House votes to defuse debt limit crisis

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday to permit the government to borrow enough money to avoid a first avoid default for at least four months, defusing a crisis looming next month and setting the stage for a springtime debate over taxes, spending and the deficit.
The House passed the measure on a bipartisan 285-144 vote as majority Republicans back away from their previous demand that any increase in the government's borrowing cap be paired with an equivalent level of spending cuts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the chamber would immediately move to advance the legislation to the White House, which has announced Obama would sign it.
The measure would suspend the $16.4 trillion cap on federal borrowing and reset it on May 19 to reflect the additional borrowing required between the date the bill becomes law and then. The amount of borrowing required depends on the tax receipts received during filing season, but over a comparable period last year the government ran deficits in the range of $150 billion.
The measure also contains a provision that slaps at the Senate, which hasn't debated a budget since 2009, by withholding the pay for either House or Senate members if the chamber in which they serve fails to pass a budget plan. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced Wednesday that the chamber would indeed debate a budget this year but maintained the GOP's "no budget, no pay" move had nothing to do with the decision.
President Barack Obama vows not to negotiate over the debt ceiling as he did in the summer of 2011, though he promises further action on the budget. Wednesday's developments mark a shift of the budget debate away from failed head-to-head talks between Obama and Boehner
The idea driving the move by GOP leaders like Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is to re-sequence a series of upcoming budget battles, taking the threat of a potentially devastating government default off the table and instead setting up a clash in March over automatic across-the-board spending cuts set to strike the Pentagon and many domestic programs. Those cuts - postponed by the recent "fiscal cliff" deal - are the punishment for the failure of a 2011 congressional deficit-reduction supercommittee to reach an agreement.
This "no budget, no pay" idea had previously been regarded by many as a gimmick but has been given new life by Boehner as a "reform" to pair with an increase in the so-called debt limit. Boehner previously had insisted that any increase in borrowing authority to avoid lapses in payments to contractors, unemployment benefits or Social Security checks - and possibly even interest payments on U.S. Treasury obligations - be matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts. Many Republican speakers preferred to focus on the pay provision.
"This is not a gimmick," said Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. "For the past almost going on now four years, our colleagues in the Senate have failed in their most basic responsibility of governance, which is to pass a budget."
"All we're saying is 'Congress follow the law. Do your work. Budget,'" said House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "And the reason for this (debt) extension is so that we can have the (budget) debate we need to have."
Boehner promises that the GOP blueprint will project a balanced budget at the end of a 10-year window.
"Balancing the budget over the next 10 years means that we save the future for our kids and our grandkids," Boehner said. "It also means that we strengthen programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid that can't continue to exist in their current form without some kind of controls."
But the White House weighed in Tuesday with a statement that the administration would not oppose the debt measure, even though Obama just last week dismissed incremental increases in the debt ceiling as harmful to the economy.
It also appeared virtually certain that Senate Democrats would accept the bill even though they would prefer a longer-term solution to the debt issue and believe that the "no budget, no pay" provision is silly.
While the measure permits an undetermined amount of additional borrowing through May 18, the actual date in which the government might be at risk of defaulting on its obligations would be several weeks later. That's because the government would retain the ability to juggle its books through what the Treasury Department calls "extraordinary measures."
With the debt battle averted, the next fight comes in March over across-the-board cuts that would pare $85 billion from this year's budget. They were delayed from Jan. 1 until March 1 and reduced by $24 billion by the recently enacted tax bill. Defense hawks are particularly upset, saying the Pentagon cuts would devastate military readiness and cause havoc in defense contracting. The cuts, called a sequester in Washington-speak, were never intended to take effect but were instead aimed at driving the two sides to a large budget bargain in order to avoid them.
But Republicans and Obama now appear on a collision course over how to replace the across-the-board cuts. Obama and his Democratic allies insist that additional revenues be part of the solution; Republicans say further tax increases are off the table after the 10-year, $600 billion-plus increase in taxes on wealthier earners forced upon Republicans by Obama earlier this month.
"We are not going to raise taxes on the American people," Boehner told reporters Tuesday.
According to the latest calculations, which account for the recent reduction of this year's sequester from $109 billion to $85 billion, the Pentagon now faces a 7.3 percent across-the-board cut, while domestic agency budgets would absorb a 5.1 percent cut. The calculations are not official but were released Tuesday by Richard Kogan, a budget expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank.
The House passed the measure on a bipartisan 285-144 vote as majority Republicans back away from their previous demand that any increase in the government's borrowing cap be paired with an equivalent level of spending cuts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the chamber would immediately move to advance the legislation to the White House, which has announced Obama would sign it.
