No debt deal yet: GOP, Democrats ready rival plans

WASHINGTON (AP) — With bipartisan talks stalled, House Republicans and Senate Democrats readied rival debt-limit emergency fallback plans in hopes of reassuring world financial markets on Monday the U.S. government will avoid an unprecedented default in barely a week.

House Speaker John Boehner summoned rank-and-file conservative lawmakers in a Sunday-afternoon conference call to be ready for compromise that is “going to require some of you to make some sacrifices.”

He said the new legislation, expected to be unveiled as early as Monday morning, would cut federal spending, raise the government’s borrowing authority and be able to clear both houses of Congress, according to one official familiar with his remarks on the call.

Officials said that plan was likely to provide for an immediate increase in the debt limit of $1 trillion, while making somewhat larger cuts in federal spending. Additional spending reductions and greater borrowing authority would depend on future action by Congress — a two-step process that Obama has ruled out.

Across the Capitol, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid worked on an alternative to cut spending by $2.7 trillion and increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion — enough to satisfy Obama’s demand that the current crisis not recur before the 2012 elections.

Reid said the plan “meets Republicans’ two main criteria” — spending cuts greater in size than the increase in borrowing authority and no new revenue.

The events unfolded in a crisis atmosphere — in a sweltering city swarming with summertime tourists — a little more than a week before an Aug. 2 deadline for action by Congress to raise the government’s $14.3 trillion debt limit.

Without action by that date, the Treasury will be unable to pay all its bills, possibly triggering a default that could have severe consequences for the U.S. economy and the world’s, too.

Officials — and many stockholders — were holding their breath to see how the uncertain situation would affect financial markets in the U.S. and around the world as they opened after the weekend of crisis negotiations. Early results from Asian markets showed no major swings.

Obama spoke with Boehner by phone during the day, then met with Reid and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi at the White House.

At the same time, several officials said leadership aides spent Sunday trying to produce a compromise that could quickly clear both houses.

One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, portrayed the Democrats’ White House meeting as an unsuccessful attempt to persuade Obama to accept a two-step he has said he won’t agree to.

There were numerous suggestions of progress — both Boehner and Reid now support plans without immediate increases in government revenue — but no announced compromise.

Similarly, the precise elements of the rival fallback plans were sketchy.

Boehner’s revised measure would fall far short of a House-passed bill that was rejected in the Senate late last week.

It had called for raising the debt limit on condition of $6 trillion in spending cuts and congressional approval of a constitutional balanced budget amendment for state ratification.

Reid’s office declined to provide any details of his alternative, except to say it would cut $2.7 trillion in spending over a decade without any tax increases.

Any sum that large would require either cuts to benefit programs that aides said Reid preferred to leave untouched, or savings from the Pentagon, possibly by assuming the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It appeared the White House was largely consigned to a spectator’s role.

Asked what the administration’s plan was to avoid default, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, “Our plan is to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling on time.”

The state of play veered between bipartisanship and brinkmanship on an issue of immense economic consequences.

Despite hours of compromise talks in the Capitol, lawmakers’ aides had so far been unable to agree on a two-step plan that would satisfy Obama’s demand for a large enough increase in the debt limit to tide the Treasury over until after the 2012 elections.

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley said anything short of that would be a gimmick and prompt the world to say: “These people just can’t get their act together.”

Interviewed on Fox, Boehner said, “I would prefer to have a bipartisan approach to solve this problem. If that is not possible, I and my Republican colleagues in the House are prepared to move on our own.”

White House and congressional leaders talked past each other on the Sunday TV shows as negotiations unfolded in secrecy.

“There will be a two-stage process. It’s just not physically possible to do all of this in one step,” Boehner said. “I know the president is worried about his next election. But, my God, shouldn’t he be worried about the country?”

With an eye on the financial markets, Geithner insisted anew the United States would not default.

“It’s just unthinkable,” Geithner said. “We never do that. It’s not going to happen.”

The debt deal-making has consumed Washington for weeks and has put on display a government that at times risks utter dysfunction.

Even after talks about between Obama and Boehner broke down in spectacular fashion Friday, Geithner said the two men were still negotiating.

He also suggested the ambitious framework the two leaders had discussed, targeting a deficit reduction of $4 trillion, remained under consideration.

“I don’t know. It may be pretty hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again,” Boehner said of that grand plan. “But my last offer is still out there. I have never taken my last offer off of the table and they never agreed to my last offer.”

Under any scenario, Washington’s leaders have run themselves almost out of time.

Daley said, in fact, the consequences are already taking hold.

“I don’t think there’s any question there’s been enormous damage done to our creditworthiness around the world,” Daley said.

Boehner appeared on “Fox News Sunday.” Geithner was on Fox, ABC’s “This Week” and CNN’s “State of the Union.” Daley and Coburn spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and Daley also appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

———

Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Stephen Ohlemacher and Nedra Pickler contributed to this report.

Comments

FussyOno 1 year, 10 months ago

Narcissistic elitism. These are the words that describe the tea party and the Republican hard liners who would balance the budget on the backs of the working class who have worked hard in good faith all these years expecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to be there when we need it. We need tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, they can well afford it. It is unconscionable and irresponsible to reduce Medicare and Social Security. If you are near retirement, and will need these services, you had better wake up and start fighting this stupidity or the Karl Roves and Teapartyers will destroy your retirement income, what little it is. They sit there rolling in their millions while trying to steal our hundreds.

