CBS News/ July 5, 2011, 8:00 AM

GOP and Democrats deadlocked on debt ceiling

In a word: Deadlocked.

President Obama and Congress go back to work today, and one of the big items on their to-do list is a deal to cut the budget deficit and raise the federal debt limit. But CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports there are no talks scheduled between Congressional Republicans and the White House over an agreement to raise the U.S. government's debt ceiling. .

Republicans still refuse to consider any new taxes, and Democrats are just as adamant that a deal needs to include new revenue.

Bill Clinton to Obama: Don't blink
Anti-tax diehard looms large in debt showdown

Congress has raised the debt ceiling 102 times since it was first instituted in 1917, and 10 times in the last decade. But never before have the stakes been so high - or Democrats and Republicans so unwilling to budge.

"Normally what you see in these negotiations is tough stances, but at least some willingness to go - not half-way, but a quarter of the way to where the other side is," said Norman Ornstein, a longtime student of Congress and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research.

Video: Is there an end in sight to debt ceiling debate?
Will Obama bypass Congress on debt ceiling?

The GOP is now united in its opposition to raising the debt ceiling, but in 1983 Republican President Ronald Reagan supported a rise, writing in November 1983 that "the full consequences of a default, or even the serious prospect of default by the United States, are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate"

Nor have Democrats always been in favor of raising the limit. In 2006 then-Senator Barack Obama voted against an increase - a vote he later admitted was a mistake. But that didn't stop Representative Michelle Bachmann from tweaking him on her recent "Face the Nation" appearance:

"I will say that someone far more eloquent than myself made a very remarkable statement when they said to deal - to even have us at this point where we have to raise the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership. That was Barack Obama, when he was running for the United States presidency. He refused to vote to raise the debt ceiling."

Bachmann: W.H. uses "scare tactic" on debt limit

The Treasury Department says that if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling by August 2, the federal government won't be able to pay its debts - a move that AEI's Ornstein says could send the still-weak economy off the cliff.

"I'm just not so sure this time that we get a deal until after we cross the Rubicon and actually see a breach in the debt limit," Ornstein told CBS News.

There is some talk in Congress of a so-called "mini deal," that would take what's on the table that both sides agree on and extend the debt limit for a year or so. But the White House doesn't like that, says Plante, because they feel any deal like that would cost them leverage.

Video: Congress using "mini-deal" to delay debt ceiling compromise

Two Senators appearing on CBS' "The Early Show" this morning each spoke optimistically that an agreement could be reached, but not without concessions from the other party.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said there was a growing group of Senate and House Republicans willing to increase the debt ceiling, but only with the imposition of caps on federal spending and a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, in order to "fix the problem" of federal spending.

"First, we have to institute those spending caps, the fiscal discipline, before we actually start getting the details," Johnson told "Early Show" anchor Chris Wragge. "So, you know, the House has proposed a cut cap and balance: Cut off the baseline the first two years, and then provide a statutory cap to spending to put us on a path toward a balanced budget. And then pass a balanced-budget amendment. I think that's the only way we solve this long-term."

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said that Democrats are willing to make trillions of dollars in cuts to federal spending, but in a "responsible" way, over the next decade.

"I'm very concerned we're not going to be able to meet America's financial obligations," Coons said. "I hope that the Republicans are going to hear us saying 'yes.' Democrats in the Congress are willing to meet them, and to make trillions of dollars in reductions to federal spending.

"The next decade we can cut $4 trillion in federal spending. We can achieve real savings, and we've had plans on the table since March to do it in a bipartisan, responsible way. It's their intransigence, their refusal to consider any increase in revenue that has really stalled the talks so far."

Coons said he would support a "mini-deal" to raise the debt ceiling, but only if it were part of getting agreement on a bigger deal.

"I do think that we can't afford to default on America's financial obligations," Coons said. "What's coming up on August 2, something we've been warned about for months, is the equivalent of defaulting on America's mortgage."

He said recommendations of the bipartisan deficit and debt commission are "the minimum we need to do to put a floor under our economy."

"I'm willing to make significant cuts in domestic spending and entitlement reform," said Coons. "But we need the Republicans to meet us halfway, and be willing to make reductions in Pentagon spending, and tax reform that lowers rates, increases the base, and actually increases federal revenue. We've had a balanced, bipartisan proposal on the table since March in front of our budget committee. We simply need the Republicans to hear us say 'yes.'"

"It sounds to me like we have the basis for a deal here," Johnson said. "Senator Coons is talking about doing something over a long period of time. That's true. That's what a statutory cap bill would do. It would put us on a glide path towards balancing the budget.

"And then let's send a balanced budget to the states. Let's let the people decide if they want to instill the fiscal discipline on ourselves. Let's send it to the states. Let the people decide. I'm happy, I'm happy to let the American people decide this issue."

© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
63 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pasha128 says:
by vsmit July 5, 2011 1:06 PM EDT
Have you compared the deficit spending under Bush vs Obama? There is no comparison. Obama is the #1 deficit spender of all time.

---

Mathematically impossible again the debt at the end of Clintons fiscal budget years was $5.7 trillion including Reagan's, the first President Bush's and all other presidents combined. The deficit after the second BUSH's 8 fiscal years budgets was 11.5 TRILLION Meaning Bush during his budget years alone was responsible for $5.8 trillion dollars in debt -- the current debt is somewhere over $14 trillion which leaves $2.5 - $3 Trillion at most for Obama. But Bush signed that SOFA with IRAQ and never budgeted the funds to pay for it in FY2009, FY2010 and FY2011 -- another trillion easy. Putting Bush at $6.7 TRILLION and Obana's max is now $1.5 - $2 TRILLION. Then you should factor in the Bush Tax Cuts for two years another $.2 TRILLION PLUS AND $.3 TRILLION for three years of 2003 Republican passed and Bush signed Medicare Prescription Drug Program and Bush's total raises again to around $7.2 TRILLION and Obama's max shrinks further to $1 - $1.5 TRILLION dollars. Obama needs to spend another $6 TRILLION dollars to catch the second President Bush who in fact is the #1 deficit spender of all times.
reply
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Bush's deficit total will be raising every year by an escalating $100 BILLION PLUS for the Medicare Prescription Drug program in the future as long as the Republicans including the 2011 TEA PARTY Republicans insist that bill should remain on the Credit Card.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pasha128 says:
by vsmit July 5, 2011 12:46 PM EDT
How about collecting some taxes from those ~50% of Americans that pay NO federal income taxes?

----

Percentage wise they pay at least two times more and often 10 more more times more in federal payroll taxes that those that have higher income tax burdens. Some taxes are some people harder and other taxes other people harder. Quit whining.
reply
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
It;s simple mathematics VSMIT 16% of up to 100,000 uid 16 of someone's income that earns less than 100,000.

16% if the first 100,000 of someone's income that earns a million dollars us 1.6& of their income 10 times or 1000 percent less than the first person.
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
All mouth and no proof there AFF with a few fabrications thriwn in for effect -- you have not asserted any mathematicl error in your response. What's the matter. As far as justifying tax policy the 16th amendment grants congress the power to tax any and all income as they see fit. I see no exclusion of a negative tax for lower income earners in the 16th amendment. I see no exclusions at all. by your logic all exclusions and deductions lack any justification.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pasha128 says:
by nottblu July 5, 2011 12:16 PM EDT
You are absolutely wrong, if there was no crisis why do we need reform?

-----

According to you there is no crisis when the REPUBLICANS pass TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT SPENDING MEASURES. 3/4 of the House Republicans and 2/3 of the Senate Republicans voted in favor the FY 2011 TRILLION plus dollar budget deficit.
reply
nottblu replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
what is your point? Now you agree with what the republicans did to support what shouldn't be done now?
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You are a total hypocrite.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pasha128 says:
Endurorob -- name a singnificant piece of Republican legislation passed this century that did not incur a trillion dollars worth of debt as a result.

Bush's tax cuts cost more than a Trillion dollars.

The Irag and Afghanistan wars are pushing 4 TRILLION now mostly on the debt.

The Medicare Prescription Drug program was passed in 2003 by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bush -- another escalating Trillion dollar price tag indefinitely into the future -- no contingency to ever pay for this entitlement. (In 2010 he Democrats made some real cuts to address this but in 2011 despite campaigning against entitlements on the credit card the TEA PARTY voted to rescind Democratic cuts and put that escalating trillion plus back onto the debt.

I have 4 examples off the top of my head. The last is the best campaigning against debt for entitlements yet within a month of being sworn ion the TEA PARTY Republicans show their true BUSH DEFICIT SPENDING colors and PUT AN ENTITLEMENT BACK ONTO THE CREDIT CARD.
reply
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Enduro -- don't insult us and try to pass off naming post offices as significant legislation involving serious budgetary issues.
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I guess you might use the phantom cuts in the 2011 budget as a case -- they cut items that for the most part could not have been spent resulting in no savings -- Sorry that doesn't work either because the 2011 budget still has a whopping deficit of over a TRILLION DOLLARS in it. THe Senate Republicans that blocked this measure so the House Republicans could absolute control of spending another trillion not offset by Revenue to add to the Republican column. No bill can pass congress without House Republican support and the 2011 budget got 179 Republican votes (over 3/4) and 81 Demiocratic (less than 1/2) in the House and even 2/3 of the Republican Senators supported adding more than a trillion dollars to the debt again.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
radiomn1 says:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Democrats offered the deal that Republicans wanted. Republicans got greedy and wanted more again and Democrats gave it to them. But they didn't take that either. Now they want even more. I couldn't blame President Obama at this point if he wanted to hold out and run the 14th Amendment through the Supreme Court. If you'd rather laugh than cry over this situation, I have a funny post on my humor blog: http://simplemanssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/2011/06/dr-simple-man-or-how-i-learned-to-start.html
reply
nottblu replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Wrong wrong wrong, the republicans submitted a balanced budget and the Democratically controlled senate derailed it.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
samXXkiley says:
coucou,

