PDA

View Full Version : Shutdown avoided, White House, Congress cheer deal



Teh One Who Knocks
04-09-2011, 11:04 AM
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press


WASHINGTON – A last minute budget deal, forged amid bluster and tough bargaining, averted an embarrassing federal shutdown and cut billions in spending — the first major test of the divided government voters ushered in five months ago.

Working late into the evening Friday, congressional and White House negotiators struck an agreement to pay for government operations through the end of September while trimming $38.5 billion in spending. Lawmakers then approved a days-long stopgap measure to keep the government running while the details of the new spending plan were written into legislation.

Actual approval of the deal would come in mid-week.

"Today Americans of different beliefs came together again," President Barack Obama said from the White House Blue Room, a setting chosen to offer a clear view of the Washington Monument over his right shoulder.

The agreement — negotiated by the new Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, the president and the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid — came as the administration was poised to shutter federal services, from national parks to tax-season help centers, and to send furlough notices to hundreds of thousands of federal workers. It was a prospect that all sides insisted they wanted to avoid but that at times seemed all but inevitable.

Shortly after midnight, White House budget director Jacob Lew issued a memo instructing the government's departments and agencies to continue their normal operations.

Boehner said the agreement came after "a lot of discussion and a long fight," and he won an ovation from his rank and file, including the new tea party adherents whose victories last November shifted control of the House to the GOP.

Reid declared the deal "historic."

The deal marked the end of a three-way clash of wills, but it also set the tone for coming confrontations over raising the government's borrowing limit, the 2012 budget and long-term deficit reduction.

At the end of the day, all sides claimed victory — Republicans for the sheer size of the spending cuts and Obama and Reid for jettisoning Republican policy initiatives that would have blocked certain environmental regulations and made changes in a federal program that provides family planning services.

Not all policy "riders" were struck. One provision in the final deal would ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia. A program dear to Boehner that lets District of Columbia students use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools also survived.

Republicans had also included language to deny federal funding to implement the year-old health care law. The deal only requires such a proposal to be voted on by the Senate where it is certain to fall short of the required 60 votes.

The deal came together after six grueling weeks as negotiators virtually dared each other to shut the government down. Boehner faced pressure from his rank and file to hew as closely to the $61 billion in cuts and the conservative policy positions that the House had approved earlier in the year.

At one point, Democrats announced negotiators had locked into a spending cut figure — $33 billion. But Boehner pushed back, publicly declaring there was no agreement. This week, during a meeting at the White House, Boehner said he wanted $40 billion. The final number fell just short of that.

In one dramatic moment, Obama called Boehner on Friday morning after learning that the outline of a deal they had reached with Reid in the Oval Office the night before was not reflected in the pre-dawn staff negotiations. The whole package was in peril.

According to a senior administration official, Obama told Boehner that they were the two most consequential leaders in the United States government and that if they had any hope of keeping the government open, their bargain had to be honored and could not be altered by staff. The official described the scene on condition of anonymity to reveal behind-the-scenes negotiations.

The accomplishment set the stage for even tougher confrontations. Republicans intend to pass a 2012 budget through the House next week that calls for sweeping changes in Medicare and Medicaid and would cut domestic programs deeply in an attempt to gain control over soaring deficits.

In the Saturday Republican radio address, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., warns of a coming crisis. "Unless we act soon, government spending on health and retirement programs will crowd out spending on everything else, including national security. It will literally take every cent of every federal tax dollar just to pay for these programs."

That debate could come soon. The Treasury has told Congress it must vote to raise the debt limit by summer — a request that Republicans hope to use to force Obama to accept long-term deficit-reduction measures.

Muddy
04-09-2011, 11:35 AM
So how much are we over budget? 38.5 billion trim doesn't seem like much..

Teh One Who Knocks
04-09-2011, 11:50 AM
So how much are we over budget? 38.5 billion trim doesn't seem like much..

Still a ton....this only deals with the 2011 budget which was never passed last year, that's why there have been all these 'near shutdowns'

DemonGeminiX
04-09-2011, 12:14 PM
I was watching this last night and while they (CNN or MSNBC anchors) were interviewing different members of Congress, they kept asking everyone they interviewed if they thought it was fair that they still got paid if government shut down, federal and military employees were furloughed, or told to still do their job without pay. Nearly everyone interviewed said no it wasn't fair and pledged to return their salaries for the time that government was shutdown. Everyone except one woman. Democratic California Rep. Linda Sánchez looked straight into the fucking camera and said she couldn't give up her pay because she had bills to pay. I wanted to jump through the TV screen and beat the ever loving shit out of that bitch.

