iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Senate Passes Debt Limit Bill

First Posted: 08/02/11 02:11 PM ET Updated: 10/02/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The Senate did its part Tuesday to end a months-long standoff and raise the debt ceiling, passing a bill that dramatically cuts spending and creates a new "super committee" that will slash budgets even more.

The Senate approved the measure 74 to 26. The bill will go to President Obama's desk with little time to spare; Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said that the country would begin to default on its obligations at midnight if a bill was not passed by then.

Although Democrats had many complaints about the bill, they supported it overwhelmingly, with 45 voting "yes" and six voting "no." Twenty-eight Republicans voted in favor of the bill, meanwhile, while 19 voted against it. The Senate's two Independents, Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.) voted "yes" and "no," respectively.

The bill allows the president to increase the borrowing limit by $400 billion immediately and mandates $917 billion in cuts over the next decade. Obama can hike the limit another $500 billion later, and only be blocked if Congress actively votes to disapprove.

It also sets up a select committee of 12 lawmakers that will look for a way to cut another $1.5 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. And the rest of Congress will have very little to say about how those cuts are made.

The super committee will have to make its recommendations before Thanksgiving. Once it does, the other members of Congress won't be able to make modifications; they will only be able to vote the cuts up or down.

The bill "puts in place a powerful committee that will ensure further much-needed reform," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Congress must pass or fail the committee's package by Dec. 23. Even the rules of the committee will supersede the normal rules of either chamber.

If the committee somehow fails to agree on cuts, the debt bill also includes triggers to cut $1.2 trillion, divided between domestic spending and the military. That too, ties Congress' hands.

"The trigger that kicks in is very, very difficult," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), saying that it was put in place to ensure that some form of revenue is added to the committee's debt-cutting plan.

"There must be a sharing of sacrifice," Reid said. "It's very unfair for millionaires and billionaires not to be contributing."

Economists have said the bill is helpful in that it provides stability and predictability, but noted that all spending cuts will likely slow the economy. In addition, the bill does not include the extension of federal unemployment benefits and allows the 2% payroll tax break workers have been enjoying to expire.

JP Morgan estimated that the drag could cut GDP growth by 1.5 percentage points.

"The federal government spends huge amounts of money, and to the extent, in the short-term, that it's not spending that amount of money, there will be an impact to the economy," said Ernie Patrikis, a banking partner at White & Case and former vice president of the New York Federal Reserve. He said that while he thought the stability would encourage more investment, "the impact on unemployment is not terribly helpful."

"It's definitely a drag -- the only question is how much," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "We're going backward when we desperately need to go forward."

Overall, very few lawmakers had many good things to say about the bill other than it had staved off disaster.

"This compromise that we reached is not perfect," said Reid. "We settled for less than we wanted, but so did my friend [McConnell]."

He also complained that the country was forced to such an impasse because of the "very, very disconcerting" impact of the Tea Party.

He said the intransigence on raising any taxes ignores the reality that tax cuts alone have not been a solution, since the country has had historically low rates since the Bush administration.

"If the tax cuts were so good, the economy should be thriving," he said.

McConnell was more satisfied with the outcome.

"It was a debate that Washington very much needed to have," he said. "The American people agree with us on the nature of the problem ... if you're spending yourself into oblivion, the solution isn't to spend more, it's to spend less."

"The bill doesn't solve the problem, but it forces us to admit we have one," McConnell added.

Discontent was higher among his colleagues. Some Tea Party-backed Republicans had opposed a debt ceiling hike altogether, while others in the GOP feared that the trigger that slashes defense spending was a threat to national security. "To me it comes close to violating our oath of office," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

Still, the bitterness seems strongest on the Democratic side, after the party began the process insisting that a bill to raise the debt ceiling, long a routine procedure, should be "clean" and not tied to spending cuts. They gave ground continually for months, and McConnell happily pointed out that the White House once labeled any linkage to future spending "insane."

