Ray Jay wrote:In theory, that makes sense to me. What you are saying is that the US should not default, but that doesn't mean we have to raise the limit to accomodate any spending the Executive branch wants. In effect, you are recommending that we re-budget right now. Companies do it all the time when they find that their budget is no longer appropriate for current circumstances.

But Mr. Obama did not appear to view the news conference as a fresh opportunity to persuade Republican lawmakers to agree to a specific deal.

Rather, the president appeared to be preparing for the ongoing debate on the issues of the debt, spending and taxes in next year’s presidential election.

“What the American people are paying attention to is who seems to be trying to get something done,” he told reporters.

That message is certain to be a key part of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign as he presents himself as the adult in a room full of squabbling children. Aides hope his efforts to reach a deal during the debt debate — even if unsuccessful — will reinforce that image.

“There may be some movement, some possibility, some interest, to just get something more than just the bare minimum,” Mr. Obama said. “We have enough time to do a big deal. But in order to do that, we have got to get started now.”

Even before Mr. Obama’s news conference, Republican House leaders told reporters that they planned a vote next week on a plan that would increase the debt ceiling in exchange for $2.4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and the passage of a balanced budget amendment.

After gathering privately with his Republican members, House Speaker John A. Boehner reiterated his belief that no plan that includes any tax increase could pass the House.

Mr. Obama dismissed the House Republican plan, saying cuts of that magnitude would adversely affect needed programs for the middle class and would be unfair without asking millionaires to pay more in higher taxes.

“I have not seen a credible plan that would allow you to get to $2.4 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks,” he said. “That doesn’t seem like a serious plan to me.”

Mr. Obama also said a balanced budget amendment was not necessary if “we do our jobs.”

“We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs,” he said. “The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs.”

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2560, the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011.” Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility. Increasing the Federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a Federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.

The bill would undercut the Federal Government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future. H. R. 2560 would set unrealistic spending caps that could result in significant cuts to education, research and development, and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future. It could also lead to severe cuts in Medicare and Social Security, which are growing to accommodate the retirement of the baby boomers, and put at risk the retirement security for tens of millions of Americans.

Furthermore, H. R. 2560 could require even deeper cuts, since it conditions an increase in the Federal debt limit on Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. H. R. 2560 sets out a false and unacceptable choice between the Federal Government defaulting on its obligations now or, alternatively, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the Nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.

The President has proposed a comprehensive and balanced framework that ensures we live within our means and reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, while supporting economic growth and long-term job creation, protecting critical investments, and meeting the commitments made to provide economic security to Americans no matter their circumstances. H.R. 2560 is inconsistent with this responsible framework to restore fiscal responsibility and is not an appropriate method of reducing the Nation’s deficits and debt. The Administration is committed to working with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to achieve real solutions.

If the President were presented this bill for signature, he would veto it.

In another proposal, Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?
July 18-20, 2011
Favor 66%
Oppose 33%
No opinion 1%

Ray Jay wrote:It seems like Obama is willing to raise medicare eligibility to 67 and fix social security inflation rate calculation which will result in a huge saving. Those would be huge spending concessions, and painful to some in the middle class. Obama will have to do a lot of politicking with lefty Congressmen to get that through.

I know that you have a problem that he hasn't gone public with these cuts, but I'm sympathetic on the negotiating dynamics involved.

Ray Jay wrote:If Obama gets to Yes (i.e. $3 trillion of cuts), it may be considered one of his most important legislative accomplishments and get him the re-election. If he doesn't, the media will blame House Republicans and Obama may get re-elected anyway. He knows how to play this game ...

Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid worked closely over the weekend with staff for House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on a bill to resolve the debt-ceiling standoff -- until Reid pulled out after meeting with President Obama at the White House Sunday.

"He and his staff were writing the bill with us," says a senior Republican. "We were still working on it by the time he got back from the White House." Asked whether Reid and his staff were fully involved in the work, the senior Republican replied, "edit after edit after edit." A key GOP aide confirmed the account.

But the GOP bill to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling, which would avert the coming default crisis, would also require at least one more debt increase before the 2012 election, and the president, working hard for re-election, does not want to deal with the issue again before November 2012. After consulting with Obama Sunday evening, Reid's willingness to work with the GOP disappeared. (The White House has all along blamed Republicans for blowing up the talks.)

So with the debt deadline still approaching, what does Reid do now? He is said to be working on his own bill, which will include a reported $2.7 trillion in cuts, made up mostly of what Republicans call "paper savings" from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Those "paper savings" involve counting money that was never going to be spent on those wars as new spending cuts.) It's not clear whether Reid will introduce his own bill or try to attach it to something else.