Muddy
04-09-2011, 12:17 PM
. Democratic California Rep. Linda Sánchez looked straight into the fucking camera and said she couldn't give up her pay because she had bills to pay.

Her needs are the most important thing here...

DemonGeminiX
04-09-2011, 12:18 PM
I think things would be a lot different in this country if all of those bastards were forced to live just like the rest of us.

Teh One Who Knocks
04-09-2011, 12:29 PM
I think things would be a lot different in this country if all of those bastards were forced to live just like the rest of us.

I saw an article a few weeks back (just went looking for it, don't remember where I saw it :doh: ) where the writer said that salaries in congress should be capped at something like no more than $50K/year because that way you would come a lot closer to guaranteeing that you would end up with people that wanted to be there for the country, not the money and the perks and the status.

DemonGeminiX
04-09-2011, 12:32 PM
I saw an article a few weeks back (just went looking for it, don't remember where I saw it :doh: ) where the writer said that salaries in congress should be capped at something like no more than $50K/year because that way you would come a lot closer to guaranteeing that you would end up with people that wanted to be there for the country, not the money and the perks and the status.

50K per year, make them use regular insurance like the common folk do, forbid them from giving themselves raises, have stricter term limits, and maybe have an independent agency note every single move they make...

I could live with that.

:thumbsup:

Muddy
04-09-2011, 12:34 PM
It's a great idea, Im just not sure you could recruit any good college educated talent for that amount of money..

DemonGeminiX
04-09-2011, 12:49 PM
I guess they'll just have to do it because they love their country then.

;)

Muddy
04-09-2011, 12:52 PM
I guess they'll just have to do it because they love their country then.

;)

A lot of the politicians do (or so they say) Take Bloomberg for example.. He had 3 or 4 billion going in.. His 250k or so paycheck isnt going to make him much difference.. Most of these politicians (imo) go to Washington for one reason.. To influence or change law to help themselves in their business ventures away from Washington..

Deepsepia
04-10-2011, 04:52 AM
I saw an article a few weeks back (just went looking for it, don't remember where I saw it :doh: ) where the writer said that salaries in congress should be capped at something like no more than $50K/year because that way you would come a lot closer to guaranteeing that you would end up with people that wanted to be there for the country, not the money and the perks and the status.

Very dangerous. Congress is already a millionaire's club. You want talented people, who don't have a huge fortune to serve.

You reduce the salary that low and you'd either get the independently wealthy, or people who're selling their votes. You just don't want to put decisions over trillions of dollars in the hands of people making less money than a kid fresh out of Harvard Law School ($150K at the big New York law firms)

Someone with two kids, maintaining a home in their home state and living arrangements in DC-- $50K does not pay for that.

Teh One Who Knocks
04-10-2011, 01:33 PM
...or people who're selling their votes.

Please explain how that would be any different than what goes on in DC now :-k

Southern Belle
04-10-2011, 02:37 PM
50K per year, make them use regular insurance like the common folk do, forbid them from giving themselves raises, have stricter term limits, and maybe have an independent agency note every single move they make...

I could live with that.

:thumbsup:

DGX for president!

DemonGeminiX
04-10-2011, 03:02 PM
Very dangerous. Congress is already a millionaire's club. You want talented people, who don't have a huge fortune to serve.

You reduce the salary that low and you'd either get the independently wealthy, or people who're selling their votes. You just don't want to put decisions over trillions of dollars in the hands of people making less money than a kid fresh out of Harvard Law School ($150K at the big New York law firms)

Someone with two kids, maintaining a home in their home state and living arrangements in DC-- $50K does not pay for that.

I'm also for public executions for any elected official that doesn't do their job the way their supposed to... honestly for the people.

:tup:

Godfather
04-10-2011, 06:28 PM
I wouldn't be a politician for 50k/year... for 50k a year people shouldn't despise you and demand your head on a plate for every typo. :lol: For 50k a year I'd hate to know that roughly 50% of the population is against me and if I go and nail who I want it'll end up on the front page of the papers.


As much as being a politician has come to mean being a 'fat cat'... it's still a life of sacrifice. Up here there are a lot of good people who work for 80-120k a year, when they could easily be making three times as much as lobbyists or lawyers. I think there are a lot of crooks doing it, but there are good people too and I commend them for trying. Definitely isn't for me and it could be what I was just starting out in right now....