Conservatives squeeze Boehner on debt limit hike
Photo
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, right, and Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas , center, listen as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., left, speaks during a news conference at The Republican National Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 26, 2011.
WASHINGTON — Neither the House nor the Senate has a clear path forward for must-pass legislation to allow the government to continue to borrow to pay its bills, putting lawmakers and financial markets alike on edge less than a week before the deadline for heading off the nation's first-ever default.
House Speaker John Boehner was forced late Tuesday to postpone a floor vote on his plan, which originally had been scheduled for Wednesday, after nonpartisan congressional scorekeepers said the proposal would cut spending less than advertised. He promised to rewrite the measure, but the move means the House can't vote on it until Thursday at the earliest.
Boehner, R-Ohio, needs to do more than pump up the legislation. He needs to shore up his standing with tea party-backed conservatives demanding deeper spending cuts to accompany an almost $1 trillion increase in the government's borrowing cap. Many conservatives already had promised to oppose it.
"We need more drastic cuts," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. "I can't support it in its current form."
"I'm searching for a path toward yes but having a difficult time finding it," said Rep Bill Huizenga, R-Mich.
Unless he can wrestle the situation under control, Boehner risks losing leverage in his dealing with President Barack Obama and Democrats controlling the Senate.
Boehner's plan was not winning converts among some stalwart conservatives. It prompted Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to declare that the bill was destined to fail in the Senate and it drew a White House veto threat. But it was framing the debate over how to reduce long-term deficits while raising the debt ceiling.
Tuesday's Congressional Budget Office analysis said the GOP measure would cut the deficit by about $850 billion over 10 years, not the $1.2 trillion originally promised. Even more embarrassing was a CBO finding that the measure, which would provide a $900 billion increase in the nation's borrowing cap, would generate just a $1 billion deficit cut over the coming year.
Boehner's plan would couple budget savings gleaned from 10 years of curbs on agency budgets with a two-track plan for increasing the government's borrowing cap by up to $2.7 trillion. The first increase of $900 billion would take effect immediately; the second increase could be awarded only after the recommendations of a special bipartisan congressional panel are enacted into law.
The White House says Boehner's measure would reopen the delicate and crucial debt discussions to unending political pressure during next year's campaigns and risk more uncertainty in the markets.
The White House promised to veto Boehner's measure if it were to reach Obama's desk.
It's unlikely to come to that. Reid, D-Nev., promised the measure would never make it through the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Reid held back on forcing a vote on his competing measure, which he unveiled Monday to poor reviews from Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Reid appears to hope that his measure, which promises $2.7 trillion in spending cuts and would increase the debt limit enough to keep the government afloat past the 2012 elections, could emerge as the last viable option standing and could be modified with input from Republicans.
Those same Republicans blasted Reid's bill for $1 trillion in war-related savings they say are phony. But McConnell is emerging as a key figure in the endgame, and he sounded a conciliatory note in an appearance Tuesday.
"We need to get an outcome. And to get an outcome, a Republican House, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president would have to reach an agreement," McConnell said. "So I'm prepared to accept something less than perfect, because perfect is not achievable."
One area of potential compromise could be how to treat the findings of a bipartisan congressional commission to identify further deficit reductions, especially in major health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Both Reid and Boehner support the idea, though Boehner wants to make a future increase in the debt limit contingent on the proposed additional cuts being enacted into law.
Meanwhile, the clock was ticking down to next Tuesday's deadline to continue the government's borrowing powers and avert possible defaults on U.S. loans and obligations, like $23 billion worth of Social Security payments due Aug. 3. The Capitol's telephones were jammed after Obama urged the public to contact their representatives in his Monday night address.
Conservative bloggers and groups like the Club for Growth, which funds primary campaigns against Republicans it deems too squishy in their conservatism, denounced Boehner's bill as too weak. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, closer to the GOP mainstream, urged support.
While Boehner searched for votes, some Americans seemed to edge closer to the notion that the Aug. 2 deadline might pass without a solution. The stock market fell again, although not dramatically. California planned to borrow about $5 billion from private investors as a hedge against a possible federal government default.
The White House spoke with veterans groups about what might happen to their benefits if a deal isn't reached. Obama has said he can't guarantee Social Security checks and payments to veterans and the disabled would go out on schedule.
