Obama, Republicans cooperate on spending — for now

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration and congressional Republicans are quietly working in tandem to blunt the impact of short-term spending cuts that kicked in with dire White House warnings a few days ago, with both sides eager to pocket the full savings for deficit reduction as they pivot to a new clash over Medicare.
The overall size of the cuts remains in place: $85 billion in reductions through the end of the budget year on Sept. 30, half from defense and half from domestic programs as diverse as education, parks and payments to doctors and hospitals treating Medicare patients.
But legislation drafted by House Republicans to prevent a government shutdown on March 27 also gives the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department flexibility to allocate cuts that no agency currently has. A vote on the measure was arranged for Wednesday.
Senate Democrats seem likely to agree to the flexibility if it can be expanded to include other agencies, according to several officials who described closed-door talks that also involved the White House. Among the candidates are the departments of Homeland Security, Transportation, Justice and State. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose details.
The move marks a reversal for President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., both of whom spoke dismissively in recent days of Republican plans for flexibility in administering the cuts.
"The problem is when you're cutting $85 billion in seven months, which represents over a 10 percent cut in the defense budget in seven months, there's no smart way to do that," the president said Feb. 26 in Newport News, Va.
"You don't want to have to choose between, Let's see, do I close funding for the disabled kid or the poor kid? Do I close this Navy shipyard or some other one?"
Asked last week whether he would agree to flexibility, Reid said: "No, why would I? I don't have a reason to do so."
Pentagon officials embraced flexibility even before the measure came to a vote in the House.
The difference for the Navy is "almost night and day," the service's top uniformed officer told Congress on Tuesday. With flexibility, said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, work could proceed on the overhaul of two aircraft carriers and construction on a third, all projects that the Pentagon had said would be curtailed without any changes.
The Pentagon did not immediately say whether it also would be able to order the USS Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf region, a mission it announced earlier would fall victim to the cuts.
Whatever the eventual impact of the spending cuts, the long-running struggle between the parties over deficits soon will shift to rival budgets under preparation by House Republicans and Senate Democrats.
Republican officials said Tuesday that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the chairman of the House Budget Committee, had decided against accelerating plans for a highly controversial overhaul of Medicare, the program that provides health care for people aged 65 and older. Several members of the rank and file have said in recent days Ryan was considering a budget that would implement far-reaching changes beginning in less than a decade.
The Republican proposal would give future retirees a choice between the existing program and one that provides beneficiaries a voucher for their care. In its previous forms, it also capped the overall cost of the program.
Republicans say their approach would help ensure the survival of Medicare for future retirees.
Democrats say it would end the guarantee of health care coverage for seniors that has existed since the 1960s by imposing steadily higher costs on beneficiaries.
Ryan's suggestion to accelerate the overhaul drew objections from some Republicans because it would have meant reversing a pledge the party has made to leave Medicare generally unchanged for anyone currently aged 55 and older.
The switch had few if any supporters at a closed-door leadership meeting earlier in the week, according to Republicans who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the session.
One lawmaker not at the session, Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, told reporters on Tuesday there was concern among some Republicans that incumbents and candidates in swing seats could be harmed in the 2014 elections. "You've told people you'd be doing one thing" and then changing the pledge, he said.
Democrats are poised to attack Republicans over their plans regardless.
Even before reports first surfaced of a possible change in the Republican timetable, Reid told reporters, "Republicans plan to make more extreme cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, education, medical research. They are in an untenable position."
Obama has proposed cuts totaling $400 billion or more to Medicare and other health care benefit programs but has refused to accept the type of change that Republicans seek.
In his State of the Union address last month, the president said he wants to reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies, impose higher costs on wealthier seniors and make payments to providers based on "the quality of care seniors receive" rather than the number of tests.
"I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don't violate the guarantee of a secure retirement," he said.
The overall size of the cuts remains in place: $85 billion in reductions through the end of the budget year on Sept. 30, half from defense and half from domestic programs as diverse as education, parks and payments to doctors and hospitals treating Medicare patients.
But legislation drafted by House Republicans to prevent a government shutdown on March 27 also gives the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department flexibility to allocate cuts that no agency currently has. A vote on the measure was arranged for Wednesday.
Senate Democrats seem likely to agree to the flexibility if it can be expanded to include other agencies, according to several officials who described closed-door talks that also involved the White House. Among the candidates are the departments of Homeland Security, Transportation, Justice and State. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose details.
The move marks a reversal for President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., both of whom spoke dismissively in recent days of Republican plans for flexibility in administering the cuts.
"The problem is when you're cutting $85 billion in seven months, which represents over a 10 percent cut in the defense budget in seven months, there's no smart way to do that," the president said Feb. 26 in Newport News, Va.
"You don't want to have to choose between, Let's see, do I close funding for the disabled kid or the poor kid? Do I close this Navy shipyard or some other one?"
Asked last week whether he would agree to flexibility, Reid said: "No, why would I? I don't have a reason to do so."
Pentagon officials embraced flexibility even before the measure came to a vote in the House.
The difference for the Navy is "almost night and day," the service's top uniformed officer told Congress on Tuesday. With flexibility, said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, work could proceed on the overhaul of two aircraft carriers and construction on a third, all projects that the Pentagon had said would be curtailed without any changes.
