Outlines of Debt Compromise Emerge

[flpoljunkie]

(This is basically what ABC News' Jonathan Karl reported last night)

Outlines of Debt Compromise Emerge

An announcement could come as early as Sunday afternoon.
By Major Garrett

Updated: July 31, 2011 | 9:20 a.m.
July 30, 2011 | 11:26 p.m.

According to sources, the Senate would use the military construction appropriations bill, one currently available for action, as the vehicle for the short-term extension. This element of the arrangement, like everything else, is subject to modification. But those close to the negotiations expect Congress to slow things down without jeopardizing the nation's full faith and credit. A debt extension of days would achieve that goal.

Other component parts of the tentative deal include:

$2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called "Super Committee."
The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion in spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn't happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.

No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee's deliberations.

http://nationaljournal.com/budget/outlines-of-debt-compromise-emerge-20110730

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Can Congress be legislated how to vote in the future?

Both Houses MUST pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment?

Must?

[rfranklin]

2. It is insane...I think they are all just providing themselves cover...

for the next round of slashing. "There was nothing we could do...it was the law!"

[flpoljunkie]

Good question. More likely, the deal would require just a vote on the balanced budget amendment.

[ProSense]

3. So

Boehner and the House teabaggers are going to vote for this?

This doesn't even look like something that can get Senate Democrats' vote.

[flpoljunkie]

6. They seem to be getting most everything they wanted. The hostage taking apparently worked.

[ProSense]

11. Who is going to vote for it?

The House? The Senate?

[blueclown]

4. Hopefully this bill dies in the Senate or House.

It's garbage. I don't care if Obama negotiated it or not, it's garbage, and both the Senate and House Dems should say 'nay' to this proposal, a proposal that giftwraps spending cuts for the Pukes.

[AlinPA]

14. Teabaggers will shoot it down because it increases the debt ceiling.

[Tennessee Gal]

5. Short term extension?

How short and what good does that do?

[flpoljunkie]

7. I think they mean just a few days.

[Tennessee Gal]

10. And then what? nt

[woolldog]

8. Under this plan the Republicans

esp the tea party republicans have no incentive to accept the recommendations of the super committee. They will prefer to block the super committee recommendations so that automatic caps and cuts go into effect.

This is an awful plan.

[greymattermom]

9. vote on balanced budget amendment is fine

it will never be ratified when certain states find out what they would lose. it could include calculations based on contributions made by each state. to balance the federal budget, let states know that they couldn't receive more than a certain percent of what they put in, maybe 120% or so. dems should add that language or at least try to.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Congress MUST send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification?

So, in order to get the debt ceiling raised (i.e. pay for what we have already spent), we have to agree to a specified amount cuts or ratify the POS balanced budget amendment or go through cuts to Medicare and defense spending?

This is IMHO a setup for some pretty nasty things to happen down the road and I certainly don't know if I have enough faith in the Congressional process, particularly with the teaheads ruling the roost, to ensure that some of these crazy "triggers" don't actually get triggered. OTOH Congress has proposed triggers before they've subsequently ignored because both sides have "priorities" that would be hamstrung by a BBA or cuts to specific areas of the budget and nobody really wants to be held responsible for them either.

However, overall, I guess it's a livable deal. No cuts to entitlements and keeps us from having a fight over the debt ceiling next year, though we will have another fight over the budget soon. :banghead:

[AlinPA]

13. It sounds ugly. Author of this -Major Garrett is an ex Fox "news" jerk isn't he?