Freshman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., bristled at the idea that tea party-influenced newcomers are sheep-like ideologues willing to risk default.
"We're not a bunch of knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Neanderthals," Gowdy said. "We're interested in answering what we perceive to be the mandate, which is to stop the spending and change the way Washington handles money."
Gowdy said he was leaning against Boehner's proposal.
Jul 28, 2011 at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom.......They should be holding the debt ceiling hostage. The whole point of having a debt ceiling is to keep our debt in check--simply raising it when you reach it seems a bit counterproductive, don't you think?? I completely agree with Obama's stance in 2006 when he was COMPLETELY against raising the ceiling--he basically called it a failure of our government--which it absolutely is........
Jul 27, 2011 at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
dkush -- I am not sure what you are saying. Increasing corporate tax is a double tax on the same dollars. Employees are paid and taxed on their income, the excess price of a product or profit goes to the stockholders or to future investments as part of the cash flow and declared profits. So its banked until spent at a later date. When spent, it again goes to wages. So in soem form, the money is taxed and then taxed again as corportae profits, sales taxes, etc.... use taxes,,, the reality is that its not a tax or revenue problem. Its a spending problem that the government has. You will never fix it by increasing any taxes. As jobs fall, revenues drop, yet the services stay the same and when revenue exceeds income or taxes collected, instead of banking it (as corporations do) they find more ways to spend it. How could the government ever say they are watching risky behavior by banks, how could they ever blame citizens for over extendeding themsleves. They couldnt balanace a checkbook ever.
Jul 27, 2011 at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky: That is exactly what I said. They are raiding the programs for other Federal programs. And I have taken cuts and have been paying more in tax increases. The problem is that it is all one-sided. People are getting tired of taking cuts and paying more when Big Corporations are not. But we do allow them to get more tax-cuts and we do allow them to keep those tax loopholes. The responsibility of everyone sacrificing is NOT being shared.
Jul 27, 2011 at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Smoothie- I would never say that about good Patriots that believe in the "Constitution" and the hallowed "Founding Fathers" and all things truly American.
Jul 27, 2011 at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom
The bi-partisan bill passed in the House called Cut Cap and Balance is being held "hostage" by Harry Reid in the Senate.
Lets debate that bill in the Senate and offer changes and get moving forward.
Jul 27, 2011 at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you are referring to the Nazi march Coch-bros, it's GOOSESTEP.
Jul 27, 2011 at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don't worry Patriots. It is only a matter of time before our GOP marches lockstep (you can bank on that always) and harder to the right.
Jul 27, 2011 at 1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Remember folks, it's the Republicans holding the debt ceiling hostage, in order to get the cuts they want to the budget. This is a manufactured crisis. In 2006, the debt ceiling was raised with a one sentance bill.
Jul 27, 2011 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dusty -- you mean the budget that was never presented for this year nor last year. Obama feels he can do whatever he wants and when it was all Dems, thats exactly what we had. Now we have some fiscal conservatives that want to control and limit spending and Obama cant stand it. He will be gone next year as his policis have eiether resulted in or prolonged the current economic state.
Jul 27, 2011 at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
For those of you that continue to go on and on about "Obama's spending spree", etc., I would remind you that the Congress votes on and authorizes all federal government spending. Under our constitution, the Congress has the power or the purse. The debt limit issue pertains only to government spending that has already been authorized and approved by both houses of Congress prior to being signed by the President.
Jul 27, 2011 at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
dkush - a lot of people have worked hard and are still losing jobs, pensions, benefits and more. Yes - you paid into the system, and I'm not proposing you lose benefits, but you may have to deal with some small cuts, or do without some increases. Everyone has to share the pain here. It is the only way we can get this to work. Otherwise you are simply exhibit A for the first sentence of my previous post.
---
BTW - just to clear up a common misconception. Your contributions to Social Security are not sitting there in a numbered account waiting for you to withdraw. Your contributions paid for benefits of retirees at that time (and to a large extent were raided to pay for other Federal programs...which is another source of our problems, but also another discussion). My SS taxes now pay your benefits. Some day, God willing, I will receive benefits from those working at that time.
Jul 27, 2011 at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Our representatives on both sides have done nothing but taken away from us and given to whatever benefits their own pockets. Maybe we should start by taking away from them since they are not doing their jobs.
