Fallback plan gains momentum in debt talks

Related News

1 of 2. U.S. President Barack Obama gestures during a news conference to discuss the progress of negotiations with lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling and find a balanced approach to deficit reduction while in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, July 15, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:39pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With time running short in U.S. debt talks, Republican and Democratic senators sought on Sunday to craft a plan that could avert an unprecedented government default while making modest cuts in the deficit.

Aides to President Barack Obama said he still holds out hope for a "grand bargain" that would combine a deal for up to $4 trillion in deficit reduction with an agreement to raise the country's borrowing limit.

But there were few signs of progress as the August 2 deadline to avoid a default drew dangerously close.

Behind the scenes, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid were negotiating over a fallback plan proposed by McConnell that would allow Obama to raise the debt limit while sparing Republicans from having to vote in favor of it.

Senior Democratic aides said the U.S. Senate will likely begin considering the compromise measure this week. They predicted the Democratic-led Senate would pass the legislation, but winning over the Republican-led House of Representatives would pose a bigger challenge.

"Barring a breakthrough, this is going to be the plan," one congressional aide said. "We are working under the assumption that there won't be a (deficit) plan."

Making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, White House budget director Jack Lew told CNN's "State of the Union" program he believed that all of the leaders in Congress "understand it would be irresponsible to get to August 2" and not have a debt-limit increase.

If Congress does not raise the $14.3 trillion limit on U.S. borrowing by then, the government will run out of money to meet all it's payments. Economists and administration officials have warned this would trigger a crisis in global financial markets and plunge the United States into another recession.

Obama's quest for a debt-limit increase and a $4 trillion deficit reduction deal hit a major obstacle a week ago when Republicans in Congress rejected his demand that tax increases on the wealthy be part of the plan.

"PLAN B"

Lew told NBC's "Meet the Press" that there was still time to achieve a far-reaching deal. "The president has made it clear he wants to do something substantial," he said.

But a growing number of private-sector experts believe the solution to the debt standoff might lie in the "Plan B" sketched out by McConnell.

That proposal would involve a convoluted legislative maneuver to raise the debt limit in three stages. It would put the burden on Obama's Democrats to approve the increase, but, in its initial form, it would not require spending cuts.

Reid is seeking some changes to make the plan more palatable to Democrats, including a requirement of up to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. The cuts would consist of those identified by a deficit-reduction group headed by Vice President Joe Biden. Aides to McConnell and Reid have also discussed creating a bipartisan panel on deficit reduction.

Still, the idea could be a tough sell in the Republican-led House where it has been greeted coolly by conservative Tea Party activists.

Obama had set a weekend deadline for an action plan from the lawmakers and said he might call them back for further White House talks. But there were no meetings over the weekend. As of Sunday evening, no talks were planned for Monday.

"Conversations have continued throughout the weekend, but there is no news or progress to report," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, the top U.S. Republican. Boehner has scheduled a vote for Tuesday on his "cut, cap and balance" plan that would condition an increase in the debt-limit on passage of a constitutional amendment to require the federal government to balance its books each year.

That bill stands little chance of passing the Senate but it might buy some goodwill with conservatives to eventually allow for passage of a compromise, such as the McConnell plan.

State governors, fearing the effects of the debt talks on their own credit ratings, have pressured Washington to get a deal.

At a meeting of the nation's governors in Salt Lake City, Utah, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire said they agreed the debt limit should be increased.

"We're getting hurt by the inaction of what's going on in Washington D.C.," Gregoire, chairwoman of the National Governors Association, told Reuters.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, a Republican, said that as far as he knew, all of the governors present thought the debt ceiling needed to be raised but there were differences on what the legislation should look like. "There are people like me who think raising taxes would be very harmful to the economy," Barbour said.

(Additional reporting by Alina Selyukh and Donna Smith in Washington and Edith Honan in Salt Lake City. Writing by Caren Bohan; Editing by Christopher Wilson)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (23)
Fin500 wrote:
The deficit talks are pointless; they are arguing–at the max–over a lousy 4 trillion dollars over the next decade–pathetic! That means if our annual deficit continues at 1.4 trillion a year, our National Debt in 10 years will be roughly 24 trillion dollars. The illegal wars/conflicts have got to stop–roughly 600 billion a year. We need to slowly move away from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and many other pointless social programs (e.g. Department of Education, etc). The current promises to social security alone are an estimated 50 trillion. Our government is entirely too large, has too much control over states, and especially our lives. Our founding fathers intended this country to be run by states, who are to be run by cities/towns, who are to be run by the people. Giving the federal government too much power will always lead to paid politicians, bureaucrats, congressman,senators,committees, who will partner with private enterprise for their own benefit–which by the way is not true capitalism. Fear is then cast into society claiming there is not “enough regulation” and more rules and laws are signed into place as a result; however, this creates a much larger moral hazard because he who controls a government with vast regulations has immense power, and this power will be desired by individuals (i.e. citizens with money who donate to bureaucrats to influence politicians). Unfortunately, both Republican and Democrats are guilty of this corruption. Illegal wars date back to Truman in Korea, JFK and Bay of Pigs, Clinton bombing Afghanistan and sending CIA to Columbia, Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, and finally Obama in Libya. People this is crazy, we cant live like this, our country cannot sustain it much longer. Our currency is failing because of FED policy, and it gets no attention. Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, have all participated in this failed system. We have to change, please youtube and listen to Ron Paul. He has predicted every catastrophe in sequential order.

Ron Paul 2012

Jul 16, 2011 10:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
freud101 wrote:
It amazes me how skilled the Republicans are at pushing and popularizing half-truths and falsehoods that make great sound bites. One of their great falsehoods is the idea that we need to balance the budget. The truth is that for a country (as opposed to an individual or a household), requiring balanced budgets every year would be a disaster. I doubt that you can find a single mainstream economist who would think that was a good idea. It would kill off economic growth. It would diminish our economic and financial flexibility. We should never put ourselves in such a straitjacket. It would be like making it illegal to have a mortgage just because some people get in trouble with mortgages. Our debt to GDP ratio is lower than that of Canada and of many other economically strong nations. If you listen to the Republicans you would never realize the fact that we are still quite strong economically ourselves, quite capable of paying our debts and paying for all presently funded legislation unless the right wing ideologues prevent us from doing so. We are very far from “drowning in debt” as the Republicans are fond of saying. And we will continue to be strong unless the Republican stupidity destroys us. In the more long term view, the rate of increase of our deficit is too high and we need 1) some spending cuts. Many of them will be harsh but we should try to avoid hurting the people really in need and 2) some revenue increases. Some of this will be unpleasant too but possibly we can do it without raising tax rates if we eliminate the so-called loopholes for the extremely wealthy. I’m actually a little skeptical that this will be enough but we should try it first. In the long run we should switch to simpler tax codes such as a combination of a VAT tax (with exceptions for necessities), flat income tax (or one that is mostly flat but which increases a very few percent for the extremely wealthy), possibly some users fees for companies that do business in the US, which can be exempted if they hire more American workers. Or something like that. But that’s for people to figure out further down the road. Right now the best things is to a) pass the increase b) make some cuts and revenue increases such as Obama has put on the table and c) give the economy another stimulus on the order of one to two trillion dollars. Of course, the Republicans won’t go for another stimulus. Hopefully Bernake can do something, however, along the lines of “quantitative easing” which helps a little.

Jul 16, 2011 10:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
txgadfly wrote:
Try ending all 3 wars in the Middle East, all at once. Just pull out. It works.

Jul 16, 2011 11:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.