The Pentagon did not immediately say whether it also would be able to order the USS Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf region, a mission it announced earlier would fall victim to the cuts.
Whatever the eventual impact of the spending cuts, the long-running struggle between the parties over deficits soon will shift to rival budgets under preparation by House Republicans and Senate Democrats.
Republican officials said Tuesday that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the chairman of the House Budget Committee, had decided against accelerating plans for a highly controversial overhaul of Medicare, the program that provides health care for people aged 65 and older. Several members of the rank and file have said in recent days Ryan was considering a budget that would implement far-reaching changes beginning in less than a decade.
The Republican proposal would give future retirees a choice between the existing program and one that provides beneficiaries a voucher for their care. In its previous forms, it also capped the overall cost of the program.
Republicans say their approach would help ensure the survival of Medicare for future retirees.
Democrats say it would end the guarantee of health care coverage for seniors that has existed since the 1960s by imposing steadily higher costs on beneficiaries.
Ryan's suggestion to accelerate the overhaul drew objections from some Republicans because it would have meant reversing a pledge the party has made to leave Medicare generally unchanged for anyone currently aged 55 and older.
The switch had few if any supporters at a closed-door leadership meeting earlier in the week, according to Republicans who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the session.
One lawmaker not at the session, Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, told reporters on Tuesday there was concern among some Republicans that incumbents and candidates in swing seats could be harmed in the 2014 elections. "You've told people you'd be doing one thing" and then changing the pledge, he said.
Democrats are poised to attack Republicans over their plans regardless.
Even before reports first surfaced of a possible change in the Republican timetable, Reid told reporters, "Republicans plan to make more extreme cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, education, medical research. They are in an untenable position."
Obama has proposed cuts totaling $400 billion or more to Medicare and other health care benefit programs but has refused to accept the type of change that Republicans seek.
In his State of the Union address last month, the president said he wants to reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies, impose higher costs on wealthier seniors and make payments to providers based on "the quality of care seniors receive" rather than the number of tests.
"I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don't violate the guarantee of a secure retirement," he said.
Budgeting... it is called making use of what you got.. NOT what you don't got! ... if you want a program you cut the spending and show it is 100% funded and that funding is fixed... instead they promise all this cool stuff ie tax cuts ... Medicare...medi...whatever expansion.. all while not adding revenue to pay for it ... amazing!
Obviously unfunded spending is fine if it is for your pet projects, ahem, I mean for matters of importance to the economy and safety of the country
Gotta love how biased the title is.
The Republicans are only cooperating because of political pressures. If this was an election year they would be in serious trouble. We can only hope the congressional budgets were also cut. But probably not.
I knew the Republicans would weasel their way to kicking the can down the road on the defense cuts. And I'm sure the Democrats will roll over and go along playing their traditional role of humans without spines.Â
On the day the sequester started, here are the US Treasury debt outstanding numbers:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-01/there-goes-sequester
So, basically, the sequester is one day worth of NEW debt added to our backs. If they shut all federal gov down for jsut one day, it would have saved the same amount. The debate over this cut is a fraud. The debate needs to be about how much more they are going to cut before this black hole sucks us all in.
Our elected officials should be dressed like Nascar drivers. They should all wear jump suits showing who supported their election success, and who owns their votes. Â Remember all of those rotten political ads? The people who paid for them own the politicians.Â
@rockguy I like it, and CSPAN live congressional coverage could add those little floating bubble things over their heads with a real-time list of donors and how much they give.
AND..... they just posted 400 new jobs available at the federal gov. Since it takes 23 real jobs (private sector) to pay for 1 government worker we need to have 9,200 new private sector jobs to pay for that......fat chance.
But the King has declared there will be dire impact, and dammit, there will be DIRE impact, you hear?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/
@georgef They will do their best to make the situation DIRE!!!!!Â
Sadly..... Congress along with the Executive Branch should be without a paycheck!
.
http://griffin.house.gov/sites/griffin.house.gov/files/email.pdf
@TheChosen Ya, you aren't likeley to see much reporting on THAT issue in the mainstream news sites. Just another overreach in policy that they will quietly try to sweep under the rug. Anything to make thier golden child look good.
I have never really been a fan of Warren Buffett, but his comments from 2011 I thought were golden..."Warren Buffet says, âI could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.â"...about the time any elected official actually has "skin" in the game they will be more apt to get something done. He also spoke about the life time pension for congressmen/women and how it should be immediately converted to the same Social Security the American people receive...all the funds that are going to the congressional pensions be put into social security.
@aintno1special Buffet is a con artist. He has the money to pay politicians to give him tax advantages and does, then talks about how he doesn't pay enough. He benefited from the stimulus package and other federal spending with insider knowledge.
His family says he is a mean stingy old man.
@MonroeMad @aintno1special As i said I am not a fan of Buffett, but occasionally even the worst person can have a valid idea! Regarding him being stingy...no one gets rich by giving away their money, that said he is in the process of donating the majority of his wealth along with Gates...maybe that is why his family has labeled him? Or perhaps it is the Christmas dinner he "treats" them to? (I say "treats" because he takes them to McDonald's because he has an "eat for free card" at McDonald's)
BUT... the problem with that is it takes a sitting member of Congress to vote to pass that, and you know darned well they arent going to cut off their golden parachute!