Lawmakers looking to shift blame as huge budget cuts loom

WASHINGTON (AP) - Across-the-board spending cuts all but certain, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are staging a politically charged showdown designed to avoid public blame for any resulting inconvenience or disruption in government services.
The two parties drafted alternative measures to replace the cuts, but officials conceded in advance the rival measures were doomed.
At the White House, President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to discuss the issue with him on Friday - deadline day for averting the cuts, which would slash $85 billion from the military and domestic programs alike.
Democrats controlling the Senate are pushing a $110 billion plan that would block the cuts through the end of the year. They would carve 5 percent from domestic agencies and 8 percent from the Pentagon but would leave several major programs alone, including Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps, while limiting the cuts to Medicare to a 2 percent reduction to health care providers like doctors and hospitals.
The Democratic plan proposes $27.5 billion in future-year cuts in defense spending, elimination of a program of direct payments to certain farmers, and a minimum tax rate on income exceeding $1 million as the main elements of an alternative to the immediate and bruising automatic cuts, known in Washington-speak as a "sequester."
Republicans were sure to kill the Democratic alternative with a filibuster. They were poised to offer an alternative of their own that would give Obama the authority to propose a rewrite to the 2013 budget to redistribute the cuts. Obama would be unable to cut defense by more than the $43 billion reduction that the Pentagon faces and would be unable to raise taxes to undo the cuts.
The idea is that money could be transferred from lower-priority accounts to accounts funding air traffic control or meat inspection. The White House says such moves would offer only slight relief, but they could take pressure off Congress to address the sequester.
Democrats are sure to vote the GOP measure down. Both the House and the Senate are set to send their members home Thursday afternoon, even as the deadline to avoid the cuts looms the next day. Though bound to fail, the rival votes will allow both sides to claim they tried to address the cuts even as they leave them in place and exit Washington for a long weekend.
Obama on Wednesday summoned top congressional leaders for a White House meeting on Friday. Given longstanding, intractable differences over Obama's insistence that new tax revenues help replace the cuts, the meeting was not expected to produce a breakthrough.
Another topic for Friday's discussion is how to avoid Washington's next crisis, which threatens a government shutdown after March 27, when a six-month spending bill enacted last year expires.
Republicans are planning for a vote next week on a bill to fund the day-to-day operations of the government through the Sept. 30 end of the 2013 fiscal year, while keeping in place the $85 billion in automatic cuts.
The need to keep the government's doors open and lights on - or else suffer the first government shutdown since 1996 - requires the GOP-dominated House and the Democratic-controlled Senate to agree. Right now they hardly see eye to eye.
The House GOP plan, unveiled to the rank and file Wednesday, would award the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department with their line-by-line budgets, for a more-targeted rather than indiscriminate batch of military cuts.
But it would deny domestic agencies the same treatment, which has whipped up opposition from veteran Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee. Domestic agencies would see their budgets frozen, which would mean no money for new initiatives such as cybersecurity or for routine increases for programs such as low-income housing.
"We're not going to do that," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "Of course not."
By freezing budgets for domestic agencies, the Republican plan would also deny additional money to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and to build new Coast Guard cutters. GOP initiatives such as more money for the Small Business Administration or fossil fuels research would be hurt as well, but there's little appetite for the alternative, which is to stack more than $1 trillion worth of spending bills together for a single up-or-down vote.
The GOP move to add the line-by-line spending bills for the Pentagon and veterans programs to the catchall spending bill would give the military much-sought increases for force readiness and the VA additional funding for health care.
But that approach has few fans in the White House, which is seeking money to implement Obama's signature efforts to overhaul financial regulation and the nation's health care system, or the Democratic Senate, where veteran members of the Appropriations Committee want to add a stack of bills covering domestic priorities like homeland security, NASA and federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI.
"You need balance," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "We feel as strongly about the domestic side as we do defense."
The two parties drafted alternative measures to replace the cuts, but officials conceded in advance the rival measures were doomed.
At the White House, President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to discuss the issue with him on Friday - deadline day for averting the cuts, which would slash $85 billion from the military and domestic programs alike.