The measure would suspend the $16.4 trillion cap on federal borrowing and reset it on May 19 to reflect the additional borrowing required between the date the bill becomes law and then. The amount of borrowing required depends on the tax receipts received during filing season, but over a comparable period last year the government ran deficits in the range of $150 billion.
The measure also contains a provision that slaps at the Senate, which hasn't debated a budget since 2009, by withholding the pay for either House or Senate members if the chamber in which they serve fails to pass a budget plan. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced Wednesday that the chamber would indeed debate a budget this year but maintained the GOP's "no budget, no pay" move had nothing to do with the decision.
President Barack Obama vows not to negotiate over the debt ceiling as he did in the summer of 2011, though he promises further action on the budget. Wednesday's developments mark a shift of the budget debate away from failed head-to-head talks between Obama and Boehner
The idea driving the move by GOP leaders like Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is to re-sequence a series of upcoming budget battles, taking the threat of a potentially devastating government default off the table and instead setting up a clash in March over automatic across-the-board spending cuts set to strike the Pentagon and many domestic programs. Those cuts - postponed by the recent "fiscal cliff" deal - are the punishment for the failure of a 2011 congressional deficit-reduction supercommittee to reach an agreement.
This "no budget, no pay" idea had previously been regarded by many as a gimmick but has been given new life by Boehner as a "reform" to pair with an increase in the so-called debt limit. Boehner previously had insisted that any increase in borrowing authority to avoid lapses in payments to contractors, unemployment benefits or Social Security checks - and possibly even interest payments on U.S. Treasury obligations - be matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts. Many Republican speakers preferred to focus on the pay provision.
"This is not a gimmick," said Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. "For the past almost going on now four years, our colleagues in the Senate have failed in their most basic responsibility of governance, which is to pass a budget."
"All we're saying is 'Congress follow the law. Do your work. Budget,'" said House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "And the reason for this (debt) extension is so that we can have the (budget) debate we need to have."
Boehner promises that the GOP blueprint will project a balanced budget at the end of a 10-year window.
"Balancing the budget over the next 10 years means that we save the future for our kids and our grandkids," Boehner said. "It also means that we strengthen programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid that can't continue to exist in their current form without some kind of controls."
But the White House weighed in Tuesday with a statement that the administration would not oppose the debt measure, even though Obama just last week dismissed incremental increases in the debt ceiling as harmful to the economy.
It also appeared virtually certain that Senate Democrats would accept the bill even though they would prefer a longer-term solution to the debt issue and believe that the "no budget, no pay" provision is silly.
While the measure permits an undetermined amount of additional borrowing through May 18, the actual date in which the government might be at risk of defaulting on its obligations would be several weeks later. That's because the government would retain the ability to juggle its books through what the Treasury Department calls "extraordinary measures."
With the debt battle averted, the next fight comes in March over across-the-board cuts that would pare $85 billion from this year's budget. They were delayed from Jan. 1 until March 1 and reduced by $24 billion by the recently enacted tax bill. Defense hawks are particularly upset, saying the Pentagon cuts would devastate military readiness and cause havoc in defense contracting. The cuts, called a sequester in Washington-speak, were never intended to take effect but were instead aimed at driving the two sides to a large budget bargain in order to avoid them.
But Republicans and Obama now appear on a collision course over how to replace the across-the-board cuts. Obama and his Democratic allies insist that additional revenues be part of the solution; Republicans say further tax increases are off the table after the 10-year, $600 billion-plus increase in taxes on wealthier earners forced upon Republicans by Obama earlier this month.
"We are not going to raise taxes on the American people," Boehner told reporters Tuesday.
According to the latest calculations, which account for the recent reduction of this year's sequester from $109 billion to $85 billion, the Pentagon now faces a 7.3 percent across-the-board cut, while domestic agency budgets would absorb a 5.1 percent cut. The calculations are not official but were released Tuesday by Richard Kogan, a budget expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank.
This "no budget, no pay" statement is the best part of the news story...anyone taking a seat in both the house and the senate should take notice. Your party preference makes no difference.
The republicans have no spine and are just like democrats.
Don't ya love it..... kicking the can down the road yet again, and if by some miracle the R's find a spine among them to try and slow down this asinine spending, the D's raise holy hell, they whine like babies calling the R's the party of no ..... Â
Â
I guess on the bright side, when our credit rating gets downgraded again, (and it will at some point  because reducing the deficit in a meaningful way is not being adressed)  the D's will have no one to blame but themselves.