Now the question shifts to which lawmakers will make up the super committee, and how it will proceed.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The Senate did its part Tuesday to end a months-long standoff and raise the debt ceiling, passing a bill that dramatically cuts spending and creates a new "super committee" that will sla...
WASHINGTON -- The Senate did its part Tuesday to end a months-long standoff and raise the debt ceiling, passing a bill that dramatically cuts spending and creates a new "super committee" that will sla...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,797
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (50 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
worker beenumbed
08:54 PM on 08/04/2011
The Budget Control Act of 2011[S.365] does not reduce spending on Iraq and Afganistan.It looks to me like it allows for a cost of killing inflationary increase.From reading the text on Thomas.gov.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:03 PM on 08/03/2011
I guess when your 'baseline' isn't zero, then anything less than you 'projected' spending is now a cut? Only in government can a 2% raise instead of a 5% raise equal a 3% cut! I guess it all sounds great to those not paying attention.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dmm1047
01:37 PM on 08/03/2011
The Washington Massacre.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuyCybershy
11:21 AM on 08/03/2011
"The first great victory for the financial sector in America’s domestic class war was the Bush “temporary” tax cuts on the wealthy. This aggression was not undone in order to restore budget balance. No temporary tax cuts were revoked, no loopholes closed. The burden of balancing the budget was pushed even further onto the Democratic Party’s own base: urban labor, racial and ethnic minorities, the Eastern and Western seaboards. Yet the Democrats split 95/95 on the vote to raise the debt ceiling by slashing social spending on their major voting constituency."
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson08032011.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:07 PM on 08/03/2011
Everyone benefited from the tax cuts....when they go up again, everyone will be paying....the wealthy isn't the only place the fed goes to fund itself. You either want a booming economy or you don't....if you want everyone to earn a decent living, you have got to unlease capitalism and the free market.....you cannot punish or restrict the wealthy and hope that we can all catch up somehow.....free will and the free market do not work that way.
xzwq
don't let cons forget GWB. they ruined america
10:29 AM on 08/03/2011
Why don't we stop redistributing the wealth in this country, meaning stop sending the taxes the well-off liberal states collect to the southern states who h.a.t.e taxes almost as much as their liberal counterparts? Let's see how much them good ol' folks like them taxes then.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TeaLady005
10:25 AM on 08/03/2011
If DEBT is the problem how can MORE debt be the solution? We will be kicking alot more down the road in 2012 besides that can!
02:05 PM on 08/03/2011
Debt at very low interest rates isn't actually the problem. The problem is no growth and limited jobs. Focusing on debt to the exclusion of growth and jobs will make both of those problems worse for the forseeable future.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olerealist
retired trial attorney; former member of VA abd Wa
10:19 AM on 08/03/2011
ON THE NEAR HORIZON IS A GREAT CHANCE FOR FAIRNESS, REASON AND JUSTICE TO PREVAIL.

In the recent debt limit joust, the reactionary radicals effectively wielded their big weapon, to wit: they were far less fearful than oppontents about our Country’s possible catastrophic debt default.

This reckless abandon gave them a very high negotiating card. If they caused a fiscal catastrophe, the Repub. leaders had pockets stuffed with cash to cushion themselves. Next year they will find the shoe on the other foot as pointed out in the Wed August 3rd Wash. Post article by Ezra Klein.

Come 2012 the Bush tax cut “extension” will be expiring. In 2011 the radicals held a veto power over the raising of our debt ceiling. But in 2012 the Dem’s will have a veto over extending Bush tax cuts. While its true that the expiration of those cuts, if expiration is not limited to the highest income taxpayers, may harm the economy, the effect will be felt MOST DIRECTLY by the upper income quintile who are mostly Republicans.

Then the Dem’s will be holding the big gun forcing the Repub’s to the TAX negotiating table, hat in hand. Then we will get the fair tax revenue and the financial tools to create JOBS and escape the downward economic spiral.
10:02 AM on 08/03/2011
I'm an avid supporter, but the POTUS made a mistake in this negotiation process and I think he knows it. If the POTUS' first mind was to separate the debt ceiling from any other negotiatio­ns then he should have stuck with it......Or if he decided that a larger deal was possible then he should have had a fallback plan ready to go (14th amendment or stare down for his opposition­).

For Instance: If the POTUS wanted to stare down his opposition I believe there were two effective ways to go about it.