Jul 27, 2011 at 12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have worked damn hard all my life and have contributed into Medicare and Social Security for when I needed it. I'll be damned if our representatives can't find elsewhere to cut money than to dip into what I have paid into my entire working life.
Jul 27, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky: Why should we cut something that we have put money into for ourselves? Medicare and Social Security is what is taken out of our checks for us when we NEED it. Maybe if our representatives would have used that money for what it was intended and who it was SUPPOSED to go to, we wouldn't have the problems we have today.
Jul 27, 2011 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
For many, "wasteful spending" = "spending that doesn't benefit ME". So be specific - what spending exactly do you want cut? As I said with the Wisconsin situation, when you are short money you can either spend less, get more, or (what usually works best) some combination of the two. Just cutting spending - especially with the underfunded futures of Medicare, Obamacare and Social Security, isn't going to be popular at all. Bottom line is that we need people who are willing to not be re-elected to make the hard decisions that share the pain and include (1) cuts across the board - including entitlements, (2) repeals of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations [for example - remove the cap from Social Security and elimination of corporate welfare], and perhaps even (3) re-writing of our whole income tax system to eliminate some deductions and loopholes and level the playing field for everyone. Yes - it is going to be painful for everyone, but unlike Walker's solution, which put the brunt of the solution on the backs of public workers, everyone is going to have to take a hit this time.
Jul 27, 2011 at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
MooShoo - what topic would you like to discuss?
Be specific as you haven't done that yet except lash out like a little one.
What's your topic?
Jul 27, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kaysbrew, you speak out of both side of your mouth. Who appointed you constitutional scholar? Show me where those topics you list are unconstitutional? And you are a strict constitutionalist except for the item you want out of the constitution? Keep writing like that and you might be construed as one of those tea bag dingbats.
Jul 27, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
bebe53 I can't be sure on this, but I don't think Obama is against closing loopholes, and I believe he wants to lower the corporate tax rate, but what I am sure of is that Democrats aren't "stupid". As a registered Democrat I will concede that some of our ideas are "out there", but I do believe the republicans can concede the same thing. Lets allow ourselves to have differing opinions without the name calling. Clarity, I would be telling a lie, if I said I knew the 1st thing about government finance, (probably shouldn't even be commenting on this article lol). I do agree that coming down on corporations isn't the answer to all our countries financial problems,but... when we read in the paper every day about the billions these guys are putting in their own pockets, it is hard to get that warm fuzzy feeling.
Jul 27, 2011 at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The US is looking at around 53 trillion in future unfunded liabilites because of these entitlements. They will have to be reformed."
I agree. We should start at the top and work our way down. Close the loopholes, repeal Nafta (bring the jobs back into the US where they belong), cut the salaries, cadillac health insurances and perks of our representatives (somehow they think they are part of the entitled),and quit the wasteful spending.
Jul 27, 2011 at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
solidarity: Well said!
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well said honor..... I voted for Obama. What is happening in Washington scares the crap out of me. I'm amazed it doesn't seem to scare more people. This country is a mess. Business as usual just won't suffice anymore. People who support BOTH parties should be outraged by what is happening. Instead, they just want to bicker and point fingers at the other side. A disgusting turn of events huh?
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Solidarity-part of what the Republicans are offering in their package is to lower corporate tax rates, but eliminate many of the corporate loopholes that allow them to escape paying taxes-this would increase revenues but the stupid Dems and Obama say this is not acceptable-makes a lot of sense,doesn't it!!!!!???????
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
So let me get this straignt. If we allow the government to abolish all our safety nets, but allow corporations to rake in billions while paying minimal taxes, this will allow said corporations to create businesses that will pay people living wages with a benefits package that will allow us to retire comfortably and health insurance that won't deplete our retirement check? Will they pinky swear they won't hoard the profits, create minimum wage jobs or hire thru temp agencies, which only puts additional hardship on state and federal government?
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salary of the US President - $400,000. Salary of retired US Presidents - $180,000. Salary of House/Senate - $174, 000. Salary of Speaker of the House - $223,500. Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders - $193,400. Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ - $38,000. I think we found where the cuts should be made!