Democrats controlling the Senate are pushing a $110 billion plan that would block the cuts through the end of the year. They would carve 5 percent from domestic agencies and 8 percent from the Pentagon but would leave several major programs alone, including Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps, while limiting the cuts to Medicare to a 2 percent reduction to health care providers like doctors and hospitals.
The Democratic plan proposes $27.5 billion in future-year cuts in defense spending, elimination of a program of direct payments to certain farmers, and a minimum tax rate on income exceeding $1 million as the main elements of an alternative to the immediate and bruising automatic cuts, known in Washington-speak as a "sequester."
Republicans were sure to kill the Democratic alternative with a filibuster. They were poised to offer an alternative of their own that would give Obama the authority to propose a rewrite to the 2013 budget to redistribute the cuts. Obama would be unable to cut defense by more than the $43 billion reduction that the Pentagon faces and would be unable to raise taxes to undo the cuts.
The idea is that money could be transferred from lower-priority accounts to accounts funding air traffic control or meat inspection. The White House says such moves would offer only slight relief, but they could take pressure off Congress to address the sequester.
Democrats are sure to vote the GOP measure down. Both the House and the Senate are set to send their members home Thursday afternoon, even as the deadline to avoid the cuts looms the next day. Though bound to fail, the rival votes will allow both sides to claim they tried to address the cuts even as they leave them in place and exit Washington for a long weekend.
Obama on Wednesday summoned top congressional leaders for a White House meeting on Friday. Given longstanding, intractable differences over Obama's insistence that new tax revenues help replace the cuts, the meeting was not expected to produce a breakthrough.
Another topic for Friday's discussion is how to avoid Washington's next crisis, which threatens a government shutdown after March 27, when a six-month spending bill enacted last year expires.
Republicans are planning for a vote next week on a bill to fund the day-to-day operations of the government through the Sept. 30 end of the 2013 fiscal year, while keeping in place the $85 billion in automatic cuts.
The need to keep the government's doors open and lights on - or else suffer the first government shutdown since 1996 - requires the GOP-dominated House and the Democratic-controlled Senate to agree. Right now they hardly see eye to eye.
The House GOP plan, unveiled to the rank and file Wednesday, would award the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department with their line-by-line budgets, for a more-targeted rather than indiscriminate batch of military cuts.
But it would deny domestic agencies the same treatment, which has whipped up opposition from veteran Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee. Domestic agencies would see their budgets frozen, which would mean no money for new initiatives such as cybersecurity or for routine increases for programs such as low-income housing.
"We're not going to do that," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "Of course not."
By freezing budgets for domestic agencies, the Republican plan would also deny additional money to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and to build new Coast Guard cutters. GOP initiatives such as more money for the Small Business Administration or fossil fuels research would be hurt as well, but there's little appetite for the alternative, which is to stack more than $1 trillion worth of spending bills together for a single up-or-down vote.
The GOP move to add the line-by-line spending bills for the Pentagon and veterans programs to the catchall spending bill would give the military much-sought increases for force readiness and the VA additional funding for health care.
But that approach has few fans in the White House, which is seeking money to implement Obama's signature efforts to overhaul financial regulation and the nation's health care system, or the Democratic Senate, where veteran members of the Appropriations Committee want to add a stack of bills covering domestic priorities like homeland security, NASA and federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI.
"You need balance," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "We feel as strongly about the domestic side as we do defense."
We have seen the enemy and it is us. Egos so big I'm surprised they can all even fit in the same room. All hail the great divider.
WAIT JUST A MINUTE HERE....The House passed 2 bills last year to avoid the whole Sequester scenario. They went to HARRY REID'S SENATE and got used as coasters for the Dem's/Liberal's glasses of Kool-Aid along with the other 35 bills the House passed to cut spending.
HARRY REID NEVER BROUGHT THEM TO THE SENATE FLOOR FOR A VOTE. When will the occupier types figure out blaming Congress isnât the problem - when in fact it is the WH and the Senate.