1) Once it became apparent that obstructio­n and hos tage taking was the game being played, he could have responded by telling the nation that he needs to prepare for a possible default step-by-step. First, shutting down the national parks, then closing gov't services until gradually the nation saw the magnitude of what was taking place (especiall­y since the MSM couldn't seem to verify what a default would look like). The reasoning put forth would only have to show that actions were required to stave off default for as long as possible until congress could do its job. This would've stopped the equivocati­on by re.thu.gs/MSM on who or what would need to be paid vs. paying our bills by August 2nd.

2) If all else had failed during the first operation, he would have had solid ground to invoke the 14th amendment to prevent our nations default, economic debacle and possible downgrade.
10:01 AM on 08/03/2011
The Chinese issued the following statement this morning about our debt deal: "The US “failed to defuse…debt bomb for good, only delaying an immediate detonation by making the fuse an inch longer.” The debt deal on the Hill is no more than a hill of beans and the financial market already has spoken during the last 48 hours.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:10 PM on 08/03/2011
You're right...this bill does nothing to cut spending, nothing to appease investing and nothing to spur job growth....the government is not designed to provide everyone with jobs....the government is in place to secure our nation's business so that we may grow on our own....if and when the fed becomes the sole proprietor of the citizenry, we are dead for sure.....
09:49 AM on 08/03/2011
If the repubs are so set on having smaller government, why don't they want a smaller military?

Small government, big military. Isn't that how the Nazis came to power?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:14 PM on 08/03/2011
Actually, the military is one of the Constitutional components where the federal government is supposed to..."provide for the common defense." They are not, Constitutionally supposed to provide housing, healthcare, retirement funding or et al. Those things the fed is supposed to... "promote the common good." The military is the last place you want to cut - unless those cuts are targeting waste.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
09:43 AM on 08/03/2011
"Last minute deal" - and is anyone surprised? After all, they were due for another "recess" especially since they had to work more than their normal 3-day week, plus need to get on the road for more campaign donations!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
behavingbadly
lovingly crafted artisanal comments
09:13 AM on 08/03/2011
And now, after the hard work of milking a simple debt ceiling job for months, and not creating or even suggesting the hint of any kind of jobs bill, and proving beyond any shred of doubt that they're completely incompetent and unable to do the job they were hired for ... they're off on a month-long paid vacation. No wonder they spend millions running for those "jobs".
09:11 AM on 08/03/2011
New to the site... I am a very conservative American and after the latest budget debacle I came up with a new definition for the GOP. It should no longer be defined as the Grand Old Party but instead be defined as the Gutless Obtuse Panderers. Thanks for listening. Eli B
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Secrist
those who forget are condemned to repeat
08:53 AM on 08/03/2011
"Super Congress?" More like "STUPOR CONGRESS"

Can the vast majority of congress agree transfer their responsibilities to 12 unknown, unelected (for that purpose) individuals?

Apparently so. Well, if the others aren't going to play - GET RID OF THEM!! Think of the money we can save if the cost of our bloated government can be reduced to 12 salaries.

Of course this begs the question, IS THIS HAIR-BRAINED SCHEME LEGAL? Even if every sentence in the "stupor congress" agreement is technically within the law, transferring the authority of congress to a group of 12 is clearly AN ILLEGAL RESULT! Obviously, this sort of change in our government could only be brought about by a constitutional convention. No mere amendment could possibly make such a fundamental change. So clearly, the "stupor majority" deal is an unconstitutional abdication of authority.

Desperation produces some pretty strange results. If the members of congress - and the president, think they can HIDE behind this one, they are mentally ill. Seriously, the whole lot should be IMPEACHED!

I say again, the only thing that might get their attention would be a massive taxpayer refusal to continue subsidizing this bull****! None of us would pay employees NOT TO DO THEIR JOBS. Why should we pay legislators (technically our employees) NOT TO DO THEIRS.

Come on congress and Obama. Do you really expect us to accept a massive redistribution of our money by 12 nefarious members of congress? PLEASE!!! WAKE THE F*** UP AND DO YOUR JOBS!!