Skip to comments.House GOP to try to counter Senate debt limit plan
Posted on 10/15/2013 7:16:04 AM PDT by 11th_VA
WASHINGTON (AP) House GOP leaders unveiled their own plan Tuesday to counter an emerging Senate plan to reopen the government and forestall an economy-rattling default on U.S. obligations.
The bill would repeal a new tax on medical devices and take away lawmakers' federal health care subsidies in addition to funding the government through Jan. 15 and giving Treasury the ability to borrow normally through Feb. 7.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Republicans plan to pass the measure later Tuesday. It could prove tricky because Democrats probably won't support it.
The House move comes after conservative lawmakers rebelled at the outlines of an emerging Senate plan by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Those two hoped to seal an agreement on Tuesday, just two days before the Treasury Department says it will run out of borrowing capacity.
The emerging Senate measure would reopen the government through Jan. 15 and permit the Treasury to borrow normally until early to mid-February, easing dual crises that have sapped confidence in the economy and taken a sledgehammer to the GOP's poll numbers.
"The general framework is there" between Reid and McConnell, said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. He said conversations with the House were continuing and he thought it would be midday Tuesday at the earliest before a plan was finalized.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
To AP’s Taylor, Congress’s Ratings Are ‘in the Gutter,’ and Harry Reid Is a ‘Traditionalist’
By Tom Blumer | January 30, 2013
An emailer who is a retired journalist wrote to me today about a January 27 Associated Press item by Andrew Taylor presented as an objective news report, calling it “Appalling ... the worst ever.” If it’s not, it’s pretty close, though I’m not sure how any report on a single congressional action can top the comprehensive slop seen in the June 2008 classic titled, “Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control.” Readers visit that linked article at their peril.
The AP report concerns the “no budget, no pay” provision added to the bill the House recently passed to increase the government’s borrowing cap. Taylor’s travesty reeks of contempt and imbalance.
AP’s Taylored Narrative: GOP Fails at Senate Majority Due to Nominating ‘Flawed, Gaffe-Prone’ Tea Party ‘Flameouts’
By Tim Graham | October 30, 2012
AP reporter Andrew Taylor wrote up one of those teasing narratives Tuesday the kind where he says, gee the GOP could have the Senate majority if it hadnt managed to nominate Tea Party wackos that were successfully ripped down by harsh national press coverage.
Well, there was no actual reference to the press or its anti-Tea Party aggression. There are only flawed, gaffe-prone nominees, and no mention of who in the political world decides what a gaffe is and how the media’s gaffe patrol never seems to locate them in the vicinity of Joe Biden. Taylor began his bizarre GOP missteps narrative this way:
Either way they’re taking obamacare of the table. Once funded and enacted it will never, ever go away.
However, Obama has a trump card and this was raised by Durbin as he spoke...Executive Decision to Save the Country. If OB does this it all will be completely on his plate.
“Executive Decision”? Wow, the rampaging marxists have the spin cycle already on high and ready to go. I bet the EO is already written. What a POS these Dems are. The GOP timidity in the face of this fascism is nauseating.
Up on Zero Hedge:
Everything O has done in office points toward a final goal of America transformed, either thru implementation of his agenda, or implementation thru Martial Law (i.e., his way or the highway).
14th Amendment section 4:
The debt-ceiling crisis in 2011 raised the question of what powers Section 4 gives to the President, an issue that remains unsettled.
Some, such as legal scholar Garrett Epps, fiscal expert Bruce Bartlett and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have argued that a debt ceiling may be unconstitutional and therefore void as long as it interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (that is, Social Security recipients).
Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.
Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even in a “dire financial emergency” could the President raise the debt ceiling as “there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]”.
The RINO battle cry:
I’ll do anything you want me to do. Please, PLEASE, like me!
Please pubbies, do not surrender. You may never have another chance.
The house controlls the purse. There is a reason for that.
I agree “once funded and enacted it will never go away”....which is why this battle is so fierce.
Clinton had a similar situation though he was prepared to evoke Executive Privilege and force the Supreme Court to stop him.
So far Obama doesn't seem to want that elephant on his plate....but i don't put it past him to evoke that even with the threat of Impeachment for doing so......the libs and global authorities are bent at getting the revenue from Obamacare in their hands to distribute at will in order to carry out the Global Agenda and redistribute these revenues on the world stage.
Nothing to do with healthcare.....like carbon tax etc. just a massive scam to rob American citizens...AGAIN!
Yup. Try that with your household budget some time and see what happens to you. (Like I have to tell you, Johnny.)
There are no dictatorial powers of the president. Article 1 section 7 gives him specific powers to sign or veto. If presidents can dictate, what have we been doing this for? Any move by obama to grab the right to incur debt from the Congress could be met with impeachment and civil unrest like we have never seen. There is no emergency here!! The money comes in and we spend it on good priorities.. This president is going MAd. STOP HIM
Curious that the Democrat-controlled Senate is called “the Senate” and the House is called “the House GOP”
As if Harry Reid was somehow not the biggest partisan hack in Congress.
I have seen very little indication of the GOP suffering in real life..
But its "leaders" are walking around with purses.
But I don’t think the conservatives will let such a bill as described through the House.
I was hoping for a fairly “clean” temp debt bill and to keep the CR/Obamacare fight going until the Dems have to engage. They’ve successfully hidden behind Obama and Harry’s blockade so far.
McConnell will have to lead any surrender from the Senate. Goodbye Mitch, hello 2014 Minority Leader Collins.
I don’t think Boehner can do it alone.
Apparently there are a group of profession people who specialize in working for the congress. There is a limited few and if they go away it’ll take years to train their replacements. /s
I posted this a few minutes ago.
Do you think 0bama will have the audacity to intentionally allow the US to default on our bond payments ?
Think about it from a purely political position.
If he feels comfortable enough that he can get away with blaming the GOP for the debacle that is sure to follow, why wouldnt he do soo ?
He could create the havoc that will allow him the opportunity to come in as the Savior.
Do you think 0bama is going to fold on the debt ceiling or budget battle ?
Why should he fold ?
He wins if we go into default.
This is a HUGE opportunity for him to tip the balance.
An opportunity to send the entire world into an economic crisis while not being responsible since he will get the medias backing.
To think that 0bama would be worried about his legacy seems a bit naive.
0bama wants to build his legacy in his 3rd term.
Since automatic 7% annual increases are built into the federal budget, any cuts to the budget would have to be more than 7% per year to achieve a net reduction in spending. A reduction in the rate of growth is not a cut.
In DC speak, only increasing spending x% after proposing a y% increase is a cut.
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Yep, one more act ought to do it.