, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama. If they “disapprove,” Obama will veto the disapproval and end up owning all of the political baggage for the debt-ceiling increases.

Do you think Americans are are going to fall for this Ed?! The congress gives Obama the right to raise the debt ceiling by 2.8 trillion, KNOWING FULL WELL HE WILL DO SO, and then get to say “we disapprove” just so they can say they disapproved. We are not going to fall for this ridiculous bit of Kabuki theater!!!

They still don’t understand what happened in 2010 and hope you aren’t forgetting that also! We Americans are awake! We can see that this vote is another example of Washington politics and WE ARE SICK OF IT! If this is as damaging to him as you are hoping, then why would he sign off on it? It would be less damaging for him to reject it, let the phoney deadline pass and use his discretion to pay the most important obligations while continuing to work on a deal.

The only way I can accept this is if it is not really a serious deal but rather a way to force Obama to finally present his own plan on paper and then negotiate from there.

2010 happened and these people are ignoring that to their own peril.

csdeven on July 31, 2011 at 9:31 AM

In my opinion, no matter how they spin it, this is BS.

Amjean on July 31, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Congress un-Constitutionally grants part of its Constitutional power to the Executive branch, and we’re supposed to support it because it might make the President look bad (assuming the media reports it honestly). Are these people on drugs?

dominigan on July 31, 2011 at 9:03 AM

This scares the life out of me! As far as I’m concerned they are giving George Soros and Valerie Jarett the keys to the kingdom. They aim to destroy us.

It’s a great day to re-read the Declaration of Independence. It could have been written yesterday.

Naturally Curly on July 31, 2011 at 9:33 AM

If you didn’t like the rump shagging you were getting before, you’re really gonna hate this new one.

Beto Ochoa on July 31, 2011 at 9:36 AM

2010 happened and these people are ignoring that to their own peril.

csdeven on July 31, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Then 2012 will put even more Tea Partiers into Congress. In the mean time, the GOP won’t take the blame when Obama throws granny off a cliff after a default — which he’ll do because, to socialists, granny is just a campaign tool. The GOP message going forward is that they had to give Obama a debt ceiling increase because his spending — the spending he has already done — put the country in such peril that we’re left paying his bills. The ads write themselves: The Obama Depression cost the nation X amount. We can’t take four more years of this.”

Rational Thought on July 31, 2011 at 9:37 AM

I don’t know. I think the added detail of Congress allowing the Executive branch increase spending without its approval, actually makes this plan much worse. I’d rather have them just cowardly authorize it then setting the horrible precedent that a President can essentially increase his funds unilaterally. Is that even Constitutional?

Weight of Glory on July 31, 2011 at 9:38 AM

So we’re going to spend the money in the next year and a half, but the “cuts” are spread out over the next ten years, years which will have massive deficits anyway…

ummm, hooray?

trubble on July 31, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Right, not to mention the interest on the new money borrowed. So this is not even close to a wash. It’s new debt, plain and simple. I think this is why people are willing to risk default, at this point. It is the only solution which prevents any new debt.

drocity on July 31, 2011 at 9:39 AM

“But, but, we ought to shut down the govt & cause worldwide panic & lose in 2012 because we are principled!”
– Tea Party types

Ridiculous……… Independents will decide the election and they know what time it is. We are a year and a half out of the election and the economy by all measure will be in shambles. They are NOT going to continue to support policies that got us here….. Take your head out of your A##……. Sincerely…. A tea Party Type.

dartagnansblade on July 31, 2011 at 9:40 AM

What I’m also worried about in this plan is Obama with the checkbook. It really doesn’t matter that he will get the blame for trashing the economy if he raises the debt limit himself if the plan all along is to trash the economy so that he can bring about a whole new system. In fact, letting the economy collapse would probably be the best way to usher in socialism. Am I missing something here?

KickandSwimMom on July 31, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Regardless what happens: defeat RINOs in the primaries, defeat Democrats in the general, rid this nation of the radical socialist in the White House in Nov.

Weight of Glory on July 31, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Same old, same old. No tax increases, which is good. But more money for Big Gvmnt now, and spending cuts…….someday…….maybe.

drocity on July 31, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Trouble is (for me personally and especially) you can’t believe ANY of this until it’s on paper, signed and filed.

When exactly and WHERE do we get to see and read that contract?

golfmann on July 31, 2011 at 9:41 AM

This will ultimately lead to street violence. The agitation by Holder and Obama to “their people” and the absolute tyranny of the liberal press, democratic party and all will bring this to a crescendo just prior to the 2012 election. Obama knows he cannot be elected on his merits but will ultimately, through class warfare, such orchestrate chaos in the streets of America he will declare some sort of emergency measures to hold on to power. I hope I’m wrong but there are too many signs pointing to this. Watching Reid on the senate floor yesterday told me how evil of a man this leech is. God help us.

wepeople on July 31, 2011 at 9:43 AM

So let me get this straight.