@kramr "the D's will have no one to blame but themselves."
Â
Well, and the village idiots 10.4 trillion dollar legacy along with the 2 unfunded off budget wars that added another 1.4 trillion....
more continuing dissolution
Anyone think about what would happen if we all didn't pay our taxes this year?
 @portlandborn83 When you say "we all" do you mean you and me, or you and me and Wall Street?Did you see Frontline last night? Not a single Wall Street executive in jail over the housing/securities collapse. They're all multi-millionairres off of it while we pick up the pieces. The government no longer represents us, it just taxes us to amass power.
I am very aware of the rich not paying taxes as well, some pay nothing! Corzine got away with his scandal as well because he is a friend of the elite. Also, did you hear about that bank in England that got away with billions of dollars in money laundering for the mexican drug cartels, etc? They didn't even get punished...
@Playanekes I mean each and every citizen...
Â
ps: did you see that sandy hook video yet? Blowin' me away...
Time for the people, the true sovereigns of the US, to rise up and toss out the Senate, House and the White House so that a government based on first principles can once again represent the will of the people and not the self interests of the Party politic.
@Norman McIntosh Funny, we had a chance to do just that recently. 1/3 the Senate, all the members of the House and the guy in the White House could have been tossed in November.
 @Norman McIntosh Unless this is just bluster, how do you suggest we go about rising up?
 @Max Quinn  @Norman McIntosh Reelect No One.Â
Gotta bankroll military spending somehow!
 @Broadway97209 We just gave 1000 M1A1 tanks, some F-16s and $100,000,000 to Muslim-Brotherhood-controlled Egypt, who is probably using it all to amass power and will eventually point it all at Israel. I have no way to know hw many billions of dollars we also gave in aid and weapons to Israel.. Meanwhile, Senators tell us that guns don't make people safer, we can't afford better school security or mental health care, and so they may or may not take more or less of our taxes, but, they'll take our freedom if we don't obey.
"...government's borrowing cap be paired with an equivalent level of spending cuts."
Â
Make this part of the budget bill. Then have the cap move dynamically if the cut level is reached. If not, force a sequester and then draft a new budget.
Â
This should not the fight. I am glad Republican's are realizing this. You want the cap to be part of the budget? Then you should MAKE A BUDGET.
Â
Now to get the Democrats to agree to a paired cap and cut addendum to a new budget..
Â
 @Repoman The Democrats will never put a budget on paper because it could be used against them in their excessive spending. That's why they failed to do what they're legally required to do for four years now and pass a budget. Sadly there is apparently no legal recourse against their breaking the law. I for one think they are to be put in jail for not passing a budget.
 @FreedomRocksÂ
Â
Don't sit down on democrats alone. How many republicans are in the same boat? how many do you think are shoving defense bills down even the pentagon does not want because the thing is built in their area by people who contributed to their campaign? Recall that Afghanistan and Iraq were not on the budget until Obama took office. There are no halos in this group.
Â
If any politician had a sack worth testicles they would get enough smart politicians together and craft legislature that would be an actual budget.
Â
But then they don't appear to exist anywhere in that whole branch of government. too busy making sure they will get reelected to do actual work.
Â
Â
 @Repoman No I understand that 90% on both sides should be fired.
Â
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of blaming the Republicans for something happening now that the Democrats detested vehemently opposed when a Republican was in office. Now that its the Democrats doing it they seem to be completely fine with it.
Â
You can't have it both ways either it was bad when Bush did it and just as bad when Obama does it or you're a complete hypocrite.
These guys are a total joke. Totally worthless.
FastForward to May 18 - Headline reads "No Deal Yet, Eleventh Hour Meetings Not Hopeful"
Nancy Pelosi and her entourage are boarding "HER" VIP US AIR FORCE EXECUTIVE JET (stocked with the world's finest BOOZE & WINE ) and going ANYWHERE SHE WANTS...all on your dime...
 @August100Â
Â
Yeah and Republicans head home on Greyhound buses drinking 2-buck-chuck.
Â
They ALL get too many perks being in congress (particularly the Senate). It's not a party thing, it's a rich person who gets millions in "donations" thing.
Â
They all feel too entitled. If I were to cut "entitlements" I would cut theirs first.
Â
They get more allotment for a second residence in DC than I make in a year.
Â
Too many perks.
Â
Â
@Repoman @August100Â Â Â Â Â """"""" Yeah and Republicans head home on Greyhound buses drinking 2-buck-chuck.""""""
Â
True, but Nancy just got her wings clipped for abusing the privledge.... She should be fired for this kind of abuse....
