Reid approves of debt deal; WH, GOP negotiate

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaks with reporters as he walks across the Capitol on his way to the office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as national debt crisis negotiations continue on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sunday, July 31, 2011.

/ AP Photo/Harry Hamburg

Just two days before the federal government's Aug. 2 deadline to avoid economic default, lawmakers and White House negotiators are scrambling to hammer out an agreement for raising the debt ceiling.

Late Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he has "signed off on the debt-ceiling agreement pending caucus approval."

Special Section: America's Debt Battle

Just minutes after Senate Republicans voted to block Majority Leader Harry Reid's Democratic bill to raise the nation's borrowing limit on Sunday, lawmakers turned their focus to ongoing negotiations between President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who are working on a deal that would extend the debt limit through 2012 and cut up to $3 trillion in spending during the next 10 years.

That deal proposes $3 trillion in cuts that would come in two waves. The first wave would include $1 trillion in reductions. A bipartisan "super congressional committee" would then need to determine the second round of cuts by Thanksgiving of 2011. If Congress failed to agree on that second round of cuts, automatic "trigger" cuts would be made.

McConnell said Sunday afternoon that negotiators were "really, really close to an agreement."

CBS News producer Jill Jackson reports that the House GOP caucus is largely hung up on the size of cuts to defense spending in the agreement.

McConnell: "Very close" on deal to avoid default
Schumer on debt deal: Better, but not there yet
Senate GOP blocks Reid debt bill
White House: "We don't have a deal" on debt bill

"We're hopeful and confident it can be done," McConnell said. "As soon as it is done, I'll let my caucus know."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told CBS News that the Democratic caucus won't take up discussing the framework deal until Monday.

Among the key issues likely being debated in negotiations are the "trigger" cuts that would automatically occur in the event of a congressional stalemate over the second round of cuts.

In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, leading Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said those triggers would need to be equally difficult for both parties in order for Democrats to support the plan.

"The key with the trigger is one word: Equality," he told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "It should be equally tough on Democrats and Republicans. The tough part on the Democratic side, if we don't come to an agreement, there will be cuts in programs that we like - helping middle class kids go to college, prescription drugs. On the Republican side, we believe that the trigger should have revenues, potentially, so that they would have to do things they hate like close tax loopholes for oil companies and corporate jets."

He emphasized, though, that "the triggers [are] still being constructed and nothing is done yet."

"There's lots of decisions yet to be made," he told Schieffer. "Reid and Democrats in the Senate have not signed off on this deal. We don't even know what all the details are. So we're not yet ready to try and urge anybody to be for it."

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Sunday that while he hadn't yet seen the agreement at hand, it was fair to say the center of gravity appeared to have shifted away from the inclusion of revenue increases.

Revenues are "not at the top of the list right now," he said of the deal, adding that cuts to discretionary spending and entitlements appeared to be the current priorities. He noted, however, that "the list is being negotiated."

Whether or not such a proposal could earn sufficient bipartisan support to pass through both chambers of Congress, however, remains unclear.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that while she was not "pleased with" the deal-making process underway, she would "most likely" vote for the resulting legislation.

"I'm not pleased with having it happen this way," Feinstein told reporters on Sunday. "As they say, sausage-making is not pretty - but the sausage we have I think is a very different sausage from when we started."

"I most likely am going to vote [for the bill] because I think the worst possible thing is for us not to pay our bills or thumb our nose at the world and push an economy which right now is handcuffed in a very negative flow," Feinstein added.

Some progressive lawmakers, however, have already said they won't support the compromise as is.

"This deal trades peoples' livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it," said Rep. Ra?l M. Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, in a statement. "Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage.

"This deal does not even attempt to strike a balance between more cuts for the working people of America and a fairer contribution from millionaires and corporations," he added. "The very wealthy will continue to receive taxpayer handouts, and corporations will keep their expensive federal giveaways. Meanwhile, millions of families unfairly lose more in this deal than they have already lost. I will not be a part of it."

House Speaker John Boehner told CBS News he would present a framework for the deal to his caucus during an afternoon conference call but said he "didn't know" what he would tell them.

"Depends on getting it tied down," he told Jackson.

When asked if the option of closing tax loopholes and ending subsides for oil companies and corporate jet owners was on the table, Boehner said, "you know better."

A Boehner aide told CBS that House Republicans don't plan to accept that option.

The White House, however, maintains that both sides are generally in agreement on an emerging package that would cut the deficit in two stages - even if getting support for that package required some lawmakers to "get out of their party's comfort zone."

"Well, we don't have a deal," senior White House adviser David Plouffe emphasized Sunday morning. "I think what's clear is that there is general agreement that we're going to have deficit reduction in two stages. The first is going to be something the parties largely agree on, about $1 trillion in deficit reduction. The second stage is going to be the trickier elements of entitlement reform and tax reform, which this 'super committee' is going to be charged with."

"And I think it's going to be incumbent on the leaders in Congress to appoint people to those committees who are going to drive to, yes, to try and compromise, get out of their party's comfort zone," he added.

Reid told reporters that he hoped to hold a vote on the compromise Sunday night.

9 Photos

Facts about the debt

[Truth_Tracker]

The Super Wealthy got everything they wanted, no questions asked, with the "TARP-Banks-Wall Street-Auto Industry" bailouts. The Super Wealthy got a humongous Welfare Check last December when the Bush Tax Breaks for the Super Wealthy was renewed. And NOW, we are told, they are getting everything they wanted yet again, namely, a complete exemption from having to share in the onerous burden of reducing the deficit, because there's no potential here for a roll-back of their Bush Tax Breaks (Welfare Benefits) for the wealthy.

