E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA Republican source close to the negotiations tells NBC News that both sides are "very close" to agreement on a two-step debt-ceiling deal.
It is essentially the original Boehner plan -- without the balanced-budget amendment and with modified triggers, what amounts to an escape hatch if a joint committee can't get the cuts needed. The plan would get enough in cuts, roughly $1 trillion, to last about six or seven months.
At the same time, a joint congressional committee would be established that would be tasked with getting enough in cuts to raise the debt ceiling again and get past the 2012 election - in the range of $1.4 trillion to $1.8 trillion.
The source said the White House's concern was that if a joint committee couldn't find something, the White House wanted a way to access the second tranche. The original Boehner plan did not include a way without the joint committee finding something.
Here are the options if a committee can't find something:
1. A balanced-budget amendment sent to states, which is "not going to happen," the source said. (NBC's Mike Viqueira reports there would be a separate vote on a balanced-budget amendment);
2. Across the board cuts that include Medicare and Defense, but NOT Social Security. The goal is that just the threat of this should provide "total motivation" for a committee to find a solution.
The whole thing then triggers the McConnell disapproval process, in which a two-thirds majority would be needed to disapprove of the president's spending proposals.
The original Boehner plan didn't have the votes to pass the House in the first try this past week. But this should pass, because it should get the support of many Democrats. Democrats aggressively whipped against the original Boehner proposal.
A House GOP Leadership aide says, "Discussions are moving in the right direction, but serious issues remain. And no agreement will be final until Members have a chance to weigh in."
Leave a Comment:
How US Got 14 Trillion in Debt;
2.4 President Obama (2009-11) Stimulus spending, tax cuts, and the effects of 2007-9 recession in lost revenues and automatic spending, like unemployment compensation.
6.1 George W. Bush (2001-9) Tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in 2007.
1.4 Bill Clinton (1993-2001) Despite two years of on-budget surpluses, deficit spending in other years added to the debt.
1.5 George Bush (1989-93) The first gulf war and lower revenue from a recession.
1.9 Ronald 1.9 (1981-89) Peacetime defense spending and permanent tax cuts.
1.0 Before Reagan (1981 AND EARLIER) Deficit spending from wars and economic downturns.
Sources: Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Bureau of the Public Debt; Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Office of Management and Budget
Published: April 10
How Often the Debt Limit Has Been Raised
By the Treasury Department's count, Congress has acted 78 times since 1960 to raise, extend or alter the definition of the debt limit — 49 times under Republican presidents, and 29 times under Democratic presidents. Related Article »
In 1940, the debt limit was about $43 billion. It was raised as high as $300 billion during World War II.
The debt limit has been increased 140 percent since 2000, when it was $6 trillion.
Proposals would raise the limit of $14.3 trillion by $2.5 to $2.7 trillion.
1mjk - Thank you for the facts. It seems that our deficit/debt problem has been worse with a Republican in the White House. Shocking
So where did your accounting come from? Bush added $2.8 trillion to the national debt counting both wars, TARP, and Medicare D. Obama has added $4.5 trillion since the start of his first term to the national debt according to CBO numbers. Our national debt was slightly under $10 trillion when Bush left office. We are now just over $14 trillion. You claim Obama only added $2.4 trillion. The Obama deficit in 2009 was $1.573 trillion. In 2010 it was $1.6 trillion. He added $866 billion in a stimulus package. That is already at $4 trillion before you even get into the 2011 deficit which is scheduled to be over $1.6 trillion. Better check you sources better because they aren't adding up.
Please remember that Bush came into the White House with a relatively stable economy and a deficit/debt that was manageable and Obama came into the White House on the complete other end of the spectrum. One should probably consider these facts when discussing deficits.
So guys, what are we saying here? That both George dumbya annnd Obummer really smell? So lets vote for some real change. Vote Ron Paul and stir this sh!t pot up? How much worse could a conservative defender of the constitution do? let's all just do it...come on
YOu ever notice that liberals too lazy to research a topic simplly say it is a lie? They NEVER quote a reference or supporting data. These are the fools that voted for Pelosi and Reed. Let's start a campaign that you must pass an IQ Test to vote? I am so sick of these bird brains and their unfounded posts. Obama is a one term President just like Jimmy Carter.
Unfortunately,Edward he should never have been a one term in the first place. Millions who were charmed by his "change" speeches aren't so charmed now. Exceptions: Feisty, Beverly. Scott, Disabled Vet and the rest of the group. They'll be on board after the ship goes under.
Edward-445583, we tried posting fact after fact BUT you simply ignore them or twist them into lies. Why post facts when they only confuse people like you? People like you remind me of the saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." In your case it would be "you can show the evidence over and over but if the truth is twisted it won't make any difference." You don't want the truth, you can't handle the truth.
Luvenia: Not picking on you directly but some of the libs and Obama worshippers get on First Read and post very long pages of nonsense and try to pass them off as "facts" . One of the biggest offenders is Disabled American Vet who likes to sound like a revered oratist but to many of us is nothing but a boor. If you're going to post facts get your link on there, throw your opinion out if you have one, and maybe you'll get me to read it. I haven't read much of Vet's stuff for a long time for that very reason.
luvenia, you are right. Why should you bother with facts especially when they get in the way of dogma.
I guess here's the problem...we have different sets of facts in the country now. Since the politicians cannot and will not solve our problems; we'd better find a way to get along and find common ground...we seem to be all we've got because Washington has abandoned us all.
6.1 trillion under President Bush, leaves the White House having to give the banks 700 billion and over 700,000 jobs lost the month he hands over the keys. But now, many of his supporters know exactly what is wrong and how to fix it. Really? Ug
So keep running against Bush, maybe you can beat him in 2012. But last time I look Obama was elected to solve our jobless problem. But since he has taken office our economy has only gotten worse. Whatever the Democrats have done has not worked. The Stimulus just was a waste and the Democrats have made doing business in the US very difficult.
Ray - I assume your were a Bush supporter. In that case, please refer to my original post.
Exactly what I expected. Once the republicans learned early in the Obama administration that the President would cave in rather than fight for democratic principles, all they had to do was say 'No' and they would get most of what they wanted. Obama has damaged the American people beyond measure. But just like Reagan, he's a nice guy, so that seems to be the measure of electing people President.
Big difference!! When faced with a recession what Reagan did worked. Within 18 months of his tax restructuring employment had dipped under 7% and we had over 7% GDP growth. His plan worked. Nothing Obama and the Democrats have done has worked. Maybe he should start taking a page out of the Reagan book.
What are these "democratic principles" that you mention? What do they have to do with the debt ceiling limit political battle being waged in Congress now?
FoxDog--they don't have anything to do with raising the debt ceiling....at least not until John Boehner declared that he wouldn't pass a debt ceiling without cramming it with republican principles---a battle I think we should have---but it didn't need to become a crisis.
Desktop: You can't be as dumb as your statement sounds. When Obama forced HCR on us with Reid and Pelosi's help the Republicans yelled No! No! No! Did Obama cave in? Get real!
@imnotlost
Facts are difficult to find in political issues. Who would not have an agenda? I would like to know how much has been spent since 1960 on free money welfare. Who keeps up with that. It would include everything from the summer jobs for teens, subsidized housing, public assistance, WIC, grants, and on and on. What has been the return on the investment?
Opinion, rants, lies, propaganda, and name calling are more common here. People who spend time to learn how an economy works, how a national bank such as the Federal Reserve should work or why it should not be allowed to control key economic inputs, how a unfavorable balance of trade hurts an economy, how currency exchange and reserve currency works, and how congress has a major role in the whole will not be wasting time on Newsvine, MSNBC, or FirstRead. NBC is going to do a little propaganda piece at 7:00 EDT. Will it be worth the watch. From past experience, I will be cutting grass in the heat instead.
Foxdog: You are correct. Most of the stuff on First Read is name calling or pure out hate, and the closer we get to Nov. 2012 Newsvine is getting that way. The moderators can't keep up or a lot of them would be gone.
Re: Your reference to tonight's special. It was advertised as being about the Capitol, but Brian L. Williams (the L is for liberal) is there so watch it go left soon after the bell.
Foxdog
You are the first to mention the unfavorable trade balance so kudos to you. Why does the US commerce department and FTC get a free pass from all the critisism. They could be a big part of the solution if they would only enforce and impose counter measure tariffs that have been awarded through the ITC for offenders such as China and Indonesia who dump low priced imports on us and destroy domestic markets.
The US Department of Commerce mission is to "promote job creation and improved living standards for all Americans by creating an infrastructure that promotes economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development." Their mission statement just mentioned every one of the issues our country is facing at the moment and yet the media has not once put their feet to the fire.
Why doesn't the President and Congress insist on the USDC being part of a long term solution? It just makes perfect sense to me that healthy US industries equate to higher profits, created jobs and increased tax revenue.