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
$.44 of every dollar goes for interest! Doesn't that alarm any of my liberal friends? We cannot keep maxing out credit cards and then get another. Obama has spent more than he should have and it is about time he is placed on a strict budget. Say what you will about the Tea Party, but eventually, you will thank them for having the foresight to stop this uncontrolled spending. It is not only Obama, it has been several administrations, but he will receive the credit of pushing it over the edge.
It is interesting to hear the cries of 'compromise', primarily from the left. Where has that gotten us in the past? Further in debt! If either Boehner or Reid had a good plan to cut spending, they would have enough votes for it to pass. The votes from the Tea Party members are not enough to hold up the process, but neither side can come up with a plan the other side likes. Obama just wants to make sure any plan carries him until after the next election. Any liberals want to disagree with that comment? Like drug intervention, there will be some painful times ahead, but this spending has to be reigned in.
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Being the largest of all the Oompah-Loompas, Boehner was the obvious choice for Speaker of the House.
From his over-sized comedy prop gavel to his patented "Tears of a Clown" homage to Smokey Robinson,
the Republican Party could not do any better.
"Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me"
God Bless you, Mr. Boehner.
And the horse that you rode in on.
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
I could swear that Harry Reid recently said that Social Security is totally funded..... Was he lying?
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:12 a.m.
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
concerned-trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for Medicare,Medicaid,Social Security and now Obamacare-that will be our downfall because people like you don't care-it's just gimmee,gimmee,gimmee-more,more,more
Jul 27, 2011 at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
The Tea Party will be the downfall of our nation.
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why should the Boehner plan come up or pass as Obama has already said he will veto it.
Why is Harry Reid so afraid to debate CCB so the American people can see this already gives Obama a debt raise past the election and puts a balanced budget amendment in front of the American people. WHY are Democrats afraid of balancing a budget?
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
No one finds the headline even a little bit amusing??? Conservatives squeeze Boehner.....
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Koch_Bros-yeah what's wrong with spending money we don't have and never paying it back? After all we deserve all those benefits at the expense of the "rich"!Who cares if we default? They all owe us socially responsible liberals!
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Keep up the good work Tea Patriots! We know this is a power grab for the rich, but let us continue to play it as constitionality. And budget balancing ? Hahah that is a good one - yeah like they can balance a budget without raising/restoring taxes to responsible levels..
--------------------------
.hahaa. That is rich, and so am I. Tricornered hats for all!
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Intelligent Obama 0-97
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
mouse and dg468
blind souls - it must just burn your britches that Rush has more listeners then MSNBC has viewers.
Maybe just once either of you could post something intelligent instead of your 3rd grade sniper chatter. Give it a try -
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
kaysbrew....... notice how evil Eric Cantor always looks and acts?
His face tells it all.
Would find it hard to believe you are like him, with so much hate for American workers.
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Or maybe that's not what you're trying to do.
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kaysbrew: I think you are in way over your head just trying to comment intelligently on political articles.
Jul 27, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama?? "The Art of Compromise" ?? -
The TEA party is your only hope to save this country from the left loon liberals. I'd like to see Obama tell me right now the 13 states listed in the Constitution......without a teleprompter.
Compromise and way in over his head. Laugh out loud over his head.
Jul 27, 2011 at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sarah and Answeris42-There is no "surplus"-the money that was supposed to be in the trust fund has been completely spent and replaced with government IOU's-and you refer to that as a surplus????-OMG!! Alice In Wonderland must be your favorite book!
Jul 27, 2011 at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
The TEA party wants to live within the confines of a constitution rewritten by them.
Jul 27, 2011 at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
No need to look any further than Wall St to see where the country's financial problem originate.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
Jul 27, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.businessinsider.com/republica...
Jul 27, 2011 at 7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
MooShoo
How is ObamaNoCare Constitutional? How is suing states in "states rights" decisions Constitutional? How is "fast and furious" Constitutional?
peacenick
Constitution Day Challenge supported by the TEA Party for Americans to learn about it and what's in it. To be taught in schools along with the now ever growing liberal agenda of gay rights and history of unions to name a few.
I would like to see one amendment rescinded in the Constitution. Senators are sent to Washington by the state officials to represent the state in it's original form. Not elected to come back to the state as a Washington representive.
What does the TEA party want to change?
Jul 27, 2011 at 6:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Liberty you must be unaware that they are trying to change the constitution in the tea party debt ceiling bills. Changing our constitution while sometimes necessary is always an extreme step.