Â
http://www.examiner.com/article/pelosi-has-her-wings-clipped-for-excessive-spending Â
Â
Not going to see any R's with this kind of abuse.......a friggin grand a trip for alcohol!
Â
from the link,,
Â
Total trips: 85 over a 68 week period, or 1.25 average trips per week. Total mileage: 206,264 miles, or 2,427 average miles per trip. Total flying time: 428.6 hours, or an average of 5 hours per trip. Cost to the taxpayers: $2,100,744, or $27,715 per trip, or $1,285,162 per year!
Â
Hereâs the best part taxpayer:
Â
Cost of in-flight food and alcohol: $101,429; $1,193 per trip; $62,051 per year.
On one junket to Baghdad , according to the Air Force report, she had the aircraft bar stocked with Johnny Walker Red Scotch, Grey Goose Vodka, E&J Brandy, Bailey's Irish Cream, Maker's Mark Whiskey, Courvoisier Cognac, Bacardi Rum, Jim Beam Whiskey, Beefeater Gin, Dewar's Scotch, Bombay Sapphire Gin, Jack Daniels Whiskey, Corona Beer and several varieties of wine.
 @sargerator  @kramr @Max QuinnÂ
âWeâre not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.â-Mitt Romney pollster Neil Newhouse
Â
 âI donât care what FactCheck â I donât care what FactCheck says!â- Republican Rep. Peter King
@kramr Come on kramr...thats an old bogus republiCON lie, you and boyscout (and his initials are correct for both of you...BS)
Â
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp
 @kramr  @Repoman Not quite: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/pelosis-party-plane/
Â
Q:Â Has Nancy Pelosi spent $100,000 on food, booze and "partying" during her air travel?
A:Â No. Pelosiâs congressional delegations do eat well and drink pricey alcohol. But the costs are not as high as critics claim, and theyâre comparable to those of her Republican predecessor, Dennis Hastert.
Â
You can read the rest....
Â
Also, Pelosi doesn't drink.
Unbeleivable. Spineless Boener.
Kick the can again....and again...and again....until we get downgraded to a 2 star rating in the world and have no credit at an interest rate we can afford. Then listen to those with their hands out scream and riot like Greece when the money train breaks down.
@FreedomRocksÂ
from last august, the FIRST time US Bonds were ever downgraded, thanks to who ??
Â
"It is clear from Standard & Poorâs statement downgrading the federal governmentâs credit rating that it places the blame squarely on Republican actions and policies."
Â
Â
http://www.thenation.com/blog/162612/gop-causes-sp-downgrade-republican-candidates-blame-obama#
@sargerator   """""""""from last august, the FIRST time US Bonds were ever downgraded, thanks to who ??""""""
Â
The US credit rating was downgraded because congress failed to come up with a plan to rein in deficit spending......  It was the D's refusal to reduce any sort of spending that brought on the downgrade.
 @kramr Nope. The downgrade came because the credit rating agencies doubted that we have a political system mature enough to pay its debts.
Â
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-13/u-s-rating-placed-on-review-for-downgrade-by-moody-s-as-debt-talks-stall.html
 @sargerator Give me a break is your memory really so short that you can't remember your own party talking how Bush was almost a criminal because of his excessive spending and raising our debt.
Â
Even Obama two years before he became president blamed Bush. No it is Obama doing it and everything is rosy...don't be such a hypocrite changing the story to fit your needs and desire to blame the R's for everything wrong in the world.
 @sargeratorÂ
Â
How about you act like a big boy, and instead of pointing fingers, you act like a real American and help solve the issue?
Â
Partisan hackery does nothing. Â I'm even willing to bet that you voted for "your guy" in Congress, simply based upon the letter in front of his name. Â
Â
How about you look at the voting record of your candidate first? Â
@Travis Beehler Pot... kettle.
 @FreedomRocks That's what would happen if we didn't raise the limit and honor our debts.Â
Â
Right now, the US can borrow money so cheaply, that people are willing to buy our bonds even though they lose money on the investment when you account for inflation:Â http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/
@Max Quinn @FreedomRocks  """"""That's what would happen if we didn't raise the limit and honor our debts.
Â
Right now, the US can borrow money so cheaply, that people are willing to buy our bonds even though they lose money on the investment when you account for inflation: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/
Â
So what happens at some point when the economy takes off the feds have to raise interest rates to  stave off  inflation...... our cheap debt will get awfully expensive real quick
 @kramr If the economy takes off, we'll have less spending on programs like food stamps and unemployment benefits and more revenue from increased tax receipts. And the rate on bonds already sold won't be affected.