Harry Reid is the OBSTRUCTIONIST, Nero-Obamaâs lap-dog and goon for sale.....not the House Republicans or the Senate Republicans.
Coffee & jelly beans.......The media won't tell the people that, they want to make conservatives the bad guys and all you of the 47% should be ashamed of your rear-kissingâ¦..
Why would they do anything else I ask? See how quickly the white house threw Woodward under the bus for "outing" the truth and the president on his bald-faced lies? Anymore, "journalists" in the mainstream media are either lapdogs for the liberal elite or looking for new careers.
Obamaâs time in office will be remembered by historians: crisis followed by crisis, followed by another crisis ad nausea. All he does is pander to his quisling press and useful idiots, hot air is his stock in trade.
@KHEB Both of those measures were voted on in Senate committees and died there. One even had two Republicans vote against it.
If floor votes are so important, how come you don't scream when McConnell filibusters everything?
@ShallowEnder @KHEB Because he is doing it for the right reasons.
@ShallowEnder @TreeWizard @KHEB Yes, because like I said. He filibusters for the right reasons, and they don't, so yes I think it is terrible.
@TreeWizard @ShallowEnder @KHEB So if you agree, then it's OK, but if the other guys do it, it's terrible.
Symptoms of the partisan puke-ism that will destroy America . . . .
all you politicians are F'ing FIRED
I've witnessed better negotiation skills in my kids Kindergarten playground......pathetic.
Cuts = jobs so be careful what you ask for.
1. It's not a cut. It's a reduction in future spending increases.
2. They are to blame. All of them.
3. They have already gotten their tax increases. No more money to the government until they can prove they know how to spend it wisely. Taxes are not supposed to be punishment for doing well.
@Owt_Raged They do not seem to represent the American Citizen so much anymore, they represent and do the bidding of corporations and foreign governments while we pay the tab.
More of the same old crap that got us here in the first place, I say cut, cut, cut. Cut the spending and then cut the politicians pay, perks and time allowed to serve. Get rid of career politicians, they are destroying this country
they are looking to shift blame?  what is what they have been doing for 5 years called?   Â
Two Parties, one Country.
Catch the video on metube.gov
@david_42Â No thanks
I think we should start discussing reducing the senator's pay rate! They should get paid what most americans make and not some high wage for little to no work!
@portlandborn83Â The ILWU should be in charge of the country....effective IMMEDIATLEY
@portlandborn83 Rank and file members receive $174,000 per year. Pretty low when compared with the private sector.
@JTesla Are you being sarcastic that $174k per year is low?
@portlandborn83 Compared to business executives, the most comparable private sector job to what they do, then yes, very low. Compared to taxi drivers, not comparable, then not low.
Granted, maybe they should be comared to bus drivers, I think we can both agree that the bus isn't going where we want it.
@JTesla Why should they be paid a dime? Aren't they "public servants"? Maybe if they didn't have a salary we'd finally get people serious about making meaningful changes to this country, instead of lining their pockets.
@axpman Sure.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that by pointing out a fact would make me the defender of Congressional salary. I'm not. They get paid on the low end of what executives make in the private sector, that doesn't mean that I think they should be paid more or less. It simply is what it is.
@JTesla Then they get a LIFETIME pension and LIFETIME Healthcare. Even if they are only a member of the House, which has the [blank] term......fill in the blank jt
long on farce, always short on facts
@Bio Sphere So when you buy a car you negotiate insurance into it? Odd, but ok.
But if you insist on looking at it that way, when compared to the perks  given to many private sector executives, members of Congress are still on the low side. Original point still stands, by all means come back with some facts. you seem to love them, yet always avoid them.
thats like saying, the cost of car insurance I pay isn't part of the total expense of my car, because....well its insurance......
@JTesla no I think he is an idiot and a crook so ur welcome
@Bio Sphere Thanks, I don't agree with the man's politics, but coming from you I'll accept the compliment.
@JTesla now you sound like blumenauer
@Bio Sphere Original poster used the words "pay", "paid", and "wage", wake me up when you realize that I was limiting my reply to just "pay" and their "wage" of what they were "paid", if you want to add to that, be my guest.