Shame on them all! They've not only made it so that the very simple raising of the debt ceiling is an international crisis; they've made themselves look even worse than they already did (thought that was impossible), they've got the American public at each other's throats, they've created an atmosphere of such distrust, apprehension and anger that I've never seen before in my 55 years. And now, watch, they're going to pass this republican bill and then they're going to act like they've done a good thing. I'm betting they're actually proud of themselves for betraying the middle-class. I swear if they come out at a press conference and say how they came through and what a good thing this is; I'm going to throw my tv out the window!!!!!
@Sueb1
Save that TV. I will pay shipping on it and throw it out a window here. Is it a flat screen? I am sure my brother can catch it if it weighs less than 150 pounds.
Actually it's a 10 year old set that's on it's way out. We've already ordered a flat screen to replace it....I'm angry; I'm not stupid!!! LOL!
Paul, Bush's last budget with a Republican congress had a deficit of $166 billion in 2007. Once the Democrats came into office and passed the 2008 budget, the deficit was $500 billion. The bill for 7 years of both wars was $766 billion. According to the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, Bush added $2.2 trillion to the national debt with another $766 billion for both wars. The largest budget deficit before Obama was $500 billion in 2008 which has been confirmed by the CBO. Since coming into office, Obama has had the only three budget deficits over $1 trillion ( they have all been over $1.5 trillion) Your original post numbers were totally false. They have been posted by several liberal sites. They credit all the war spending under Obama and all the TARP money under Obama to Bush. But those funds were spent under Obama on his budget watch. Creative accounting doesn't work. If the money was spent under Obama it counts against his watch. Obama has added over $4.5 trillion to the national debt which is approaching double what any other administration has added
Looks like Obama is caving again to the "Cronie" Republicans. This country will NEVER move forward until they are ALL voted or booted out of office. Republicans are STUCK in the REA-GUN era --- Reg-Gun-omics didn't work then and it will NOT work now. When I voted for Obama, I thought I was voting for CHANGE! I didn't realize that the change was Obama changing from Democrat to Republican. NEVER AGAIN! He has lost my vote ------
Why is it democrats are so afraid of a Balanced Budget Amendment?
The democrats are afraid of a balanced budget amendment because they don't work and they tie the hands of a government to do things that need to get done--like act in the case of national emergency.
Sueb1 - Not true, the BBA has a provision that the budget can exceed revenue in case of a national emergency (attacks by foreign nations or groups) and natural disasters (floods, hurricanes etc.,).
The problem is everything the Democrats want is a national emergency such as health care or global warming.
The problem is once you invoke the national emergency clause....you no longer have a balanced budget and look at some of the national emergencies we've had in the last decade. 9/11, Katrina, Joplin, the Alabama tornadoes....just there you have billions and billions and billions!
and Ray W....whether you call it global warming, climate change or what.....it's hot as you know where and doesn't seem to be cooling off any--Texas is suffering a worse drought then we had during the dustbowl. And last winter...how many states exceeded their budgets for snow removal?
Sue - you don't know what you are talking about. Every US state other than Vermont some form of balanced budget amendment.
A balanced-budget amendment is a constitutional rule requiring that the state/government can not spend more than its income. It requires a balance between the projected receipts and expenditures of the government.
Balanced-budget provisions have been added to the constitutions of must US states, the Basic Law of Germany and the Swiss Constitution. Most balanced-budget provisions make an exception for times of war or national emergency, or allow the legislature to suspend the rule by a supermajority vote.
Let's make another stupid statistic, If you make 100 dollars a year and i make one. i am taxed 17% , you are taxed 17%. I payed .17 cents in taxes, you paid 17 dollars in taxes. what percentage more taxes did you pay than I payed? 100%? so if the rich top 10% "earners" are paying 55%(the # you defenders of the rich keep throwing out there) then it look like they ARE paying less than the people here on middle earth..aka the real world. Don't let smoke come out of your ears thinking about it.......message approved by a TRUE REPUBLICAN FISCAL CONSERVATIVE(AN ALL BUT EXTINCT BREED)...uh that's me.
so you may see through the smoke now that you are paying 100% more than me, but on our earnings we are both paying our fair share. Although you are paying 99% of all taxes collected from the two of us. Isn't it just craaazy! so my conclusion is that if you are actually paying 55% or 72% or anything less than 99%, you are paying less than me...crazytown hunh?
Well Seniors, vets and poor bend over, you know what's coming, once again we will take the brunt of it, and you gotta love the Baggers and GOP, they ran all over screaming about Big Government, Big Government, now it's "hey let's make another branch of government"! So whose ass do they have to kiss, or which corporate giant owns this branch?