"""""Normally what you see in these negotiations is tough stances, but at least some willingness to go.... Norman Ornstein,said"""
======================

dans ce cas il faut continuer, travailler ensemble pour trouver une solution, en tenant compte des exp?riences pass?es, (echecs et r?ussites),
tenir compte aussi des besoins actuels des am?ricains
donner le meilleur pour le citoyen am?ricain, est la moins que vous puissiez faire

..............................
In this case you must continue working together to find a solution, taking account of past experiences (success and failures)
also take into account the current needs of American
give the best for the American citizen, is the least you can do
"au revoir"
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
endurorob_5 says:
pasha128 July 5, 2011 11:51 AM EDT
Not in the last 30 years endurob -- not in the last 30 years. Your ignorance and fabrications continue to know no limit. The DEBT increases that are REPUBLICAN DOGMA this century are raiding your wallet and bank accounts whether you understand the fact or now.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You choose to ignore the increase of 34% in the past 2 years, Obama's 2 years. It is the dems who want taxes increased not the repubs. It does not matter if they actually increase my taxes. If they increase business tax then prices increase so the tax increase is actually against us all.
reply
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
It took Clinton 8 years and 1.7 TRILLION in debt to roll back the economy's dependency on the First President Bush's doubling of Reagans rate of deficit spending. How long will it take Obama to ween the economic dependance of almost 6 TRILLION in debt from the second President Bush's 8 years not to mention the 2 plus TRILLION of deficit spending Bush committed as a legacy to future presidents. Over a trillion dollars of Obama;s deficits are to cover Bush;s binding SOFA with Iraq roughly half of the DEBT COMMITMENTS (unbudgeted) left by Bush to future presidents.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
endurorob_5 says:
pasha128 July 5, 2011 11:36 AM EDT
Republicans passed TRILLION dollar programs repeated this century and have proposed even more TRILLION dollar programs without having the cash to pay for them. Tea Partiers have in fact chosen to hand over their wallets and complete access to their bank accounts to those they have elected to office.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++And linerals have chosen to hand over the wallets and bank accounts of others to those they have elected to office.
reply
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Not in the last 30 years endurob -- not in the last 30 years. Your ignorance and fabrications continue to know no limit. The DEBT increases that are REPUBLICAN DOGMA this century are raiding your wallet and bank accounts whether you understand the fact or now.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pasha128 says:
Notble -- try for at least a miniscule amount of common sense -- the debt will not go down until the government begins to generate surpluses -- more revenue than spending. SO even if you find the necessary reductions in spending alone -- taxes cannot decrease until the surpluses have paid of the existing debt or you lie about debt being a critical issue.
reply
nottblu replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
If you cannot "generate "additonal revenue then you have to spend less, simple enough? Name even one time when raising taxes during a recession helped a floundering economy or created jobs?
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You muse either increase revenoe or spend less -- right. You claim this is a priority to you yet you support those who have in practice SPENT MORE while simultaneously decreasing revenue. You out of apparent ignorance support those that do the exact opposite of of what you expect of them.
See all 4 Replies
linkicon reporticon emailicon
endurorob_5 says:
pasha128 July 5, 2011 11:24 AM EDT
Obama did not approve of the deficit spending for the war and things like Medicare Prescription drugs (passed by the 2003 REPUBLICAN CONGRESS again on the credit card (not the spending part -- the deficit part) at the time voted against the debt increase. The Democrats have reversed much if not all of the 2003 Republican Congress's deficit spending for Medicare Prescription Drugs. The Tea Party even though campaigning against deficit spending for entitlements in 2010 voted to REAFFIRM what they claimed as a mistake by the Republicans in 2003 to return the MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM back onto the same credit card as the 2003 REpublicans when they voted to repeal the 2010 Democratic cuts to PAY for the program.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Obama actually said back then that the need to raise the debt limit was a failure of leadership. Of course now he is in the position of leader and wants to raise the limit. Is that a failure of his leadership?
reply
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
It's actually very simple endurorob. Debt does not decrease until government begins to generate surplusses more revenue that spending. So the last 30 years of cutting taxes BEFORE the debt has been REPAID is a FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP. Cutting taxes AFTER the debt is repaid and the government can safely operate on revenue with soem for of a reserve for unforseen items that impact the budget (excessive floods, fire. war, etc). The biggest reason our debt is so massive now is the 'SOMETHING FOR NOTHING" Republican policy of NOT PAYING for wars or entitlements (Medicare Prescription Drugs passed by the 2003 REPUBLICAN CONGRESS) or even against the past debt that seems to be REPUBLICAN DOGMA this century.
See all 63 Comments