@JTesla so paying their health and pension in the future isn't pay? yeah wake me up when that's reality
@Bio Sphere I see that you are yet again showing your lack of reading comprehension. The original post only addressed pay, so I pointed out what that pay is. It seems that you find that information to be factual too since you didn't dispute the $174,000 amount for rank and file members.Â
If you want to expand on the original post then by all means do so, but don't expect prior posts to address what you added in the later post.
Austerity increases the ratio of debt to GDP: it makes the nation's debt problem worse. Great Britain wisely implemented budget cuts - and got a second recession as a result.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/panic-driven-austerity-eurozone-and-its-implications
In 2008 and 2009 the US had an enormous boost in spending due to the economic situation. Which as an aside is a fact that seems to be ignored by both sides, one side seemingly ignoring it because they want to blame the new guy for it all, and the other side ignoring it because we havenât come down very much off that height.
Would dialing back that increase, even to a level that allows for growth and inflation over the prior levels, still be considered austerity?
@JTesla As being a Registered Independent, they printed that "money" from pools of thin air. Hmm, that spending also coincided, with one of the largest upsurges in China's economy ever? Playing with foreign money [aka bonds] and now paying for it maybe they were, yes?
@Bio Sphere There seems to be a lack of understanding of what "sarcasm" is around here lately.
@JTesla That last part is sarcasm....by the way, crocky
@JTesla You take it as a shot, I take it as pointing out flaws in the logic. Its all about learning to acclimate to a structured environment with little to no stasis.
@JTesla and......
@JTesla "Boost in speding" = rainbows and unicorns, like Lewis Black screams occasionally, "an allusion"
@Bio Sphere I'm confused, is this more of your hostility towards me, or is there a point in there someplace?
China's economy has been "down", relatively, for a while, but they are the largest foreign investor of US debt, so I might be agreeing with you, or I might not. I really just can't make out what your point is.
@JTesla The stimulus money has all been spent. These cuts are not from that pool of funds. And government spending as a percentage of GDP has come down since 2009: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
I'm all for balancing the budget in the long term. And being a liberal, I love the idea of reducing the Pentagon's budget. But not with shock tactics.
@Max Quinn So, if you suggest that we not reduce government spending, then you are ok with increased welfare spending, and also military spending, which will improve the economy? If I'm dense, please explain it to me:-)
@last boyscout @Max QuinnÂ
Closing a budget hole involves two variables - spending and income. Income is increased through growth. If the government stops spending money, that reduces demand, which reduces growth, which reduces income. Recent history in Europe has shown that the reduction in growth/income exceeds the savings from the cuts.Â
What I'm not arguing against is a long term solution to bring spending and revenue into balance. I'm arguing against shock tactics that make the problem worse.
@Bio Sphere No. It's not the size of the words that throws me - it's the sentences that they are arranged into.
@Max Quinn are you stoned, it isn't like I put big 5 and 6 syllable words up here, its English.......
@Bio Sphere @Max Quinn Are you writing in some sort of code?
@Max Quinn Most things produced are made up on consideraton, without taking into account "real" values that are eternally attached, but eternally ignored.Â
Not your usual PSU suburbatopia crap.....but of a different light.
Â
@Bio Sphere @Max Quinn Sorry, I don't understand your last paragraph. Could you explain it? Just curious.
@Max Quinn There is no long term solution to bring spending and revenue into balance. It has been tried since capitalism came into vogue and yet here we are. That line of thinking entirely is the problem. Just like socialism.Â
We need a system predicated on "actual" inputs, with source and non-source costs, not all this fancy mumbo jumbo aka a legal pyramid, where virtually no, non-source aggradization is taken into account.....
@last boyscout @Max Quinn Not too many defense employees or air traffic controllers living off of welfare. Though, construction workers put out of a job might add to rolls.
@Max QuinnOK, if we're not going to shock those that live off the government through welfare, then let's not shock the taxpayers with an increase. There is no way to guarantee that wages/income will increase every year (mine haven't) so government spending should not either. Certainly not by the 8% baseline that they have been using for so long.Â