Blame who? Blame who gave into them. You are just saying the Democrats and President gave in, took their bribe money, and sold us down the river. Who you want to blame but the ones that betrayed you. The Democrats had control of both houses and the Presidency but failed to pass a budget, they loss the PR war on health care and the economy and now they must deal with the new reality, an emboldened, non compromising, care less if I am re-elected Tea Party activist. The President is right, "we are not done." This is only going to get worse before it is finished. Expect more anger between the two sides than ever before. Obama has brought so little change that it makes Joe Wilson look like a prophet.
If democrats give in, DONT expect my vote! Ever!
Well, we all knew Reid was a wimp. No backbone. No leadership. Goodbye middle class. Hello poor and elite wealthy. Can't believe they are voting for a plan 80% do not want. This is giving the safe away to the crooks and doing it with a smile.
Every poll I have seen shows over 60% of Americans in favor of major budget cuts. Over 70% in two polls in the past week favor a balanced budget amendment. Haven't seen more than 30% against any budget cuts.
And 72 % want tax increases on the wealthy.
Tunde Atkins - The far left liberal nuts led by the number #1 loser Obozo is who is leading the country to the brink by design. The Tea Party has the foresight to see this country is heading for doom and financial ruin if the spending does not stop and a balance budget is not enforced. Obozo has been groomed by the socialist morons who reside in our liberal universities and others like george soros to help destroy the greatest country in the world.
2012 will get rid of the current morons who now control the Senate and the White House and we will get jobs and restore America back to the leader of the world. So you far left liberal socialist nuts getn ready for the real change that is coming!
Do you like the change your masiah Obozo has provided so far??
Rick, you sound like a little child. Grow up and act like an adult.
Could you be one of those left wing extremist who is out of touch with most of America?
This settlement is not surprising. Government spending and the budget is a loser issue for the Democrats. They look at last fall's election and the present polls which show a huge majority of America in favor of budget cuts. The Democrats would be pushing for tax increases if they were getting traction with the people. Obama told people to call their representative but those representatives reported more calls for budget cuts than tax increases. The Democrats are not stupid and read the writing on the wall. They want this issue out of the news well before next years election.
Several trillion dollars have been handed out to corporations since Reagan. Look out the window to see the results. What spending should be cut? The programs that once aided America's poor, General Assistance and AFDC, are both gone. We were told that these programs were "bringing taxpayers to their knees," and our problems would be solved if we just got rid of them -- jobs would be plentiful, wealth would grow and trickle down. Right. So, which Americans should we sacrifice this time so that we can manage to remain at war while showering the rich with more money??
By the way you sound, I'm sure your older than I. Good. When you complain about not having the benefits you paid for, I will laugh my ass off! Fools on the right, who are middle class would shoot themselves in the foot. Cut a head off because of a headache. The right follow blindly no matter what. Do let facts stand in your Republicans.
Isn't it time to remind Boehner of something? He's ranting again about "job killing taxes." The rich/corporations have enjoyed some 30 years of massive handouts, all for the sake of "job creation." Results: We now have a fraction of the jobs, at worsening wages. Corporate tax cuts are NOT used to create those "good, family supporting jobs" in the US, so stop it. Use the savings to whittle down the deficits.
Oh my good Lord, Harry, Nancy, and Big O have failed. What's that I see. The plan the boys and girl on msnbc scoffed at is now going to be reality. They have found a way to stem the Big O's spending spree. How you libs feeling about now. Big O has offended his base, will be fun to find out just how far he drops in the opinion polls. Here comes that man from Texas, yippee-aye- o Rick Perry
This time old Harry got caught. His and Nancy's closed door sessions weren't gonna get by the public this time. They've already screwed us 2 or 3 times with their shenanigans. Mr. B, you did a fine job. How would you like to be the man with Perry and Rubio as the pres. and vice pres.
Dh, how many jobs do you think those rich corporations had for us Americans. By the way, all those people who were employed by them were paying revenue each and every year. Also, a simple question for youDh. When you filed your returns last year and the years before that, did you take your exemptions and write offs. Did you find loopholes. I'm sure you did, and yet you despise the rich and corps for doing it. Really doesn't make a lot of sense does it. I guess it's just a liberal thing
Paul, in 2000, this nation was in a recession
Come on libs, let us hear your double talk spins now. Ya man the Big O has been paralyzed. He now has to start accounting for his spending. Did you see him in the speech tonight. Not even his teleprompters helped him
if there is every a vote for a BBA, we the people should amend it with TERM LIMITS