GOP moves to delay debt-ceiling showdown three months

  • Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:13 a.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to regain their budget footing versus President Barack Obama, Republicans controlling the House are moving quickly to try to defuse a potential debt crisis with legislation to prevent a first-ever U.S. default for at least three months.

The Republicans are giving up for now on trying to extract spending cuts from Democrats in return for an increase in the government’s borrowing cap. But the respite promises to be only temporary, with the stage still set for major battles between the GOP and Obama over taxes, spending and deficits.


The first step comes Wednesday with a House vote on GOP-sponsored legislation that would give the government enough borrowing leeway to meet three months’ worth of obligations, delaying a showdown next month that Republicans fear they would lose.

Republicans leaving a two-hour meeting Tuesday afternoon appeared confident that the measure would pass.

While it’s commonly assumed that the Treasury Department wouldn’t allow a disastrous default on U.S. Treasury notes, the prospect of failing to meet other U.S. obligations such as payments to contractors, unemployment benefits and Social Security checks would also be reputation shattering. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other GOP leaders have made it plain they don’t have the stomach for it.

The legislation is disliked by many Democrats, but the White House weighed in Tuesday with a statement that the administration would not oppose the measure, even though Obama just last week dismissed incremental increases in the debt ceiling as harmful to the economy.

“I am not going to have a monthly, or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills,” Obama said at a news conference Jan. 14.

But what was important to the White House about the GOP proposal was that it separated the debt ceiling from other upcoming fiscal target dates and that it signaled that, at least for now, Republicans were not going to demand a dollar of spending cuts for every dollar of federal borrowing as Boehner long has demanded.

It also appeared that Senate Democrats would grudgingly accept the bill.

“The Boehner rule of 1-for-1, it’s gone,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “So it’s a good step forward, and we’ll see what happens.”

The idea driving the move by GOP leaders is to re-sequence a series of upcoming budget battles, taking the threat of a potentially devastating government default off the table and instead setting up a clash in March over automatic across-the-board spending cuts set to strike the Pentagon and many domestic programs. Those cuts — postponed by the recent “fiscal cliff” deal — are the punishment for the failure of a 2011 deficit supercommittee to reach an agreement.

These across-the-board cuts would pare $85 billion from this year’s budget after being delayed from Jan. 1 until March 1 and reduced by $24 billion by the recently enacted tax bill. Defense hawks are particularly upset, saying the Pentagon cuts would devastate military readiness and cause havoc in defense contracting. The cuts, called a sequester in Washington-speak, were never intended to take effect but were instead aimed at driving the two sides to a large budget bargain in order to avoid them.

But Republicans and Obama now appear on a collision course over how to replace the across-the-board cuts. Obama and his Democratic allies insist that additional revenues be part of the solution; Republicans say further tax increases are off the table after the 10-year, $600 billion-plus increase in taxes on wealthier earners forced upon Republicans by Obama earlier this month.

“We are not going to raise taxes on the American people,” Boehner told reporters.

“We feel by moving the issue of raising the debt ceiling behind the sequestration ... that we reorder things in a way that Democrats will have to work with,” said Rep. John Fleming, R-La. “The cuts are the kind of cuts we want, they’re just not in the places we want, but they’re also not in the places that the Democrats want. So hopefully they’ll be forced to come to the table and work with us on a bipartisan basis to put them where they need to be, where it has the less pain.”

Notice about comments:

Salisburypost.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Salisburypost.com cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Salisburypost.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Do not post the following:

  • Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
  • Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
  • Personal attacks, insults or threats.
  • The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
  • Comments unrelated to the story.