The U.S. media refuses to even deem this to be significant, probably because THEY benefit tremendously from those "Welfare for the Wealthy" hand-outs and they surreptitiously silence the issue by shifting focus to the "Default Crisis" - with the curt remark "something for everyone to hate," and with the errant national anthem "pass anything - anything is better than default." Well there's nothing in this plan for the Super Wealthy to "hate." The super wealthy are the only ones being rigorously represented in Congress, in the White House or in the media.

[slappy_mcjohnson]

by retm-w July 31, 2011 9:04 PM EDT
Foreign aid should be cut before we even think about cutting Social Security and Medicare. FDunny there is not one politician on either side that will bring up cutting it.

----------

No question. It makes no sense when we BORROW to give money to countries which don't like us in the first place.

One example of many: Israel. $8 billion annual aid (last time I checked) for 6 MILLION people. That's like cutting every Israeli a check for $1,350.

"We own the Americans, and they know it." - Ariel Sharon, Oct 2001 on Israel state radio, a little over a month after the attacks.


.

[slappy_mcjohnson]

And again, that's one example of waaaay too many.

And why do we have military bases in over 130 countries, anyway??? How is that "national defence" instead of playing world police and empire building???


.

[myIife2live]

I agree totally. I wish someone would give me ONE good reason for foreign aid. It might make me a little more openminded toward it; I hate foreign aid worse than I hate skimming off the top of entitlement monies. And farm subsidies - I hate them. I know a farmer who gets farm subsidies. It allows him to drive big vehicles and live in a big house and buy lots of land, which I doubt he could afford w/o the subsidies - and his is small in comparision to others.

I also hate the Federal Government Dept of Education - redundancy! Let states govern education.

[nearl451]

Don't worry. we'll be revisiting this selfsame decision before the end of 2012....likely in reaction to an economic contraction.

I'm not goingto forget the posturing BS by the extremists, or the fact that default was held needlessly to our heads like a gun.

[bajajohn1]

You can be there will be payback at all levels of government .

[myIife2live]

"default was held needlessly to our heads like a gun" by BOTH PARTIES. REMEMBER THAT!

[david4673]

As I stated earlier, the ultra left caucus is balking -- the tea party caucus will probably hit the walls with hysteria...

The extremes are mad. The American people need to see this and remember to vote accordingly.

Get out in the primaries and do not let the ideologues run our country.

[myIife2live]

Yes, vote for politicians that want the best for America. Those would be the ones who show the most middle-of-the-road policies. No extreme lefties, no extreme righties, and you will have a politician that will fight for Americans and our rights.

[bajajohn1]

It 'won't be over till the fat lady sings."

[patsy352]

Just watched Obama's address a deal was made. Am I missing something but why are the specifics not being told to the American people? Cuts to Medicare/social security? What cuts? and any tax increases to the wealthiest? What increases. I don't proclaim to be an economist just an American but I'm sick and tired as a lower middle class citizen to keep getting hit by gov't...yeah thats right its entitlements so if it is why have I been paying into social security for the past 40 years only to have what I thought was my retirement hit harder then the most wealthiest? Like the most wealthiest have been creating jobs? NO they got bailed out!!!

[myIife2live]

The specifics haven't been put to the caucases (mis-pelled, I'm sure). We will know more tomorrow.

[bajajohn1]

Patsy, the cuts agreed to in this temporary measure had been agreed to by both parties. They are most accounting maneuvers. The real cuts will come before the end of the year. Entitlement reform is on the table, but they are to be modest adjustments to preserve the programs for future generations. The debt ceiling will be raised.

[slappy_mcjohnson]

As I said, I love solutions which BOTH parties hate.

Oddly enough, Mike Huckabee just echoed the same on Fox News about 5 minutes ago.

I don't care if you're a Dem who likes Medicare or a Repub who likes an overgrown military, both parties have sacrificial lambs on the chopping block.

Woooohoooo!!!

.

[myIife2live]

True, slappy, I agree with you. Obama said it wasn't the "deal he would want". Boehner isn't exactly jumping and yelling. So, it must be a great deal for the American people!

[slappy_mcjohnson]

Well, nice to find a point of common ground, mylife.

[bajajohn1]

The proposed deal is what this writer proposed last week. It's called buying time to fully debate the larger cuts to all programs across the board with new revenues in the mix. It is called a balanced approach. Hades with the politics.

[Overruled1]

This deal is UNACCEPTABLE.

[bajajohn1]

It is merely a stop-gap measure to raise the debt ceiling. The proposed cuts had been agreed to for some time.

[david4673]

So Overrulled... default is what you want?

Damn it, face the political reality ... nobody gets what they want in entirety, thinking you can is delusional.

[RobAla]

$1 trillion of cuts during ten years amounts to $100 billion a year. That amount could be more than doubled if they simply repealed the horrible health care law that costs taxpayers $105 billion in additional federal spending each year.

[nearl451]

Sure or they could reduce the deficit by $450 billion per year byretoring those yr 2000 tax rates.

Easy.

[myIife2live]

That's coming soon. We have just got to be patient. I believe that will be on the agenda of the "Super Committee"!

[david4673]

Damn, Boehner is telling his babies "avoid a JOB KILLING default"... I think he tells his wife ... "do not serve me job killing pork chops tonight"...


Ha.

[david4673]

Me cry?

Why?

Nobody has won and nobody has lost POLITICALLY ... and having the USA not default is the best result I could have hoped for.