Jul 27, 2011 at 6:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
How ironic, the democrats want to live within the confines of the constitution and be fiscally responsible too. Now find a way to compromise, dammit.
Jul 27, 2011 at 3:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
The TEA Party simply wants the Government to live within the confines of the Constitution and be fiscally responsible. How Extreme!
Jul 27, 2011 at 3:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
gpawcat:
Yeah, as a study of history and politics, this one really is hard to figure. The GOP is obviously very worried that a shut down will be complete disaster, like it was for them in 95. However; it's really very murky some 16 years later. The economy is far worse now then it was in 95. Unemployment is almost double what it was then, and the the public is much more deficit-debt focused now, compared to then.
.
USUALLY the President wins on these issues. You look back to Reagan, Clinton, and even Bush...They go to the public, and they can usually use the bully pulpit to rally the swing people in the public to their side, and consequently get the other side to fold. One would assume that would be true for Obama simply on president, but it really just is not playing out for him. He had prime time addresses, and town hall meeting after town hall meeting to get public support for his health care bill. It NEVER gained any traction, and actually public support FELL the more he went to the public. I think that may also happen here. People are just simply getting tired of his rhetoric, mostly because the economy has not got any better. It's just the same message every time. Blame Bush for all the problems he took on, even though he's been long gone for a good 3 years...Then blame the opposition for things not getting done now. The message just doesn't seem to be resonating much with the swing public citizen. You could tell that speech was CLEARLY wrote for those people, as how many times did you hear "we have to work together...I'm willing to compromise, ext.." It really doesn't seem to be doing much of anything, however; which is actually surprising; as the President usually has vast power in using the bully pulpit in that manner.
.
The real interesting part will be if this does get to critical mass. Where nothing gets passed, and parts of governmnet are forced to shut down, markets take a big hit, ext.... The public will be up in arms, but who will really take the hit? I honestly can't make any lucid analysis on this one. Should be fun to watch, and see how it plays out, for certain!
Jul 27, 2011 at 12:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://gazettextra.com/photos/2011/jul/2...
http://gazettextra.com/photos/2011/jul/2...
http://gazettextra.com/photos/2011/jul/2...
Jul 26, 2011 at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
I especially like the last one!
Jul 26, 2011 at 11:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
westorbust:LOVE the cartoons! LOL! How true!
Jul 26, 2011 at 11:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.gazettextra.com/photos/2011/j...
---------
http://www.gazettextra.com/photos/2011/j...
---------
http://www.gazettextra.com/photos/2011/j...
Jul 26, 2011 at 11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
If Obama thinks this is 1995 and the Democrats will win like Bill he is mistaken. In 1995 the main stream media, and CNN carried Clinton's propaganda. Now we have computers, more conservative talk radio, cable news, Twitter, and facebook.
Jul 26, 2011 at 10:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Teabaggers won't be happy until Obama moves back home to Kenya. And keeps gubmint hands off their medicare.
Jul 26, 2011 at 10:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
2010 OASI payroll taxes 544.8 billion, tax on benefits 22.1 billion, General fund Reimbursements 2 billion, Interest 108 billion. Total 2010 677.1 billion.
2010 outgo 584.9 billion. net +92.2 billion. Disability Insurance 104 billion income, outgo 127.7 billion -23.6
You want to play politics with SS checks, go ahead and roll the dice. Medicare A, part B, and D, is dragging the program down. Total program -49 billion loss last year. The big fight in D.C. is because since 1983 surplus SS funds are no longer going into the general revenue's for congress to spend.
Jul 26, 2011 at 10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Social Security has assets of 2.7 TRILLION dollars.
Thats a surplus folks! Social Security should be off the table when discussing the national debt.
Social Security has contributed ZERO dollars to the debt.
Jul 26, 2011 at 10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tea Party logic - give me your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and your unemployment or your retirement plan is toast - and it is your fault if I follow through because I just warned you.
Jul 26, 2011 at 9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tea Bagger politics=economic terrorism.
Jul 26, 2011 at 9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
First advice to Boehner: Stay away from Limbaugh and Talk radio. They are not helpful and will turn on you in a heartbeat and not bat an eye.
Second: you are in over your head
Third; Politics is defined as "The Art of Compromise" something the Tea Party never learned from History (and are doomed to repeat it)
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.