A week ago, Boehner was close to a deal with Obama that included:
1. a debt limit increase big enough to get Obama through the next election without having to do this again.
2. $800 billion in new revenue (not exactly a tax hike, since it would lower tax rates but eliminate “loopholes” to make up the difference, but $800 billion in new revenue to the government nonetheless)

But then Coburn rejoined the Gang of Six, and Obama rejected that deal.

Now he’s got a deal that not only doesn’t give him new revenue and doesn’t increase the debt limit enough to get him through the next election… but if he wants to extend it further he has to take all the political blame for doing so.

Wow.

Remember how everybody used to say this guy was good at politics, a genius at it, even? You think anybody believes that now? Peggy Noonan was right, this guy is a loser.

Caiwyn on July 31, 2011 at 9:43 AM

a potentially big win for Republicans

Try substituting the US for Repbulicans and see how it feels then.

Hongqi on July 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

What I’m also worried about in this plan is Obama with the checkbook. It really doesn’t matter that he will get the blame for trashing the economy if he raises the debt limit himself if the plan all along is to trash the economy so that he can bring about a whole new system. In fact, letting the economy collapse would probably be the best way to usher in socialism. Am I missing something here?

KickandSwimMom on July 31, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Great point!

drocity on July 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Paging Admiral Ackbar, please report to the bridge.

Seriously, this will put the Republicans in a position of either voting for tax cuts at the end of the year or accepting well over $1 trillion in defense cuts and unspecified Medicare cuts.

I hope the Bo(eh)nerites are happy about being played like violins.

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Er, that should be “Seriously, this will put the Republicans in a position of either voting for tax cuts hikes at the end of the year….”

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2011 at 9:46 AM

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.

*rolls eyes*

That’s a steep price to pay for Obama just to protect himself through the next election, although he could turn it on its ear and refuse to veto the second increase disapproval and force this fight all over again. That would, however, put the country back in “crisis” mode, and that would still be all on Obama.

You mean like it’s been “all on Obama” in *this* crisis mode? Please; the last several days have been about how it’s all on the Teahadists and intransigent GOP extremists – why the hell are you trying to fool yourself and anyone else that it will be different next time?

Midas on July 31, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Trouble is (for me personally and especially) you can’t believe ANY of this until it’s on paper, signed and filed.

When exactly and WHERE do we get to see and read that contract?

golfmann on July 31, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Well you have to pass it to see what is in it and then all we will get is, ” to be filled by the committee ” probably.

bluemarlin on July 31, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Neither “disapproval” resolution will make it out of the Senate. Of course, then we get to blame Dingy Harry.

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2011 at 9:25 AM

That is it, Steve!

We have a bunch of old-time Republican “dinosaurs” who refuse to accept that this is not the Democrat party the way they used to know it. Today’s Dems are a bunch of radicals with a detailed plan to remake this country and now they are running short of money to run it.

Instead of the Republicans cutting up their credit cards and effectively bringing the train to a stop, oh no! They, in the interest of comity and for the love of the media, would actively or passively aid the Dems in the destruction of the country.

And, of course, the “hobbits” are supposed to be the dumb ones. @#$#@$%!

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Who cares about whether this is good for Republicans or not. It’s bad for the nation! It’s bad for your children! It’s a near 20% increase in our debt in one night for the promise of cuts and a vote, the granting of more power to the executive, and the ability to point fingers.

Gee, thanks…

Pattosensei on July 31, 2011 at 9:53 AM

My only hope and prayer is that there be a true revolt against Boehner this time. If only the Repubs in the House can stand firm and refuse to commit even ONE vote to this clusterfark… hmmm…

TheRightMan on July 31, 2011 at 9:56 AM

This feels like a trap. Obama and dems are jockeying for an 11th hour gambit to force the GOP to screw the pooch and take the blame for a collapse. Then he can step in with emergency measures and force the GOP back for more devastating concessions. Obama wants, needs a collapse way too much. And he knows too well how GOP operates on fear.

Tell me why or how I’m wrong.

rrpjr on July 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Horrible deal. Obama gets what he wanted, a debt ceiling deal past the election.

And the “cuts”? Based on assumptions over a 10 year period, never going to happen. We will still add trillions to the debt and maintaina huge deficit.

Norwegian on July 31, 2011 at 9:59 AM

… but if he wants to extend it further he has to take all the political blame for doing so.

Caiwyn on July 31, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Seriously? Have you been awake for the last couple of weeks? Who has *all* of the political pressure been on? When Obama vetoes it – and he will – it will be with numerous television appearances (for free), countless press conferences from Obama henchmen, and countless exponential editorials/pundit pieces/talking head discussions about how ‘our hero’ had to do what he did because the terrorists in the GOP were holding a gun to the head of the economy, threatening to kill Granny, to default for the first time in history and send the world into flames, etc.

Dear God, what hope do we have if our own guys are so naive that they can’t even remember what the Dems playbook on this was 48 freaking hours ago.

*sigh*

Midas on July 31, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3