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

Oh by the way, this is too easy. Graceful, it hasn't been but a day or two ago that you wrote "Corporations don't pay taxes." Now, it this latest raving of yours you write, "There isn't enough money from corporations . . . ." Now THAT implies corporations DO pay taxes. What has happened. Have you changed your mind, done some reading and found you have no clue as to what you are talking about, or just want to argue for the heck of it? Your hate and vitriol toward the poor and anyone who doesn't agree with your "moral outrage" is astounding.

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

I actually understand your feelings of frustration and worry about the future. However, I simply ask you to consider what I am about to write. I agree that tax loopholes for corporations and the rich should be closed. I agree there is a better way, I tend to go with a flat tax, others go with consumption taxes. Either is better than the way it is. However, you seem to be blaming it on Republicans. It is not ONLY Republicans, it is every person who raises millions of dollars to run for jobs that pay far less. Leadership (ie, POTUS) requires leading, not demanding. If you want to bandy about the phrase, "Narcissistic elitism," place it EVERYWHERE it needs to be, Democrat, Republican, Legislature AND executive. POTUS actually went to elected officials and demanded they be in his office on Saturday at a specific time. Tonight he said that he told them to go back to work and "come up with a plan that you can agree on" and, oh yeah, by the way, "a compromise that I can agree with." 1) POTUSE does not have the authority to demand any such thing. 2) POTUSE blames the Republicans because the Democrats in the legislature won't sign a bill (and vice versa - but it is ALWAYS the Republicans fault - acter all, "they" need to compromise (compromised - ignore your idealogy and do what we want). 3) IF it is strictly the legislators' IRepublicans) fault, why does POTUS then say "a compromise I" (the president) "can agree with."
So, President Obama wants the Republicans to do the compromising so they can present a bill HE thinks acceptable to HIM. hmmmmmmmmmm

0

JCLifer 1 year, 10 months ago

Balance the budge on the backs of the poor. They are the ones who cost so much. Free healthcare. Free housing. Free food. Free cell phones. Free utilities. No insurance. Nice cars.

Make poor people pay at least 15% income tax from all income sources.

Maybe if being poor was miserable, less people would want to be poor leaches on the government and they would get a job and become richer.

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

There are different kinds of bigotry other than racial. For example, one can be a bigot against the poor.

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

And just a quick aside. Graceful, what have you got against the DOE? Do you want schools providing diplomas based upon different requirements; that includes grade school, middle school, high school, under graduate, graduate, and post graduate schools? Are you really that . . . . um . . . . . whatever adjective fits here (you DO know what an adjective is, don't you? -- If so, you can thank the DOE.)

0

online_editor 1 year, 10 months ago

General reminder... There's nothing wrong with being passionate about making your points or questioning another participant's viewpoints, but let's try to avoid introducing personal insults into the discussion so that the forum can stay focused on issues. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago

Glad you showed up again, online_editor. Just real quickly, here, I am really enjoying the opportunity to express myself and hear others. I am learning many things.....and sometimes I just laugh so hard! We are a bright people, sometimes stubborn, always caring and definitely with a wonderful sense of huimor! I really really appreciate you all providing this 'place' so we may do what we are doing. Thank you.

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

Okay, I'll remove the "Are you really that . . . . um . . . . whatever adjective fits here." and I'll apologize. I will leave in the statement that if they know what an adjective is they can thank the DOE.

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

To those who have much, much is expected. I think that HKCHAS and I are really saying the same thing with different words.

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

Okay, so JCLIFER and GRACEFUL are "for" charging 15% tax on everyone who receives any form of social assistance. Alrighty, let's consider that. EVERY person who receives social security will have to pay 15% taxes and that is not on just the social security but also on any other income; say rent from renting out a room in their house because they cannot live on only their social security payments.. Every person who recieves assistance because . . . oh . . . let's say their legs were blown off in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran. Now. THEY also would pay 15% tax, oh yeah, not only on the Social Security but also on their military retirement. Oh yeah, the ACTIVE DUTY military would take a big hit, because over 50% of them qualify for food stamps . . . . there is another 15% and again, not only on their food stamp amount but also on their military pay because they receive food stamps. Then, maybe we can go after those folks who use the library. After all, the library is a free resource and is paid for through gov't funds. Hmmmm, that means every library patron would pay 15%. This could go on for hours. You two are silly, to say nothing of heartless. By the way, I have a question. Do you mean a flat 15% or 15% in ADDITION to the tax they may already pay?

0

JCLifer 1 year, 10 months ago

Flat 15%. They don't pay any tax now, and many get money back due to EIC.

Everyone needs to have some skin in the game. Even poor people need to contribute to the welfare and operation of this once great country. No more free ride for anybody. We are in a crisis due to the unsustainable welfare state this country has become.

It is sinful and unpatriotic to keep taking and not give.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

And since you did not address the military families, the physically disabled veteran, and the library patron questions I must assume that you ARE in favor of taxing them an extra 15% because they are receiving benefits from the government and are therefore a drag on the economy?

0

John 1 year, 10 months ago

Tell that to the little old lady or little old man living on 1K/mnth SS and you want to make 850.00. Unpatriotic? How do you figure that? Tell that to the guy with no legs cause they were blown off during a mortar attack in the highlands or in Iraq.

0

evenkeel 1 year, 10 months ago

Harry Reid's plan to cut $2.7 trillion is less than honest. It includes $1 trillion in savings in the next 10 years by winding down the military committments in Afganistan and Iraq. That is happening regardless of Harry Reid's plan.

Nice try Harry. It is not actually a cut if it was going to occur anyway.

0

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting