More details from McConnell’s office:
The initial legislation would authorize the President to submit a request to Congress asking to increase the debt limit by $700 billion, and would require submission of a plan to reduce spending by a greater amount.
Upon receipt of the President’s request, the debt limit would be provisionally increased by $100 billion to provide breathing room and avert an August 2nd default.
The House and Senate would have 15 days to disapprove of the request.
Within three days of the President’s request, it would be in order for the House and Senate to introduce a joint resolution disapproving of the President’s request.
Under expedited consideration of the Resolution of Disapproval, the resolution would be placed directly on the Senate calendar; the Motion to Proceed to the resolution would be privileged; there would be 10 hours of debate and passage would require a simple majority.
If either chamber defeats the resolution, the remaining $600 billion increase would be allowed.
If both chambers pass the resolution, it would be sent to the President for a veto or signature.
If vetoed, debate on an override would be limited to one hour.
If the veto is overridden (which would require a 2/3 vote) in both chambers, then the request would be denied and the provisional $100 billion increase revoked.
If the veto is sustained in either chamber, the remaining $600 billion increase would be allowed.
For the second and third requests in fall 2011 and summer 2012, the President could request an increase of the debt limit by $900 billion once the Treasury Department determines that the country is within $100 billion of the debt limit. The President would also be required to submit a plan to reduce spending by a greater amount. Each of these subsequent requests would be subject to the same disapproval process outlined above.
This is the most ridiculous, circuitous legislative proposal I've seen in a long time.
That notwithstanding; why do they think they'll even get a chance to VOTE on this? the Dems in the Senate won't pass such a bill; why would they do so? It would be terrible for them!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethat seems like a terrible idea---doesn't that just guarantee a debt limit increase of over a trillion dollars with no guarantees in spending cuts? BAH
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetheory is that reid has no plan and might be happy to kick it over to obama
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat Reid has no plan is a good theory on any issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had been thinking about ways the GOP could get a bill - any bill - to Obama's desk to place him in a position to either veto or sign it - to effectively paint him into a corner. I could never figure out a way to get passed the "Reid problem". This (as convoluted as it is), may just do that. I'm skeptical, but it's better than anything else I have seen.
Also, what is clear that whatever deal is ultimately struck, and no matter how good it is for Republicans, any spending reductions (of substance) will be future spending reductions. Does anyone have any reason to believe that future spending will be reduced?
I sure don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter I read it again (and you'll have to forgive me, it is confusing), I'll withdraw my lukewarm support.
I thought it said that if either chamber rejects it, the $600B would be disallowed, not allowed. What's the point in allowing it if one of the two chambers doesn't support it?
Could that have been a typo (I hope)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott, if this gambit is so hard to understand - which isn't your fault - then you can be sure it will not be good for us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we were to ask the US Congress to redesign a spoon, it would come out with 368 moving parts, a steam engine, 2,000 pages of operating instructions, and 3,000 pages of disclaimers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejust pass a smaller package in the House ... force the Senate to vote on it and if it passes dare Obama to veto it ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with DorsaiGuy. Force the issue, GOP. Revise and bring back the Ryan plan, and if any GOP votes against it remember it in 2012.
This proposal by the Senate reads like a bunch of jabberwocky. Why give any chance to this administration who always, always change the rules to suit themselves.
Make it simple while telling America, loud and clear, that it is Obama and the Democrats who are currently holding seniors and veterans hostage with the threat of no checks in August. Shameless and disgusting. Be loud and clear and do it now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRich... what is to keep Obama from, in proposing cuts that are greater than the amount he wishes to increase th debt ceiling by, simply gutting spending he doesn't particularly care for (i.e. defense spending) and not touching one cent of entitlements? In otherwords, if McConnell is asking for $2.5 trillion in cut requests, what is to keep the President from making all of the cuts to expenditures Republicans and or conservatives find near and dear, while not touching one project that are Democrat/liberal sweethearts?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is unconstitutional. No American gave consent to be taxed by a minority in this fashion. And we won't pay it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusepass a smaller package in the house with across the board 5% non-discretionary cuts and a reset of COLA calculations for SS ...
that would mean about 150 billion worth of cuts in 2012 and 1.5 trillion over 10 years (against the baseline) ...
give Obama a 1 trillion dollar debt increase ...
It would have:
spending cuts
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseentitlement reform (yes the low hanging fruit but so what)
and a debt increase that would force Obama back to the table in 2012 ...
"If either chamber defeats the resolution, the remaining $600 billion increase would be allowed." Chamber, you mean like, the Senate? Harry Reid's Senate?
This is too complicated. The GOP already can't talk coherently enough to state their case and keep from getting repeatedly bamboozled by Obama. Now they are going to try a procedure that ranks right up there with the incoherence of the Slaughter Rule.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can make this a lot simpler for everyone. Just say no. And start cutting. The end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat your simple minded solution doesn't appear to acknowledge is what the month of August looks like for FedGov.
Everyone says "we can pay the interest on the debt from tax revenue". Simplistic and wrong.
We have $474 Billion in bonds coming due in August. We have a projected tax revenue of $174 Billion for August. When bonds come due you have to pay the PRINCIPLE not just the interest. The only way to do that is to sell more bonds.
We have no savings to fall back on. Nada. Zilch. So even if every dollar of taxes taken in starting Aug 3. were dedicated to making the investors in our bonds whole WE WOULD DEFAULT.
Are you seriously advocating default? Even Greece hasn't defaulted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, yes, I'm sooooo simple-minded. But the fools who got us into this mess and continue the ridiculous spending, they're all geniuses, right?
The idea that we will have to default has been debunked again and again. And even if it came to that, shut down the freakin' government. THEY MUST STOP THE BLEEDING NOW, no matter what the cost. Otherwise, it's just more business as usual ... and spending our children and our children's children into their graves, before they are even born.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRW, you are wrong.
When we pay off the principAL, our indebtedness is reduced by that amount.
Which gives us that amount of borrowing room again.
So, yes, effectively, all we have to pay is the interest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they have the votes to pass this bill, then they have the votes to pass an actual, constitutional bill. What they want to do is force Obama to name which programs will be cut.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse