Bottom-lining the debt deal

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/bottom-lining-debt-deal.html[/postlink]

posted at 2:00 pm on August 2, 2011 by Steve Eggleston
printer-friendly

There’s been a lot of numbers and rhetoric tossed about on what the debt deal (shortened to The Deal, not because I like it, but because it makes the phrase stand out) does and doesn’t do. However, I don’t believe anybody has done an exploration of the absolute effect is. It’s high time to do so.

Baselines matter

First, the base from which the reductions are to be needs to be established. While that base has been established to be a “modified” version of the March 2011 Congressional Budget Office extended-baseline scenario, a quick review of which is part of the CBO’s review of the President’s FY2012 budget proposal.

The extended-baseline scenario assumes the CBO’s estimates, based on current law and not necessarily current policy, of direct spending (which, among other things, ends the Medicare “doc fix”) and revenues (which, among other things, assumes that all of the Bush tax rates expire at the end of 2012 and the Alternate Minimum Tax is no longer “indexed” to keep middle- and lower-income Americans from being caught in that trap), and that every top-line category of discretionary spending that does not explicitly end in FY2010 is increased at the rate of inflation.

The bottom line on that is that, on $39.03 trillion in revenue and $45.77 trillion in outlays, there would be $6.74 trillion in deficit spending. However, there are a couple of “wrinkles” that were added to that in the baseline used.

Normally, that would include spending on what used to be known as (and is still called by the Republicans on the House Budget Committee) the Global War on Terror. However, every entity, from the White House to the House of Representatives to the Senate Democrat leadership, agrees that, instead of spending $1,589 billion over the next 10 years as the extended-baseline scenario calls for, $545 billion will be spent. While the CBO excluded the entirety of that at the request of Congress as it is not part of this bill, I will add the $545 billion back in, using the House budget spending by year, as there is no difference year-to-year between the President’s and the House of Representatives’ budgets.

Also, the CBO, at the request of Congress, has figured in the effects of the final FY2011 continuing resolution. That is another $122 billion reduction in spending.

Taking the full effect of those modifications into consideration, the federal government would take in $39.03 trillion in revenue, spend $44.60 trillion, and run a 10-year deficit of $5.57 trillion.

There are a couple of other “baselines” that one could choose. The President’s budget, according to the CBO, would take in $36.70 trillion in revenue, spend $46.17 trillion, and run a 10-year deficit of $9.47 trillion. That budget already includes all of the modifications above.

An “Alternate Fiscal Scenario” from the CBO, which assumes various spending and revenue options, including those outlined above, are affirmatively extended rather than allowed to expire or otherwise not happen and last outlined in percentage-of-GDP form in June, would also need to be adjusted by the above adjustments. Once that is done, it would presume $35.05 trillion in revenues, $46.81 trillion in spending, and $11.76 trillion in deficits.

Meanwhile, the House budget, which keeps all of the Bush tax rates, indexes the AMT, and does some further tax cuts, envisions $34.87 trillion of revenues, $39.96 trilion of spending, and $5.09 trillion of deficit spending. Like the President’s budget, it already includes all the modifications above.

The first 2 years – $63 billion in scorable deficit reduction versus the “adjusted” CBO baseline

Like the CBO, I cannot and will not attempt to score the effects of a potential $1.2 trillion in “trigger” cuts, $1.5 trillion in “commission” cuts, or adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment. However, I have actually read the bill, and the discretionary spending caps are, unlike the $1.2 trillion-$1.5 trillion in “additional cuts”, actual hard numbers, not nebulous percentages or “reduction” numbers”. Therefore, actual bottom-line spending comparisons can be made against any base. As the CBO used an adjusted version of their March 2011 baseline, I added the (all-but-)agreed-to spending levels on the GWOT to do so.

Using the adjusted CBO baseline, there would be, between FY2012 and FY2013, $5.65 trillion in revenue, $7.34 trillion in spending, and $1.69 trillion in deficit spending. Adopting The Deal l would knock the spending down to $7.28 trillion and deficits down to $1.63 trillion.

By way of comparison, the President’s budget would have $5.44 trillion in revenue, $7.51 trillion in spending, and $2.07 trillion in deficits. That’s an additional $233 billion in spending and $438 billion in deficits versus The Deal.

The House budget would have $5.39 trillion in revenue, $7.09 trillion in spending, and $1.69 trilllion in deficits. While spending in the House budget would be $190 billion less than The Deal and $253 billion less than the adjusted CBO baseline, the deficit would be slightly higher than The Deal and insignifiantly less than the adjusted baseline as, instead of the Bush tax rates expiring at the end of 2012 (1/4th the way through 2013) and the AMT “indexing” not happening, both would continue as they have the past 8 years.

The “out” years – $855 billion in “scorable” deficit reduction – if The Deal holds

I will preface this that there is a significant amount of debt service savings from the reductions in spending on the GWOT that were scored in the two budgets that were not scored separately in even the CBO analysis of the Senate proposals. Judging by the CBO scoring of the Senate proposal versus the House proposals and The Deal, that is roughly $220 billion in reduced spending over the 10 years not reflected in either the adjusted CBO baseline or The Deal.

Also, the bulk of the $1.2 trillion-$1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction, or any adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment, will happen in this time frame. As noted above, that cannot be properly scored as yet.

With that said, the adjusted CBO baseline anticipates $33.39 trillion in revenues, $37.26 trillion in spending, and $3.87 trillion in deficits between FY2014 and FY2021. The Deal changes the spending to $36.41 trillion and the 8-year deficit to $3.02 trillion.

The President’s budget is a veritable blowout of spending, especially deficit spending. On $31.26 trillion of revenue, there would be $38.67 trillion of spending and $7.40 trillion of deficits.

While the House budget would continue to spend less at $29.48 trillion, its reduced expectation of revenue of $32.87 trillion would result in $3.39 trillion in deficits.

What about tax hikes?

While The Deal does not explicitly address taxes, I’ve got bad news for everybody (or at least everybody who thinks a non-WWII record level of revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2021 is a bad idea) on that front. Any attempt to either extend any part of the Bush tax rates beyond 2012 or keep “indexing” the AMT will be scored as a deficit increase. The back-of-the-envelope numbers on the various proposals are that the “scored” increase would be about $2.5 trillion for the Obama “hold those under $200K/$250K harmless” plan, $3.5 trillion for full extension of the Bush tax rates, and $4.2 trillion to continue the entirety of the current tax structure.

What about S&P and Moody’s?

Again, baselines matter. Unfortunately, neither S&P nor Moody’s appear to have mentioned from which baseline they wanted the “$4 trillion in deficit reduction”. It has been said that Cut, Cap and Balance, even before adoption of the Balanced Budget Amendment, would have met that. However, I have not seen any CBO score on that.

Moreover, up until the Congressional leadership decided to start talking to each other instead of with President Obama, it was widely assumed the $4 trillion that was being talked about was against the President’s budget and its $9.47 trillion 10-year deficit spending. The House budget, and the Cut, Cap and Balance bill that, after higher spending in FY2012 compared to that, used percentage-of-GDP spending levels based on that budget, would easily have cleared that hurdle.

Going against the President’s budget, The Deal, with $4.65 trillion in 10-year deficit spending, also would very easily clear that hurdle, even before the “trigger”/commission/BBA. Moody’s has already said they would maintain a negative outlook on the US soverign debt, while S&P is making noises that they will downgrade the debt. I have to wonder what more those credit rating agencies want.

Revisions/extensions - I really need to proofread these opii. Corrected a typo. I hope there isn’t more.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look

posted at 2:00 pm on August 2, 2011 by Steve Eggleston
printer-friendly

There’s been a lot of numbers and rhetoric tossed about on what the debt deal (shortened to The Deal, not because I like it, but because it makes the phrase stand out) does and doesn’t do. However, I don’t believe anybody has done an exploration of the absolute effect is. It’s high time to do so.

Baselines matter

First, the base from which the reductions are to be needs to be established. While that base has been established to be a “modified” version of the March 2011 Congressional Budget Office extended-baseline scenario, a quick review of which is part of the CBO’s review of the President’s FY2012 budget proposal.

The extended-baseline scenario assumes the CBO’s estimates, based on current law and not necessarily current policy, of direct spending (which, among other things, ends the Medicare “doc fix”) and revenues (which, among other things, assumes that all of the Bush tax rates expire at the end of 2012 and the Alternate Minimum Tax is no longer “indexed” to keep middle- and lower-income Americans from being caught in that trap), and that every top-line category of discretionary spending that does not explicitly end in FY2010 is increased at the rate of inflation.

The bottom line on that is that, on $39.03 trillion in revenue and $45.77 trillion in outlays, there would be $6.74 trillion in deficit spending. However, there are a couple of “wrinkles” that were added to that in the baseline used.

Normally, that would include spending on what used to be known as (and is still called by the Republicans on the House Budget Committee) the Global War on Terror. However, every entity, from the White House to the House of Representatives to the Senate Democrat leadership, agrees that, instead of spending $1,589 billion over the next 10 years as the extended-baseline scenario calls for, $545 billion will be spent. While the CBO excluded the entirety of that at the request of Congress as it is not part of this bill, I will add the $545 billion back in, using the House budget spending by year, as there is no difference year-to-year between the President’s and the House of Representatives’ budgets.

Also, the CBO, at the request of Congress, has figured in the effects of the final FY2011 continuing resolution. That is another $122 billion reduction in spending.

Taking the full effect of those modifications into consideration, the federal government would take in $39.03 trillion in revenue, spend $44.60 trillion, and run a 10-year deficit of $5.57 trillion.

There are a couple of other “baselines” that one could choose. The President’s budget, according to the CBO, would take in $36.70 trillion in revenue, spend $46.17 trillion, and run a 10-year deficit of $9.47 trillion. That budget already includes all of the modifications above.

An “Alternate Fiscal Scenario” from the CBO, which assumes various spending and revenue options, including those outlined above, are affirmatively extended rather than allowed to expire or otherwise not happen and last outlined in percentage-of-GDP form in June, would also need to be adjusted by the above adjustments. Once that is done, it would presume $35.05 trillion in revenues, $46.81 trillion in spending, and $11.76 trillion in deficits.

Meanwhile, the House budget, which keeps all of the Bush tax rates, indexes the AMT, and does some further tax cuts, envisions $34.87 trillion of revenues, $39.96 trilion of spending, and $5.09 trillion of deficit spending. Like the President’s budget, it already includes all the modifications above.

The first 2 years – $63 billion in scorable deficit reduction versus the “adjusted” CBO baseline

Like the CBO, I cannot and will not attempt to score the effects of a potential $1.2 trillion in “trigger” cuts, $1.5 trillion in “commission” cuts, or adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment. However, I have actually read the bill, and the discretionary spending caps are, unlike the $1.2 trillion-$1.5 trillion in “additional cuts”, actual hard numbers, not nebulous percentages or “reduction” numbers”. Therefore, actual bottom-line spending comparisons can be made against any base. As the CBO used an adjusted version of their March 2011 baseline, I added the (all-but-)agreed-to spending levels on the GWOT to do so.

Using the adjusted CBO baseline, there would be, between FY2012 and FY2013, $5.65 trillion in revenue, $7.34 trillion in spending, and $1.69 trillion in deficit spending. Adopting The Deal l would knock the spending down to $7.28 trillion and deficits down to $1.63 trillion.

By way of comparison, the President’s budget would have $5.44 trillion in revenue, $7.51 trillion in spending, and $2.07 trillion in deficits. That’s an additional $233 billion in spending and $438 billion in deficits versus The Deal.

The House budget would have $5.39 trillion in revenue, $7.09 trillion in spending, and $1.69 trilllion in deficits. While spending in the House budget would be $190 billion less than The Deal and $253 billion less than the adjusted CBO baseline, the deficit would be slightly higher than The Deal and insignifiantly less than the adjusted baseline as, instead of the Bush tax rates expiring at the end of 2012 (1/4th the way through 2013) and the AMT “indexing” not happening, both would continue as they have the past 8 years.

The “out” years – $855 billion in “scorable” deficit reduction – if The Deal holds

I will preface this that there is a significant amount of debt service savings from the reductions in spending on the GWOT that were scored in the two budgets that were not scored separately in even the CBO analysis of the Senate proposals. Judging by the CBO scoring of the Senate proposal versus the House proposals and The Deal, that is roughly $220 billion in reduced spending over the 10 years not reflected in either the adjusted CBO baseline or The Deal.

Also, the bulk of the $1.2 trillion-$1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction, or any adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment, will happen in this time frame. As noted above, that cannot be properly scored as yet.

With that said, the adjusted CBO baseline anticipates $33.39 trillion in revenues, $37.26 trillion in spending, and $3.87 trillion in deficits between FY2014 and FY2021. The Deal changes the spending to $36.41 trillion and the 8-year deficit to $3.02 trillion.

The President’s budget is a veritable blowout of spending, especially deficit spending. On $31.26 trillion of revenue, there would be $38.67 trillion of spending and $7.40 trillion of deficits.

While the House budget would continue to spend less at $29.48 trillion, its reduced expectation of revenue of $32.87 trillion would result in $3.39 trillion in deficits.

What about tax hikes?

While The Deal does not explicitly address taxes, I’ve got bad news for everybody (or at least everybody who thinks a non-WWII record level of revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2021 is a bad idea) on that front. Any attempt to either extend any part of the Bush tax rates beyond 2012 or keep “indexing” the AMT will be scored as a deficit increase. The back-of-the-envelope numbers on the various proposals are that the “scored” increase would be about $2.5 trillion for the Obama “hold those under $200K/$250K harmless” plan, $3.5 trillion for full extension of the Bush tax rates, and $4.2 trillion to continue the entirety of the current tax structure.

What about S&P and Moody’s?

Again, baselines matter. Unfortunately, neither S&P nor Moody’s appear to have mentioned from which baseline they wanted the “$4 trillion in deficit reduction”. It has been said that Cut, Cap and Balance, even before adoption of the Balanced Budget Amendment, would have met that. However, I have not seen any CBO score on that.

Moreover, up until the Congressional leadership decided to start talking to each other instead of with President Obama, it was widely assumed the $4 trillion that was being talked about was against the President’s budget and its $9.47 trillion 10-year deficit spending. The House budget, and the Cut, Cap and Balance bill that, after higher spending in FY2012 compared to that, used percentage-of-GDP spending levels based on that budget, would easily have cleared that hurdle.

Going against the President’s budget, The Deal, with $4.65 trillion in 10-year deficit spending, also would very easily clear that hurdle, even before the “trigger”/commission/BBA. Moody’s has already said they would maintain a negative outlook on the US soverign debt, while S&P is making noises that they will downgrade the debt. I have to wonder what more those credit rating agencies want.

Revisions/extensions - I really need to proofread these opii. Corrected a typo. I hope there isn’t more.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look

Obama in Pennsylvania virtual tie with … Rick Santorum?

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/obama-in-pennsylvania-virtual-tie-with.html[/postlink]

posted at 1:22 pm on August 2, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Bad news comes out of the must-carry state of Pennsylvania today for Barack Obama and his re-election hopes.  Not only has Obama fallen far below water in his approval rating in the latest Quinnipiac poll, he has now dropped into a tie against a potential Republican nominee.  No, this isn’t a generic Republican, either:

    The protracted slugfest over raising the national debt limit leaves President Barack Obama with a 54 – 43 percent disapproval among Pennsylvania voters, but he scores better than Republicans or Democrats in Congress, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. …

    Pennsylvania voters say 52 – 42 percent that Obama does not deserve to be reelected. Matching the president against possible Republican challengers shows:

        Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 44 percent to Obama’s 42 percent;
        Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with 43 percent to Obama’s 45 percent;
        Obama leads Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann 47 – 39 percent;
        Obama tops Texas Gov. Rick Perry 45 – 39 percent.

The internals of the poll look even worse for Obama.  The overall deserves-re-election number is 42/52, a very bad number in Democrat-heavy Pennsylvania, where Democrats account for half of all registered voters.  Independents split almost exactly the same at 42/51, and the only region in which Obama has a majority for re-election is Philadelphia.  Even among union households, which should be Obama’s bread and butter, he only gets a narrow 48/45 split, roughly a virtual tie.

The head-to-head numbers are simply embarrassing for a Democratic President in Pennsylvania, especially against a former Keystone State Senator who got blown out in his last statewide election.  There is another reason to worry, too, in that series.  Obama doesn’t get to 50% against any Republican in head-to-head matchups, usually a big red flag for incumbents.  The best he does is 47% against Michele Bachmann.

If Obama is doing this badly in Pennsylvania, it strongly suggests a big opening in the Rust Belt for Republicans next year.  Democrats in Michigan have a similar registration advantage, but not in Ohio, Indiana, or even Wisconsin, which have similar demographics as Pennsylvania and all of which Obama carried in 2008.  Obama has a big, big problem in this region, and losing Pennsylvania might just be the beginning of his woes.

posted at 1:22 pm on August 2, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Bad news comes out of the must-carry state of Pennsylvania today for Barack Obama and his re-election hopes.  Not only has Obama fallen far below water in his approval rating in the latest Quinnipiac poll, he has now dropped into a tie against a potential Republican nominee.  No, this isn’t a generic Republican, either:

    The protracted slugfest over raising the national debt limit leaves President Barack Obama with a 54 – 43 percent disapproval among Pennsylvania voters, but he scores better than Republicans or Democrats in Congress, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. …

    Pennsylvania voters say 52 – 42 percent that Obama does not deserve to be reelected. Matching the president against possible Republican challengers shows:

        Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 44 percent to Obama’s 42 percent;
        Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with 43 percent to Obama’s 45 percent;
        Obama leads Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann 47 – 39 percent;
        Obama tops Texas Gov. Rick Perry 45 – 39 percent.

The internals of the poll look even worse for Obama.  The overall deserves-re-election number is 42/52, a very bad number in Democrat-heavy Pennsylvania, where Democrats account for half of all registered voters.  Independents split almost exactly the same at 42/51, and the only region in which Obama has a majority for re-election is Philadelphia.  Even among union households, which should be Obama’s bread and butter, he only gets a narrow 48/45 split, roughly a virtual tie.

The head-to-head numbers are simply embarrassing for a Democratic President in Pennsylvania, especially against a former Keystone State Senator who got blown out in his last statewide election.  There is another reason to worry, too, in that series.  Obama doesn’t get to 50% against any Republican in head-to-head matchups, usually a big red flag for incumbents.  The best he does is 47% against Michele Bachmann.

If Obama is doing this badly in Pennsylvania, it strongly suggests a big opening in the Rust Belt for Republicans next year.  Democrats in Michigan have a similar registration advantage, but not in Ohio, Indiana, or even Wisconsin, which have similar demographics as Pennsylvania and all of which Obama carried in 2008.  Obama has a big, big problem in this region, and losing Pennsylvania might just be the beginning of his woes.

Open thread: Senate to vote on House-passed debt deal at noon Update: Senate passes debt deal, 74-26 Update: President ends this saga, signs debt deal

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/open-thread-senate-to-vote-on-house.html[/postlink]

posted at 11:20 am on August 2, 2011 by Tina Korbe

printer-friendly

After a dramatic night in the House of Representatives last night, the disappointment of a debt deal that passed the House heads to the Senate, where it faces seemingly fewer obstacles than it faced in the House.

But that doesn’t mean passage will be “easy.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said no amendments will be allowed and the plan requires a supermajority of 60 votes to pass. One notable “no” vote will come from Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). The senator who has been sounding the warning bell about an eleventh hour deal for months — and who has kept the count as to how many days the Senate has gone without passing a budget resolution (825!) — explains why he can’t support the deal:

“We’re getting pretty far away from the traditions of this body when you don’t publicly debate a budget, you create a committee of limited numbers of people to produce legislation that can’t be amended,” Sessions says in the video. “For those reasons, I feel like as a Senator and the ranking member on the Budget Committee who’s wrestled with this for some time, I would not be able to support the legislation. Though, I truly believe it is a step forward, and I respect my colleagues who’ve worked hard to try to bring it forward.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), whose name has become almost synonymous with the push for a balanced budget amendment, is still a “no” vote, as is Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) remain “yes” votes, of course.

Senate Democrat opposition to the deal doesn’t rival Democrat opposition in the House, where Rep. Emanuel Cleaver created news by calling the deal a “sugar-coated satan sandwich” and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi implied it also features “satan fries on the side.” But I’ll keep an eye out for any likely “no” votes from the left side of the aisle.

Again, though, the bill is broadly expected to pass. Bill Hemmer just said the guidance Fox News has received suggests the Senate will give it at least 70 votes — so it won’t even be close. After that, attention will turn to the 12-member special commission.

Meanwhile, rumors of a downgrade despite the deal continue to circulate.

Update I: Reid is on the Senate floor right now, saying, “We were on the brink of disaster, but, one day before the deadline, we were able to avert that disaster. … There’s principally one winner through all of this: the American people. … The result of this Tea Party direction of this Congress has been very disconcerting. It stopped us from arriving at a conclusion much sooner. …”

Update II: Bill Hemmer just tweeted and AP reports that 60 senators have already voted “yes” for the deal, which means it passes. But the roll call continues. Guy Benson tweets that four Democrats have voted “no” so far: Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT).

Update III: The deal has passed, 74 to 26. Three more Dem “no” votes: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.). Now awaiting the president’s speech from the Rose Garden …

Update IV: In his Rose Garden speech, the president issued veiled instructions to the deficit-reduction joint committee created by the debt deal — instructions that amounted to, “Raise taxes.” For more, see my upcoming post in just a bit.

Update V: The president just signed the debt deal. Aaaannnddd … it’s over. For now.

posted at 11:20 am on August 2, 2011 by Tina Korbe

printer-friendly

After a dramatic night in the House of Representatives last night, the disappointment of a debt deal that passed the House heads to the Senate, where it faces seemingly fewer obstacles than it faced in the House.

But that doesn’t mean passage will be “easy.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said no amendments will be allowed and the plan requires a supermajority of 60 votes to pass. One notable “no” vote will come from Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). The senator who has been sounding the warning bell about an eleventh hour deal for months — and who has kept the count as to how many days the Senate has gone without passing a budget resolution (825!) — explains why he can’t support the deal:

“We’re getting pretty far away from the traditions of this body when you don’t publicly debate a budget, you create a committee of limited numbers of people to produce legislation that can’t be amended,” Sessions says in the video. “For those reasons, I feel like as a Senator and the ranking member on the Budget Committee who’s wrestled with this for some time, I would not be able to support the legislation. Though, I truly believe it is a step forward, and I respect my colleagues who’ve worked hard to try to bring it forward.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), whose name has become almost synonymous with the push for a balanced budget amendment, is still a “no” vote, as is Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) remain “yes” votes, of course.

Senate Democrat opposition to the deal doesn’t rival Democrat opposition in the House, where Rep. Emanuel Cleaver created news by calling the deal a “sugar-coated satan sandwich” and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi implied it also features “satan fries on the side.” But I’ll keep an eye out for any likely “no” votes from the left side of the aisle.

Again, though, the bill is broadly expected to pass. Bill Hemmer just said the guidance Fox News has received suggests the Senate will give it at least 70 votes — so it won’t even be close. After that, attention will turn to the 12-member special commission.

Meanwhile, rumors of a downgrade despite the deal continue to circulate.

Update I: Reid is on the Senate floor right now, saying, “We were on the brink of disaster, but, one day before the deadline, we were able to avert that disaster. … There’s principally one winner through all of this: the American people. … The result of this Tea Party direction of this Congress has been very disconcerting. It stopped us from arriving at a conclusion much sooner. …”

Update II: Bill Hemmer just tweeted and AP reports that 60 senators have already voted “yes” for the deal, which means it passes. But the roll call continues. Guy Benson tweets that four Democrats have voted “no” so far: Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT).

Update III: The deal has passed, 74 to 26. Three more Dem “no” votes: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.). Now awaiting the president’s speech from the Rose Garden …

Update IV: In his Rose Garden speech, the president issued veiled instructions to the deficit-reduction joint committee created by the debt deal — instructions that amounted to, “Raise taxes.” For more, see my upcoming post in just a bit.

Update V: The president just signed the debt deal. Aaaannnddd … it’s over. For now.

New ObamaCare mandate: no co-pays on contraceptives

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-obamacare-mandate-no-co-pays-on.html[/postlink]

posted at 12:45 pm on August 2, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

The ObamaCare bill has resulted in an explosion of ambiguity and arbitrary rulings, mainly focused at first on temporary waivers for some insurers and employers on requirements for meeting the threshold of payouts to premiums.  The Department of Health and Human Services stopped issuing waivers under pressure from Congress to explain their methodology, but a new ruling by Kathleen Sebelius will likely prompt even more protests.  The Obama administration ordered insurers to cover prescription contraceptives and a range of other “women’s wellness” services and products without co-pays:

    Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

    The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women’s preventive care under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

    “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

    The new requirements will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Tens of millions of women are expected to gain coverage initially, and that number is likely to grow with time. At first, some plans may be exempt due to a complex provision of the health care law known as the “grandfather” clause. But those even plans could face pressure from their members to include the new benefit.

Let’s put this in its proper context.  Thanks to this new mandate, insurers will eat hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of dollars in additional costs each year.  Guess how they will recoup those costs?  Premiums will rise across the board, meaning that everyone will pay the additional cost as well as the specific patients getting the services and products.

Does this solve some sort of pressing gap in society?  Not really.  As the Huffington Post report notes, contraceptive use is already nearly universal.  The report quotes a government study that shows 90 million prescriptions for contraceptives are dispensed annually.  Clearly, there is no big gap in access due to having co-pays for the Pill.  If poor women had problems paying the additional cost, then HHS could have ordered Medicaid to end co-pays, a power that was already within their jurisdiction before ObamaCare’s passage.

So where does this end?  Do we next mandate an end to co-pays on Lipitor because cholesterol is a problem in American health?  I can tell you that the co-pays on that medication are higher than on most and probably represent more of a barrier to access than co-pays on the Pill, let alone access to breast pumps and counseling on domestic violence.

This is a preview of life under ObamaCare.  This edict got handed down from the mountain purely for political purposes.  The Obama administration wants to bolster its standing with women ahead of the next election; this mandate will probably get featured in an endless series of campaign ads.  “President Obama protects women!” the copy will read.  In the meantime, rational provider-patient cost sharing on non-critical products and services will be discarded, forcing the rest of us to eat the cost in higher premiums.  It’s the ultimate in arbitrary exercises in authority.

And people wonder why employers, who have to price the costs of adding positions, aren’t hiring any more.

posted at 12:45 pm on August 2, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

The ObamaCare bill has resulted in an explosion of ambiguity and arbitrary rulings, mainly focused at first on temporary waivers for some insurers and employers on requirements for meeting the threshold of payouts to premiums.  The Department of Health and Human Services stopped issuing waivers under pressure from Congress to explain their methodology, but a new ruling by Kathleen Sebelius will likely prompt even more protests.  The Obama administration ordered insurers to cover prescription contraceptives and a range of other “women’s wellness” services and products without co-pays:

    Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

    The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women’s preventive care under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

    “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

    The new requirements will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Tens of millions of women are expected to gain coverage initially, and that number is likely to grow with time. At first, some plans may be exempt due to a complex provision of the health care law known as the “grandfather” clause. But those even plans could face pressure from their members to include the new benefit.

Let’s put this in its proper context.  Thanks to this new mandate, insurers will eat hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of dollars in additional costs each year.  Guess how they will recoup those costs?  Premiums will rise across the board, meaning that everyone will pay the additional cost as well as the specific patients getting the services and products.

Does this solve some sort of pressing gap in society?  Not really.  As the Huffington Post report notes, contraceptive use is already nearly universal.  The report quotes a government study that shows 90 million prescriptions for contraceptives are dispensed annually.  Clearly, there is no big gap in access due to having co-pays for the Pill.  If poor women had problems paying the additional cost, then HHS could have ordered Medicaid to end co-pays, a power that was already within their jurisdiction before ObamaCare’s passage.

So where does this end?  Do we next mandate an end to co-pays on Lipitor because cholesterol is a problem in American health?  I can tell you that the co-pays on that medication are higher than on most and probably represent more of a barrier to access than co-pays on the Pill, let alone access to breast pumps and counseling on domestic violence.

This is a preview of life under ObamaCare.  This edict got handed down from the mountain purely for political purposes.  The Obama administration wants to bolster its standing with women ahead of the next election; this mandate will probably get featured in an endless series of campaign ads.  “President Obama protects women!” the copy will read.  In the meantime, rational provider-patient cost sharing on non-critical products and services will be discarded, forcing the rest of us to eat the cost in higher premiums.  It’s the ultimate in arbitrary exercises in authority.

And people wonder why employers, who have to price the costs of adding positions, aren’t hiring any more.

Palin: House passage of debt deal is a victory for the Tea Party

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/palin-house-passage-of-debt-deal-is.html[/postlink]

posted at 12:00 pm on August 2, 2011 by Tina Korbe

printer-friendly

It seems to be the new talking point: The deal is a victory for conservatives not because of what it does (which is, not much!), but because it supposedly represents a change in the direction of the debate. Once, Washington discussed what to grow. Now, Washington discusses what to cut. Even former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has echoed the theme — but with qualifications. The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire reports:

    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Monday’s House vote to lift the debt ceiling was a victory for the tea party, proving that conservative activists had shifted the conversation in Washington.

    “We shall take this victory and make sure our politicians in office today are learning from this victory,” Ms. Palin said Monday night on Fox News, where she is a paid contributor. “It’s not a 100% pure genuine victory. We just handed the most liberal president, I believe, in U.S. history a $2.4 billion debt increase.” …

    Ms. Palin didn’t fully embrace the deal, saying she had plenty of problems with the compromise  between the White House and congressional leaders, including Republican House Speaker John Boehner. In the past, the former governor said she was not convinced America would face a default if lawmakers did not raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2.

Meanwhile, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the founders of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress (along with GOP presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann), says the deal can’t possibly be touted as a win.

“The Tea Party is not calling this a victory,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said today on Fox News. “I’m certainly not.”

It’s perplexing, really — the way so many conservatives changed their minds at the last minute. About a week ago, Palin called for any supposedly small-government freshman who voted for a debt ceiling increase to face a “contested” primary. Now, she’s silent on the subject of the 59 House freshmen who voted for the deal. And what about the 59 freshmen who voted that way in the first place? What accounts for their support? What accounts for Boehner’s comment that he got “98 percent” of what he wanted, when he clearly didn’t?

The effort to spin this compromise as a conservative victory is impressive — and it makes sense. No one wants to declare themselves diminished politically. And this deal enables leadership to tout its ability to garner votes, to prevent default, etc., etc. etc. But it’s still just a political victory. It’s not a solution. And to rest too much on the laurels of maybe-no-tax-hikes and at-least-it’s-not-a-clean-debt-ceiling-increase obscures the distance the country still has to go. Better to stay focused on the facts: The nation is still spending money it doesn’t have (we’re borrowing about $2 million every minute of every day!). The government is still growing (keep in mind the cuts are to increases in spending over the next 10 years).

posted at 12:00 pm on August 2, 2011 by Tina Korbe

printer-friendly

It seems to be the new talking point: The deal is a victory for conservatives not because of what it does (which is, not much!), but because it supposedly represents a change in the direction of the debate. Once, Washington discussed what to grow. Now, Washington discusses what to cut. Even former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has echoed the theme — but with qualifications. The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire reports:

    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Monday’s House vote to lift the debt ceiling was a victory for the tea party, proving that conservative activists had shifted the conversation in Washington.

    “We shall take this victory and make sure our politicians in office today are learning from this victory,” Ms. Palin said Monday night on Fox News, where she is a paid contributor. “It’s not a 100% pure genuine victory. We just handed the most liberal president, I believe, in U.S. history a $2.4 billion debt increase.” …

    Ms. Palin didn’t fully embrace the deal, saying she had plenty of problems with the compromise  between the White House and congressional leaders, including Republican House Speaker John Boehner. In the past, the former governor said she was not convinced America would face a default if lawmakers did not raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2.

Meanwhile, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the founders of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress (along with GOP presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann), says the deal can’t possibly be touted as a win.

“The Tea Party is not calling this a victory,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said today on Fox News. “I’m certainly not.”

It’s perplexing, really — the way so many conservatives changed their minds at the last minute. About a week ago, Palin called for any supposedly small-government freshman who voted for a debt ceiling increase to face a “contested” primary. Now, she’s silent on the subject of the 59 House freshmen who voted for the deal. And what about the 59 freshmen who voted that way in the first place? What accounts for their support? What accounts for Boehner’s comment that he got “98 percent” of what he wanted, when he clearly didn’t?

The effort to spin this compromise as a conservative victory is impressive — and it makes sense. No one wants to declare themselves diminished politically. And this deal enables leadership to tout its ability to garner votes, to prevent default, etc., etc. etc. But it’s still just a political victory. It’s not a solution. And to rest too much on the laurels of maybe-no-tax-hikes and at-least-it’s-not-a-clean-debt-ceiling-increase obscures the distance the country still has to go. Better to stay focused on the facts: The nation is still spending money it doesn’t have (we’re borrowing about $2 million every minute of every day!). The government is still growing (keep in mind the cuts are to increases in spending over the next 10 years).

Europe Pushes to Revive UN Resolution Condemning Syria’s Assad

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/europe-pushes-to-revive-un-resolution.html[/postlink]

August 01, 2011, 1:28 PM EDT
More From Businessweek

    UN Security Council Will Meet to Discuss Violence in Syria
    Banks in BRICs Signal Credit Risks as Bad Loans Curb Growth
    Syrian Military Extends Hama Assault on First Day of Ramadan
    Syrian Army Storms Cities on Ramadan Eve, at Least 136 Dead
    Emerging Stocks Fall for Third Day on U.S., Europe Debt Concern


By Flavia Krause-Jackson and Bill Varner

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. and European allies today are seeking to resuscitate efforts at the United Nations to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to halt the bloodiest crackdown yet on anti-government protesters.

In response to a German call, the UN Security Council will meet today at 5 p.m. in New York to discuss the escalating violence in Syria, where security forces killed more than 150 people over the last two days. China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and India -- which has taken over the council’s rotating monthly presidency -- have blocked adoption of a draft resolution first circulated on May 25.

The attack on Hama, accounting for the bulk of the deaths, is among the most vicious episodes in the uprising that began more than four months ago and was unleashed at the start of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. The Security Council must urgently respond to the ongoing crackdown by referring the situation to the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International said today in a statement.

“I would like to see a UN Security Council resolution to condemn this violence,” U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague told BBC Radio 4. Still, getting the UN’s decision-making body to act will be “difficult work,” he said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that “in these horrifying circumstances, France hopes more than ever that the United Nations Security Council will shoulder its responsibilities by speaking out loud and clear, as the United Nations secretary-general has done several times.”

President Barack Obama, in a strongly phrased criticism of Assad, said yesterday that the U.S. will “increase our pressure on the Syrian regime, and work with others around the world to isolate the Assad government.”

Russia Toughens Stance

In a sign of that Russian opposition to some form of UN action may be thawing, the Foreign Ministry in Moscow put out its toughest statement yet on Syria, saying the use of force against civilians and government representatives is “unacceptable” and “should be stopped.” Officials in Moscow have been reluctant to speak on what they see as a domestic matter.

“There is no real change in the Russian position on Syria, but this statement serves as a kind of insurance policy for Moscow to take further steps at the UN,” Fyodor Lukyanov, an analyst at the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow, said by telephone.

Ramadan

Government forces resumed their assault on Hama today on the first day of Ramadan, shelling it early this morning and destroying four buildings, while also attacking the eastern city of Deir al-Zour and the town of Bukamal, Mahmoud Merhi, head of the Damascus-based Arab Organization for Human Rights, said by telephone.

At least 10 people were killed today, Merhi said, while Syrian state television said yesterday that an army colonel and two other soldiers were killed by armed men in Deir al-Zour.

The latest assault came as opposition forces vowed to step up their campaign against Assad during Ramadan. Family and community groups typically gather for evening meals during the month to break their fasts and more people attend special services at mosques. That may make it easier for opposition leaders to organize daily rallies along the lines of those held for the past four months after Friday prayers.

The government “has been very frightened by Ramadan’s onset,” Joshua Landis, a Syria specialist who directs the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, said in a telephone interview. “The unfolding crackdown is going to fuel people’s anger.”

No Military Intervention

German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Schaefer told reporters in Berlin that it remained to be seen whether the violence over the weekend will prompt reluctant partners to change their position.

“There is no prospect of a legal, morally sanctioned military intervention; therefore we have to concentrate on other ways of influencing the Assad regime and trying to help the situation in Syria,” Hague told the BBC. “It is a very frustrating situation.”

At least 2,000 protesters have been killed since the demonstrations began in mid-March, according to Merhi and Ammar Qurabi of the National Organization for Human Rights.

The unrest poses the biggest challenge to Assad’s rule since he inherited power from his father, Hafez al-Assad, 11 years ago. Assad has blamed the protests on foreign-inspired plots, while conceding that some demonstrators have legitimate demands and pledging political changes.

The European Union imposed an asset freeze and travel ban on five Syrians “responsible for and associated with repression,” Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign-policy chief, said in an e-mailed statement, without identifying the people.

--With assistance from Brian Parkin in Berlin, Massoud A. Derhally in Dubai, Ilya Arkhipov in Moscow, Patrick Henry in Brussels and Gregory Viscusi in Paris. Editors: Terry Atlas, Leslie Hoffecker

To contact the reporters on this story: Flavia Krause-Jackson at the United Nations at fjackson@bloomberg.net; Bill Varner at the United Nations at wvarner@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

August 01, 2011, 1:28 PM EDT
More From Businessweek

    UN Security Council Will Meet to Discuss Violence in Syria
    Banks in BRICs Signal Credit Risks as Bad Loans Curb Growth
    Syrian Military Extends Hama Assault on First Day of Ramadan
    Syrian Army Storms Cities on Ramadan Eve, at Least 136 Dead
    Emerging Stocks Fall for Third Day on U.S., Europe Debt Concern


By Flavia Krause-Jackson and Bill Varner

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. and European allies today are seeking to resuscitate efforts at the United Nations to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to halt the bloodiest crackdown yet on anti-government protesters.

In response to a German call, the UN Security Council will meet today at 5 p.m. in New York to discuss the escalating violence in Syria, where security forces killed more than 150 people over the last two days. China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and India -- which has taken over the council’s rotating monthly presidency -- have blocked adoption of a draft resolution first circulated on May 25.

The attack on Hama, accounting for the bulk of the deaths, is among the most vicious episodes in the uprising that began more than four months ago and was unleashed at the start of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. The Security Council must urgently respond to the ongoing crackdown by referring the situation to the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International said today in a statement.

“I would like to see a UN Security Council resolution to condemn this violence,” U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague told BBC Radio 4. Still, getting the UN’s decision-making body to act will be “difficult work,” he said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that “in these horrifying circumstances, France hopes more than ever that the United Nations Security Council will shoulder its responsibilities by speaking out loud and clear, as the United Nations secretary-general has done several times.”

President Barack Obama, in a strongly phrased criticism of Assad, said yesterday that the U.S. will “increase our pressure on the Syrian regime, and work with others around the world to isolate the Assad government.”

Russia Toughens Stance

In a sign of that Russian opposition to some form of UN action may be thawing, the Foreign Ministry in Moscow put out its toughest statement yet on Syria, saying the use of force against civilians and government representatives is “unacceptable” and “should be stopped.” Officials in Moscow have been reluctant to speak on what they see as a domestic matter.

“There is no real change in the Russian position on Syria, but this statement serves as a kind of insurance policy for Moscow to take further steps at the UN,” Fyodor Lukyanov, an analyst at the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow, said by telephone.

Ramadan

Government forces resumed their assault on Hama today on the first day of Ramadan, shelling it early this morning and destroying four buildings, while also attacking the eastern city of Deir al-Zour and the town of Bukamal, Mahmoud Merhi, head of the Damascus-based Arab Organization for Human Rights, said by telephone.

At least 10 people were killed today, Merhi said, while Syrian state television said yesterday that an army colonel and two other soldiers were killed by armed men in Deir al-Zour.

The latest assault came as opposition forces vowed to step up their campaign against Assad during Ramadan. Family and community groups typically gather for evening meals during the month to break their fasts and more people attend special services at mosques. That may make it easier for opposition leaders to organize daily rallies along the lines of those held for the past four months after Friday prayers.

The government “has been very frightened by Ramadan’s onset,” Joshua Landis, a Syria specialist who directs the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, said in a telephone interview. “The unfolding crackdown is going to fuel people’s anger.”

No Military Intervention

German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Schaefer told reporters in Berlin that it remained to be seen whether the violence over the weekend will prompt reluctant partners to change their position.

“There is no prospect of a legal, morally sanctioned military intervention; therefore we have to concentrate on other ways of influencing the Assad regime and trying to help the situation in Syria,” Hague told the BBC. “It is a very frustrating situation.”

At least 2,000 protesters have been killed since the demonstrations began in mid-March, according to Merhi and Ammar Qurabi of the National Organization for Human Rights.

The unrest poses the biggest challenge to Assad’s rule since he inherited power from his father, Hafez al-Assad, 11 years ago. Assad has blamed the protests on foreign-inspired plots, while conceding that some demonstrators have legitimate demands and pledging political changes.

The European Union imposed an asset freeze and travel ban on five Syrians “responsible for and associated with repression,” Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign-policy chief, said in an e-mailed statement, without identifying the people.

--With assistance from Brian Parkin in Berlin, Massoud A. Derhally in Dubai, Ilya Arkhipov in Moscow, Patrick Henry in Brussels and Gregory Viscusi in Paris. Editors: Terry Atlas, Leslie Hoffecker

To contact the reporters on this story: Flavia Krause-Jackson at the United Nations at fjackson@bloomberg.net; Bill Varner at the United Nations at wvarner@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

‘Dire’ Finances Forces Rhode Island City Into Bankruptcy

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/dire-finances-forces-rhode-island-city.html[/postlink]

August 01, 2011, 1:00 PM EDT
More From Businessweek

    SEC Auction-Rate Case Comments May Aid Investors
    Allstate Posts Loss on U.S. Storm Claims, Beats Estimates
    HSBC’s Victory May Cut $100 Billion Jackpot for Madoff Investors
    Ex-BofA Chief Lewis Loses Bid to Dismiss Securities Claim
    Marco Polo Seatrade Files for Bankruptcy in New York



By Michael McDonald and David McLaughlin

(Updates with Moody’s report in fifth paragraph.)

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Central Falls, Rhode Island’s poorest city, filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection as it struggles to meet its pension obligations.

The petition was filed today after state officials failed to persuade unionized police, firefighter and municipal retirees to accept voluntary benefit concessions, according to a statement from Robert Flanders, a judge appointed to oversee the city’s finances. Flanders said he asked the court to reject existing collective-bargaining agreements with the unions.

“The current situation is dire, and necessitates decisive steps to put the city back on a path to solid financial footing and future prosperity,” Governor Lincoln Chafee, who joined Flanders in announcing the bankruptcy petition today, said in the statement. “We will be exploring all options to provide quality services at an affordable cost to all taxpayers.”

Central Falls, a city of about 18,000 located about 6 miles (9.7 kilometers) north of Providence, is the fifth municipal entity to file for bankruptcy this year, compared with six in all of 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The filing followed last week’s move by lawmakers in Jefferson County, Alabama, to postpone a vote on proceeding with what would be the biggest U.S. municipal bankruptcy.

Out of Assets

The Central Falls pension plan was expected to run out of assets by October without additional funding or significant concessions from both current employees and retirees, according to a June 17 report from Moody’s Investors Service. The rating company at the time lowered the city’s credit grade one level to Caa1, its 17th-highest of 21, from B3.

The pension’s obligations were $48 million greater than the fair value of its assets as of June 30, 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Central Falls in fiscal 2011 continued its practice of not making its required contribution to the municipal pension and drew on existing plan assets to pay benefits, Moody’s said.

Central Falls has about $21 million of outstanding debt, New York-based Moody’s said. The city’s per-capita income is 50 percent of Rhode Island’s, according to the company.

Gina Raimondo, the state’s treasurer, released a statement today saying she doesn’t expect the bankruptcy filing “to hinder the state’s ability to access the bond markets in the coming months.”

Frank Bailey, a U.S. bankruptcy judge in Massachusetts, will oversee the bankruptcy for the city, according to a court filing.

The case is In re City of Central Falls, 11-13105, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Rhode Island (Providence).

--With assistance from Martin Z. Braun in New York Editors: Mark Tannenbaum, Andrew Dunn

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael McDonald in Boston at mmcdonald10@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Tannenbaum at mtannen@bloomberg.net.

August 01, 2011, 1:00 PM EDT
More From Businessweek

    SEC Auction-Rate Case Comments May Aid Investors
    Allstate Posts Loss on U.S. Storm Claims, Beats Estimates
    HSBC’s Victory May Cut $100 Billion Jackpot for Madoff Investors
    Ex-BofA Chief Lewis Loses Bid to Dismiss Securities Claim
    Marco Polo Seatrade Files for Bankruptcy in New York



By Michael McDonald and David McLaughlin

(Updates with Moody’s report in fifth paragraph.)

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Central Falls, Rhode Island’s poorest city, filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection as it struggles to meet its pension obligations.

The petition was filed today after state officials failed to persuade unionized police, firefighter and municipal retirees to accept voluntary benefit concessions, according to a statement from Robert Flanders, a judge appointed to oversee the city’s finances. Flanders said he asked the court to reject existing collective-bargaining agreements with the unions.

“The current situation is dire, and necessitates decisive steps to put the city back on a path to solid financial footing and future prosperity,” Governor Lincoln Chafee, who joined Flanders in announcing the bankruptcy petition today, said in the statement. “We will be exploring all options to provide quality services at an affordable cost to all taxpayers.”

Central Falls, a city of about 18,000 located about 6 miles (9.7 kilometers) north of Providence, is the fifth municipal entity to file for bankruptcy this year, compared with six in all of 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The filing followed last week’s move by lawmakers in Jefferson County, Alabama, to postpone a vote on proceeding with what would be the biggest U.S. municipal bankruptcy.

Out of Assets

The Central Falls pension plan was expected to run out of assets by October without additional funding or significant concessions from both current employees and retirees, according to a June 17 report from Moody’s Investors Service. The rating company at the time lowered the city’s credit grade one level to Caa1, its 17th-highest of 21, from B3.

The pension’s obligations were $48 million greater than the fair value of its assets as of June 30, 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Central Falls in fiscal 2011 continued its practice of not making its required contribution to the municipal pension and drew on existing plan assets to pay benefits, Moody’s said.

Central Falls has about $21 million of outstanding debt, New York-based Moody’s said. The city’s per-capita income is 50 percent of Rhode Island’s, according to the company.

Gina Raimondo, the state’s treasurer, released a statement today saying she doesn’t expect the bankruptcy filing “to hinder the state’s ability to access the bond markets in the coming months.”

Frank Bailey, a U.S. bankruptcy judge in Massachusetts, will oversee the bankruptcy for the city, according to a court filing.

The case is In re City of Central Falls, 11-13105, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Rhode Island (Providence).

--With assistance from Martin Z. Braun in New York Editors: Mark Tannenbaum, Andrew Dunn

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael McDonald in Boston at mmcdonald10@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Tannenbaum at mtannen@bloomberg.net.

Progressive caucus co-chair: There’s no way I’ll support this horrible deal; Update: Reid approves deal

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/progressive-caucus-co-chair-theres-no.html[/postlink]

posted at 5:15 pm on July 31, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

I call upon these hardline, hostage-taking ideological fanatics to compromise for the good of America.

    “This deal trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage…

    Republicans have succeeded in imposing their vision of a country without real economic hope. Their message has no public appeal, and Democrats have had every opportunity to stand firm in the face of their irrational demands. Progressives have been rallying support for the successful government programs that have meant health and economic security to generations of our people. Today we, and everyone we have worked to speak for and fight for, were thrown under the bus. We have made our bottom line clear for months: a final deal must strike a balance between cuts and revenue, and must not put all the burden on the working people of this country. This deal fails those tests and many more.

    The Democratic Party, no less than the Republican Party, is at a very serious crossroads at this moment. For decades Democrats have stood for a capable, meaningful government – a government that works for the people, not just the powerful, and that represents everyone fairly and equally. This deal weakens the Democratic Party as badly as it weakens the country. We have given much and received nothing in return. The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want. While I believe the country will not reward them for this in the long run, the damage has already been done.

His proposed solutions? Either a clean debt-ceiling hike, which will do nothing to check the growth of spending that’ll eventually utterly destroy that “capable, meaningful government” he loves so much, or the Fourteenth Amendment option, which would add a constitutional crisis and total fiscal uncertainty to the country’s current basket of political goodies. Even so, it’s awfully nice of him to toss this grenade and complicate the Democrats’ messaging in case Boehner can’t get enough Republicans to push the deal through the House. Fun fact about the Congressional Progressive Caucus: It’s the largest on the left with fully 75 members, which means if they vote as a bloc tomorrow then Pelosi and Hoyer are already down to fewer than 120 Democrats who might be willing to help Obama out by voting with Boehner.

As for the GOP’s remaining core objection to the deal, it’s a byproduct of the progressives’ core demand highlighted above:

    Defenders of the plan will say that the defense cuts may never come about, or that if the committee makes some cuts but not enough, only the remainder would be subject to a 50-50 sequestration. This is no small consolation to House and Senate pro-defense lawmakers who fear that the committee won’t do its job and that draconian defense cuts will follow.

    Why would Republicans give so much on defense? An adviser close to the talks says: “This is the only thing Democrats are getting. It was more important than taxes.” If so, and national defense cuts are now a “get” for the Democratic Party regardless of our national security needs, this is shameful. And if Republican negotiators give in, then the Democrats are going to have to come up with lots and lots of votes to make sure the bill passes both houses.

According to HuffPo’s Sam Stein, all Democratic leaders had signed off on the deal as of 4:30 p.m. ET, which I guess means Pelosi thinks she really can deliver “lots and lots of votes.” She had better: Fox News’s Chad Pergram says he’s already hearing from conservative/tea party House members that they can’t support this deal either, which means Boehner will need a broad centrist coalition to get things done.

Stand by for updates, as usual.

Update: Reid’s office says he’s onboard, provided that the caucus approves the package. Bernie Sanders replies by calling it “grotesquely immoral” and “bad economic policy.” And here’s something fun from Chuck Todd: “The holdup on announcing the deal appears to be uncertainty of how House gets to 216.”

Update: In case you’re worried about the Super Commission recommending tax increases:

    Republicans favorable to the deal feel as though they have three safeguards against the committee recommending tax increases and Congress going along: 1) The members appointed by Boehner and McConnell, who will presumably not be Gang of 6 types (McConnell would be wise to appoint Kyl, Sessions, and Toomey); 2) a tax increase would not get through the House and probably not have 50 votes in the Senate; 3) the baseline dynamic mentioned earlier.

That doesn’t solve the problem with heavy defense cuts in the trigger, but presumably the GOP thinks it can undo those with separate legislation before the cuts kick in.

Update: Desperate times:

    Progressives and the CBC plan presser on Monday to ask Obama to invoke 14th Amendment to avoid debr crisis. 11 am.

Update: A GOP side explains to James Pethokoukis why it’ll be so hard for the Super Commission to try to raise taxes:

    It has an undefined mandate of deficit reduction but the way that is constructed would essentially make it impossible to raise taxes. Anything scored by CBO is based on current law. Current law assumes that taxes are going to go up by three-and-a-half trillion dollars next year [over ten years]. So anything you do to the tax code, unless it starts off with a $3.5 trillion tax increase, it’s going to be adding to the deficit … It’s almost impossible for them to touch taxes because if they do, almost anything will be scored as a tax cut, making it that much more difficult to reach the $1.5 trillion that they need to get to.

That’s the “baseline dynamic” mentioned in Rich Lowry’s post quoted above.

posted at 5:15 pm on July 31, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

I call upon these hardline, hostage-taking ideological fanatics to compromise for the good of America.

    “This deal trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage…

    Republicans have succeeded in imposing their vision of a country without real economic hope. Their message has no public appeal, and Democrats have had every opportunity to stand firm in the face of their irrational demands. Progressives have been rallying support for the successful government programs that have meant health and economic security to generations of our people. Today we, and everyone we have worked to speak for and fight for, were thrown under the bus. We have made our bottom line clear for months: a final deal must strike a balance between cuts and revenue, and must not put all the burden on the working people of this country. This deal fails those tests and many more.

    The Democratic Party, no less than the Republican Party, is at a very serious crossroads at this moment. For decades Democrats have stood for a capable, meaningful government – a government that works for the people, not just the powerful, and that represents everyone fairly and equally. This deal weakens the Democratic Party as badly as it weakens the country. We have given much and received nothing in return. The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want. While I believe the country will not reward them for this in the long run, the damage has already been done.

His proposed solutions? Either a clean debt-ceiling hike, which will do nothing to check the growth of spending that’ll eventually utterly destroy that “capable, meaningful government” he loves so much, or the Fourteenth Amendment option, which would add a constitutional crisis and total fiscal uncertainty to the country’s current basket of political goodies. Even so, it’s awfully nice of him to toss this grenade and complicate the Democrats’ messaging in case Boehner can’t get enough Republicans to push the deal through the House. Fun fact about the Congressional Progressive Caucus: It’s the largest on the left with fully 75 members, which means if they vote as a bloc tomorrow then Pelosi and Hoyer are already down to fewer than 120 Democrats who might be willing to help Obama out by voting with Boehner.

As for the GOP’s remaining core objection to the deal, it’s a byproduct of the progressives’ core demand highlighted above:

    Defenders of the plan will say that the defense cuts may never come about, or that if the committee makes some cuts but not enough, only the remainder would be subject to a 50-50 sequestration. This is no small consolation to House and Senate pro-defense lawmakers who fear that the committee won’t do its job and that draconian defense cuts will follow.

    Why would Republicans give so much on defense? An adviser close to the talks says: “This is the only thing Democrats are getting. It was more important than taxes.” If so, and national defense cuts are now a “get” for the Democratic Party regardless of our national security needs, this is shameful. And if Republican negotiators give in, then the Democrats are going to have to come up with lots and lots of votes to make sure the bill passes both houses.

According to HuffPo’s Sam Stein, all Democratic leaders had signed off on the deal as of 4:30 p.m. ET, which I guess means Pelosi thinks she really can deliver “lots and lots of votes.” She had better: Fox News’s Chad Pergram says he’s already hearing from conservative/tea party House members that they can’t support this deal either, which means Boehner will need a broad centrist coalition to get things done.

Stand by for updates, as usual.

Update: Reid’s office says he’s onboard, provided that the caucus approves the package. Bernie Sanders replies by calling it “grotesquely immoral” and “bad economic policy.” And here’s something fun from Chuck Todd: “The holdup on announcing the deal appears to be uncertainty of how House gets to 216.”

Update: In case you’re worried about the Super Commission recommending tax increases:

    Republicans favorable to the deal feel as though they have three safeguards against the committee recommending tax increases and Congress going along: 1) The members appointed by Boehner and McConnell, who will presumably not be Gang of 6 types (McConnell would be wise to appoint Kyl, Sessions, and Toomey); 2) a tax increase would not get through the House and probably not have 50 votes in the Senate; 3) the baseline dynamic mentioned earlier.

That doesn’t solve the problem with heavy defense cuts in the trigger, but presumably the GOP thinks it can undo those with separate legislation before the cuts kick in.

Update: Desperate times:

    Progressives and the CBC plan presser on Monday to ask Obama to invoke 14th Amendment to avoid debr crisis. 11 am.

Update: A GOP side explains to James Pethokoukis why it’ll be so hard for the Super Commission to try to raise taxes:

    It has an undefined mandate of deficit reduction but the way that is constructed would essentially make it impossible to raise taxes. Anything scored by CBO is based on current law. Current law assumes that taxes are going to go up by three-and-a-half trillion dollars next year [over ten years]. So anything you do to the tax code, unless it starts off with a $3.5 trillion tax increase, it’s going to be adding to the deficit … It’s almost impossible for them to touch taxes because if they do, almost anything will be scored as a tax cut, making it that much more difficult to reach the $1.5 trillion that they need to get to.

That’s the “baseline dynamic” mentioned in Rich Lowry’s post quoted above.

Open thread: Senate to vote on debt bill at 1 p.m., or maybe not; Update: Reid’s bill filibustered, 50/49; Update: Deal all but done? Update: Reid signs off on debt ceiling agreement

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/open-thread-senate-to-vote-on-debt-bill.html[/postlink]

posted at 12:09 pm on July 31, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

They’re supposed to vote at 1 p.m., but according to Plouffe and another “Democrat familiar with the situation,” there’s still no bill. What’s the hold up? In all likelihood, they’re haggling over the “triggers” that’ll happen if the new Super Commission can’t agree on, or Congress won’t accept, new deficit reduction proposals later this year. Jen Rubin’s hearing the following from a Republican source on the Hill:

    The second tranche works like this: If a new congressional commission introduces a plan totaling at least $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving and it’s passed by Christmas there are no across-the-board cuts. Or, if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts are avoided. However, if there is no commission package passed AND the BBA is not passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion including Medicare and defense (the details of which aren’t final) go into effect. If the across-the board-cuts go into effect, the debt ceiling is only raised $1.2 trillion (likely insufficient to keep the government operating for long), meaning “we could do this all over again, depending on economic growth.” In other words, if we went to sequestration the total debt ceiling increase would be $2.1 trillion in two doses.

So there’s the BBA concession: Democrats can avoid new cuts in the second stage entirely if they pass the amendment. As for the automatic Medicare/Pentagon reductions, that’s obviously designed to make both sides in Congress think twice before rejecting the Super Commission’s recommendations. The precise formula for that is still being negotiated too. According to Jake Tapper, the White House wants fully 50 percent of the automatic cuts to affect the Pentagon and 50 percent to be spread across various other discretionary programs. GOP hawks won’t go for that, especially since the only alternative might be approving a Commission package that includes new revenues.

As I write this, the Senate has just begun its session and Reid is insisting that they’re “cautiously optimistic” about a deal but not there yet. Here’s your thread for tracking today’s drama. Exit question: How many Republican and Democratic votes will this bargain get in the House? Progressives are reportedly already murmuring about balking because of the lack of revenue in the deal, which means Boehner will need a majority of his previous Republican majority on yesterday’s vote to get this through. (Here’s one vote forecast.) I wonder if they’ll do it on the first try or, a la TARP, if it’ll take a market panic and subsequent re-vote to get it done. Stand by for updates.

Update: The post-deal spin starts before the deal is even struck:

    “I don’t think we’ve been hurt at all,” McConnell said on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’.

    “The American people wanted us to do something about out-of-control spending and … the debt ceiling is going to produce what many people would believe is a complete change in the trajectory of the federal government beginning to get spending under control,” said McConnell, who is likely to be largely responsible for any package that wins muster with Congress.

Update: John Bolton sounds the alarm for hawks:

    Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.

    While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.

    Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will not.

Update: Senate Republicans will huddle at 1:45.

Update: Turns out we did have a 1 p.m. vote after all. Now that there’s a deal in the works, Reid evidently decided that it wouldn’t panic markets if he introduced his current bill and let the GOP filibuster. Which they did: The vote was 50/49 (Reid voted no in order to preserve his right to reintroduce it, so they actually had 51 votes in favor.) Why he bothered forcing a vote, I simply don’t know. I guess it lets him use the “obstructionist Republicans” talking point for a few more hours, but that’ll evaporate as soon as there’s a deal. Oh well.

Stand by for the roll. At least two Dems voted no on this thing, intriguingly.

Update: Here we go. Via Fox reporter Chad Pergram, three Democrats voted no: Manchin, Ben Nelson, and of course Reid himself. So how’d they get to 50? Er, Scott Brown voted yes.

Update: Lefty Greg Sargent wonders how Republicans managed to use the threat of hitting the debt ceiling as leverage over Democrats when even most Republicans concede that it’s a scenario to be avoided at all costs.

Update: Ace is thinking about “trigger” gamesmanship down the line:

    Republicans let the automatic cuts happen, but then immediately propose reinstating most of the money to Defense.

    This winds up causing automatic cuts to domestic discretionary, but no big cuts to Defense; most Democrats would probably have to vote for this.

    But it has a bad effect: We’d have approved $2.1 trillion in debt ceiling increase while only (guestimating) cutting, say, $1.6 – $1.7 trillion in cuts.

I.e. the GOP could try a defense version of “doctor fix.” Assuming Medicare is also part of the trigger, though, Democrats would respond by demanding that that money be reinstated too — and Republicans would have to vote for it to block the left’s “Paul Ryan and his conservative friends want to kill your grandma” election messaging.

Update: Come to think of it, if Medicare’s part of the trigger, then Democrats will follow Ace’s scheme to reinstate that money later even if the GOP doesn’t try the same move for defense. (Again, they do this all the time in “doctor fix.”) And even if the GOP does try the same move, why would Democrats care? They want to protect entitlements much more passionately than they want to see the Pentagon’s budget slashed, so they’d agree to reinstate the Pentagon’s money as the price of reinstating Medicare. The fundamental problem here, as always, is that Democrats don’t care about cutting spending. If there’s nothing built into this deal that prevents reinstating the money that would be cut when the trigger kicks in — and I’m not sure how there could be procedurally — then the trigger isn’t worth much.

Update: Dick Durbin identifies another reason why Democrats aren’t crazy about this deal, especially the cuts up front.

Update: Even some tea partiers are ready for compromise.

Update: Tapper says they’ve almost got it worked out:

    The agreement looks like this: if the super-committee tasked with entitlement and tax reform fails to come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction that passes Congress, the “neutron bomb” goes off, — as one Democrat put it — spending cuts that will hit the Pentagon budget most deeply, as well as Medicare providers (not beneficiaries) and other programs.

    If the super-committee comes up with some deficit reduction but not $1.5 trillion, the triggers would make up the difference…

    And the debt ceiling will be raised by $2.4 trillion in two tranches: $900 billion immediately, and the debt ceiling will be raised by an additional $1.5 trillion next year – either through passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment, which is unlikely, or with Congress voting its disapproval.

That’s the same as what Jen Rubin reported this morning. After the Super Commission announces its plan for deficit reduction, Congress has three options: (1) enact that plan, (2) pass a BBA and avoid any further immediate cuts entirely, or (3) do nothing and let across-the-board cuts go into effect, which would hit both Medicare and the Pentagon. That’s the last piece of this to be negotiated — how much of those cuts would be to defense specifically as opposed to being truly across-the-board? The harder the military would be hit, the more pressure the GOP will be under to avoid those cuts by passing the Super Committee plan, which could of course include taxes. And that’s not the only tax pressure: “Democrats say –- if tax reform doesn’t happen through the super-committee, President Obama will veto any extension of Bush tax cuts when they come up at the end of 2012, further creating an incentive for the super-committee to act.”

It sounds like the House will vote on this tomorrow before the Senate will. That struck me as backwards at first blush, since having the Senate rubber-stamp it first will put pressure on the House to follow suit. But since the House will have a harder time with this than the Senate, the thinking presumably is that the House needs to be free to tweak the bill to get the votes if need be.

Update: How many Democratic votes will this thing get in the House? Don’t answer until you’ve read this. Boehner may need his caucus to carry the load yet again. One key liberal objection, as Weigel notes, is that tax hikes aren’t one of the triggers that would kick in if Congress rejects the Super Committee. The GOP simply won’t agree to that, which is why Democrats are demanding heavy Pentagon cuts as a lesser substitute.

Update: Byron York on Obama’s nuclear weapon:

    As the hours to Tuesday’s deadline tick away, President Obama will have increasing leverage in his negotiations with Republicans. The president has a nuclear weapon which he has not used thus far in the crisis but will certainly use if the issue remains unresolved in the next 24 hours. That weapon is an address to the nation in which a sober-faced Obama reluctantly lays out what government spending will continue past the debt deadline and what spending will not continue. Many insiders, both Republican and Democrat, believe Obama has been badly overexposed at times in the debt battle, but that would be a speech everyone watches. The president would be the man dealing with disaster (even if it is one he helped create), while he dispatches aides and surrogates to blame it all on GOP radicalism.

True, one last eleventh-hour bid to panic the public might shake loose the last few votes they need to pass this thing. But see the previous update. I’m not so sure the GOP is his big problem this time.

Update (Tina Korbe): Fox News is now reporting that Harry Reid has signed off on the latest iteration of the debt ceiling increase agreement, pending caucus approval.

posted at 12:09 pm on July 31, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

They’re supposed to vote at 1 p.m., but according to Plouffe and another “Democrat familiar with the situation,” there’s still no bill. What’s the hold up? In all likelihood, they’re haggling over the “triggers” that’ll happen if the new Super Commission can’t agree on, or Congress won’t accept, new deficit reduction proposals later this year. Jen Rubin’s hearing the following from a Republican source on the Hill:

    The second tranche works like this: If a new congressional commission introduces a plan totaling at least $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving and it’s passed by Christmas there are no across-the-board cuts. Or, if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts are avoided. However, if there is no commission package passed AND the BBA is not passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion including Medicare and defense (the details of which aren’t final) go into effect. If the across-the board-cuts go into effect, the debt ceiling is only raised $1.2 trillion (likely insufficient to keep the government operating for long), meaning “we could do this all over again, depending on economic growth.” In other words, if we went to sequestration the total debt ceiling increase would be $2.1 trillion in two doses.

So there’s the BBA concession: Democrats can avoid new cuts in the second stage entirely if they pass the amendment. As for the automatic Medicare/Pentagon reductions, that’s obviously designed to make both sides in Congress think twice before rejecting the Super Commission’s recommendations. The precise formula for that is still being negotiated too. According to Jake Tapper, the White House wants fully 50 percent of the automatic cuts to affect the Pentagon and 50 percent to be spread across various other discretionary programs. GOP hawks won’t go for that, especially since the only alternative might be approving a Commission package that includes new revenues.

As I write this, the Senate has just begun its session and Reid is insisting that they’re “cautiously optimistic” about a deal but not there yet. Here’s your thread for tracking today’s drama. Exit question: How many Republican and Democratic votes will this bargain get in the House? Progressives are reportedly already murmuring about balking because of the lack of revenue in the deal, which means Boehner will need a majority of his previous Republican majority on yesterday’s vote to get this through. (Here’s one vote forecast.) I wonder if they’ll do it on the first try or, a la TARP, if it’ll take a market panic and subsequent re-vote to get it done. Stand by for updates.

Update: The post-deal spin starts before the deal is even struck:

    “I don’t think we’ve been hurt at all,” McConnell said on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’.

    “The American people wanted us to do something about out-of-control spending and … the debt ceiling is going to produce what many people would believe is a complete change in the trajectory of the federal government beginning to get spending under control,” said McConnell, who is likely to be largely responsible for any package that wins muster with Congress.

Update: John Bolton sounds the alarm for hawks:

    Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.

    While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.

    Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will not.

Update: Senate Republicans will huddle at 1:45.

Update: Turns out we did have a 1 p.m. vote after all. Now that there’s a deal in the works, Reid evidently decided that it wouldn’t panic markets if he introduced his current bill and let the GOP filibuster. Which they did: The vote was 50/49 (Reid voted no in order to preserve his right to reintroduce it, so they actually had 51 votes in favor.) Why he bothered forcing a vote, I simply don’t know. I guess it lets him use the “obstructionist Republicans” talking point for a few more hours, but that’ll evaporate as soon as there’s a deal. Oh well.

Stand by for the roll. At least two Dems voted no on this thing, intriguingly.

Update: Here we go. Via Fox reporter Chad Pergram, three Democrats voted no: Manchin, Ben Nelson, and of course Reid himself. So how’d they get to 50? Er, Scott Brown voted yes.

Update: Lefty Greg Sargent wonders how Republicans managed to use the threat of hitting the debt ceiling as leverage over Democrats when even most Republicans concede that it’s a scenario to be avoided at all costs.

Update: Ace is thinking about “trigger” gamesmanship down the line:

    Republicans let the automatic cuts happen, but then immediately propose reinstating most of the money to Defense.

    This winds up causing automatic cuts to domestic discretionary, but no big cuts to Defense; most Democrats would probably have to vote for this.

    But it has a bad effect: We’d have approved $2.1 trillion in debt ceiling increase while only (guestimating) cutting, say, $1.6 – $1.7 trillion in cuts.

I.e. the GOP could try a defense version of “doctor fix.” Assuming Medicare is also part of the trigger, though, Democrats would respond by demanding that that money be reinstated too — and Republicans would have to vote for it to block the left’s “Paul Ryan and his conservative friends want to kill your grandma” election messaging.

Update: Come to think of it, if Medicare’s part of the trigger, then Democrats will follow Ace’s scheme to reinstate that money later even if the GOP doesn’t try the same move for defense. (Again, they do this all the time in “doctor fix.”) And even if the GOP does try the same move, why would Democrats care? They want to protect entitlements much more passionately than they want to see the Pentagon’s budget slashed, so they’d agree to reinstate the Pentagon’s money as the price of reinstating Medicare. The fundamental problem here, as always, is that Democrats don’t care about cutting spending. If there’s nothing built into this deal that prevents reinstating the money that would be cut when the trigger kicks in — and I’m not sure how there could be procedurally — then the trigger isn’t worth much.

Update: Dick Durbin identifies another reason why Democrats aren’t crazy about this deal, especially the cuts up front.

Update: Even some tea partiers are ready for compromise.

Update: Tapper says they’ve almost got it worked out:

    The agreement looks like this: if the super-committee tasked with entitlement and tax reform fails to come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction that passes Congress, the “neutron bomb” goes off, — as one Democrat put it — spending cuts that will hit the Pentagon budget most deeply, as well as Medicare providers (not beneficiaries) and other programs.

    If the super-committee comes up with some deficit reduction but not $1.5 trillion, the triggers would make up the difference…

    And the debt ceiling will be raised by $2.4 trillion in two tranches: $900 billion immediately, and the debt ceiling will be raised by an additional $1.5 trillion next year – either through passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment, which is unlikely, or with Congress voting its disapproval.

That’s the same as what Jen Rubin reported this morning. After the Super Commission announces its plan for deficit reduction, Congress has three options: (1) enact that plan, (2) pass a BBA and avoid any further immediate cuts entirely, or (3) do nothing and let across-the-board cuts go into effect, which would hit both Medicare and the Pentagon. That’s the last piece of this to be negotiated — how much of those cuts would be to defense specifically as opposed to being truly across-the-board? The harder the military would be hit, the more pressure the GOP will be under to avoid those cuts by passing the Super Committee plan, which could of course include taxes. And that’s not the only tax pressure: “Democrats say –- if tax reform doesn’t happen through the super-committee, President Obama will veto any extension of Bush tax cuts when they come up at the end of 2012, further creating an incentive for the super-committee to act.”

It sounds like the House will vote on this tomorrow before the Senate will. That struck me as backwards at first blush, since having the Senate rubber-stamp it first will put pressure on the House to follow suit. But since the House will have a harder time with this than the Senate, the thinking presumably is that the House needs to be free to tweak the bill to get the votes if need be.

Update: How many Democratic votes will this thing get in the House? Don’t answer until you’ve read this. Boehner may need his caucus to carry the load yet again. One key liberal objection, as Weigel notes, is that tax hikes aren’t one of the triggers that would kick in if Congress rejects the Super Committee. The GOP simply won’t agree to that, which is why Democrats are demanding heavy Pentagon cuts as a lesser substitute.

Update: Byron York on Obama’s nuclear weapon:

    As the hours to Tuesday’s deadline tick away, President Obama will have increasing leverage in his negotiations with Republicans. The president has a nuclear weapon which he has not used thus far in the crisis but will certainly use if the issue remains unresolved in the next 24 hours. That weapon is an address to the nation in which a sober-faced Obama reluctantly lays out what government spending will continue past the debt deadline and what spending will not continue. Many insiders, both Republican and Democrat, believe Obama has been badly overexposed at times in the debt battle, but that would be a speech everyone watches. The president would be the man dealing with disaster (even if it is one he helped create), while he dispatches aides and surrogates to blame it all on GOP radicalism.

True, one last eleventh-hour bid to panic the public might shake loose the last few votes they need to pass this thing. But see the previous update. I’m not so sure the GOP is his big problem this time.

Update (Tina Korbe): Fox News is now reporting that Harry Reid has signed off on the latest iteration of the debt ceiling increase agreement, pending caucus approval.

U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Cut Rates

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/uae-qatar-bahrain-and-saudi-arabia-cut.html[/postlink]

The Gulf Cooperation Council The United Arab Emirates decided to cut their bank repository rate by 0.25% to 5.25%; Saudi Arabia decreased its benchmark rate for deposits also by 0.25% to 4.0%; Qatar and Bahrain reduced their deposit rates by the same amount — 0.25% to 4.0%. Kuwait refrained from changing the country’s interest rate, because they’ve already removed their currency’s peg to dollar back in May 2007.

This rate change followed the cut by U.S. Federal Reserve decision to lower the rate from 4.50% to 4.25% yesterday on December 11. Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia and U.A.E., started to peg their national currencies to dollar decades ago, and they have to maintain the similar interest rates to keep this peg up.

Lowering the interest rates goes against the general monetary policy of the Gulf countries in the way that it stimulates inflation, which is already very high due to the devalued dollar. Fighting inflation is an important task stated by the government of U.A.E. and this rate cut can only boost up the prices growth.

Although this step contradicts anti-inflation policy, it is almost doubtless that such a small rate change won’t hurt a lot. The possibly better side effect of this change would be another reason for consideration of the dollar peg abandonment by these oil countries.

This entry was posted on TopForexNews on Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 at 9:16 pm and is filed under Economic Indicators. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The Gulf Cooperation Council The United Arab Emirates decided to cut their bank repository rate by 0.25% to 5.25%; Saudi Arabia decreased its benchmark rate for deposits also by 0.25% to 4.0%; Qatar and Bahrain reduced their deposit rates by the same amount — 0.25% to 4.0%. Kuwait refrained from changing the country’s interest rate, because they’ve already removed their currency’s peg to dollar back in May 2007.

This rate change followed the cut by U.S. Federal Reserve decision to lower the rate from 4.50% to 4.25% yesterday on December 11. Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia and U.A.E., started to peg their national currencies to dollar decades ago, and they have to maintain the similar interest rates to keep this peg up.

Lowering the interest rates goes against the general monetary policy of the Gulf countries in the way that it stimulates inflation, which is already very high due to the devalued dollar. Fighting inflation is an important task stated by the government of U.A.E. and this rate cut can only boost up the prices growth.

Although this step contradicts anti-inflation policy, it is almost doubtless that such a small rate change won’t hurt a lot. The possibly better side effect of this change would be another reason for consideration of the dollar peg abandonment by these oil countries.

This entry was posted on TopForexNews on Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 at 9:16 pm and is filed under Economic Indicators. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loonie Declines as Economy Contracts

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/loonie-declines-as-economy-contracts.html[/postlink]

Canadian DollarThe Canadian dollar fell sharply against all of its major counterparts today, following the unexpected negative GDP report.

The loonie dropped to its July 19 level against the US dollar, the lowest value against the euro since July 8 and slid to March 18 rates against the Japanese yen today. The currency also decreased against the outsider of the day — the Australian dollar.

It’s quite clear that today’s bearish behavior is largely a result of Canadian GDP report that was released by Statistics Canada at 12:30 GMT. It showed a contraction of 0.3 percent in May 2011, which followed a zero change in April this year. The market economists forecasted the May value to be at 0.1 percent, positive.

The analysts also cite the poor US GDP growth as another factor that badly influenced the Canadian dollar (as the Canada’s economy is quite dependent on the one of the United States). Some of them also believe that June figures will be far from good too.

USD/CAD rose from 0.9489 to 0.9562 as of 17:03 GMT today. EUR/CAD went up from 1.3596 to 1.3748, while CAD/JPY dropped from 81.85 to 80.69, reaching low as 80.40 today.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Canadian Dollar, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Canadian Dollar:

    CAD Sets New Multi-Year Record on US Crisis Expectations (2011-07-26)
    Canadian Inflation Slows, Loonie Retreats (2011-07-22)
    CAD Reaches Three-Year High vs. USD (2011-07-22)
    BOC Rate Statement Invigorates Loonie (2011-07-19)
    Canadian Dollar Looks More Attractive After EU Stress Tests (2011-07-15)


This entry was posted on TopForexNews on Friday, July 29th, 2011 at 5:06 pm and is filed under Canadian Dollar. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Canadian DollarThe Canadian dollar fell sharply against all of its major counterparts today, following the unexpected negative GDP report.

The loonie dropped to its July 19 level against the US dollar, the lowest value against the euro since July 8 and slid to March 18 rates against the Japanese yen today. The currency also decreased against the outsider of the day — the Australian dollar.

It’s quite clear that today’s bearish behavior is largely a result of Canadian GDP report that was released by Statistics Canada at 12:30 GMT. It showed a contraction of 0.3 percent in May 2011, which followed a zero change in April this year. The market economists forecasted the May value to be at 0.1 percent, positive.

The analysts also cite the poor US GDP growth as another factor that badly influenced the Canadian dollar (as the Canada’s economy is quite dependent on the one of the United States). Some of them also believe that June figures will be far from good too.

USD/CAD rose from 0.9489 to 0.9562 as of 17:03 GMT today. EUR/CAD went up from 1.3596 to 1.3748, while CAD/JPY dropped from 81.85 to 80.69, reaching low as 80.40 today.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Canadian Dollar, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Canadian Dollar:

    CAD Sets New Multi-Year Record on US Crisis Expectations (2011-07-26)
    Canadian Inflation Slows, Loonie Retreats (2011-07-22)
    CAD Reaches Three-Year High vs. USD (2011-07-22)
    BOC Rate Statement Invigorates Loonie (2011-07-19)
    Canadian Dollar Looks More Attractive After EU Stress Tests (2011-07-15)


This entry was posted on TopForexNews on Friday, July 29th, 2011 at 5:06 pm and is filed under Canadian Dollar. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Risk Rally Pushes NZD to Records vs. Dollar

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/08/risk-rally-pushes-nzd-to-records-vs.html[/postlink]

New Zealand dollarThe New Zealand dollar reached a new historical maximum against its North American counterpart and grew against some other world currencies today, as the US debt ceiling agreement spurred demand for high-yielding assets.

The kiwi (which is how the NZD is often called) renewed its historical maximums versus the US dollar and the euro today. It also reached a new high level in more than a year against the Japanese yen.

The global hunger for risk increased significantly as the President Obama announced that the political parties has reached a deal on the US debt ceiling last night. The debt limit will be raised by at least $2.1 trillion (up from the current $14.3 trillion), while the government spending will be cut by about $2.5 trillion over next 10 years. Improved certainty with the future of world’s biggest economy spurred demand for the high-yielding currencies among the Forex traders.

NZD/USD rose from 0.8785 to 0.8822 as of 7:30 GMT after reaching a daily high at 0.8842 today. NZD/JPY went up from 67.99 to 68.42 with a daily maximum at 68.87 — the record level since early May 2010. EUR/NZD fell from 1.6334 to 1.6304.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the New Zealand Dollar, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the New Zealand Dollar:

    New Zealand Economy Expands, NZD/USD Jumps to Record (2011-07-14)
    China's Economy Makes Kiwi More Appealing, NZD/USD at Record (2011-07-13)
    Search for Higher Yield Draw Investors to Kiwi (2011-07-06)
    NZ Dollar Reaches Record vs. US Dollar on Business Confidence (2011-06-30)
    Shrinking Trade Surplus Makes Kiwi Weaker (2011-06-27)

New Zealand dollarThe New Zealand dollar reached a new historical maximum against its North American counterpart and grew against some other world currencies today, as the US debt ceiling agreement spurred demand for high-yielding assets.

The kiwi (which is how the NZD is often called) renewed its historical maximums versus the US dollar and the euro today. It also reached a new high level in more than a year against the Japanese yen.

The global hunger for risk increased significantly as the President Obama announced that the political parties has reached a deal on the US debt ceiling last night. The debt limit will be raised by at least $2.1 trillion (up from the current $14.3 trillion), while the government spending will be cut by about $2.5 trillion over next 10 years. Improved certainty with the future of world’s biggest economy spurred demand for the high-yielding currencies among the Forex traders.

NZD/USD rose from 0.8785 to 0.8822 as of 7:30 GMT after reaching a daily high at 0.8842 today. NZD/JPY went up from 67.99 to 68.42 with a daily maximum at 68.87 — the record level since early May 2010. EUR/NZD fell from 1.6334 to 1.6304.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the New Zealand Dollar, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the New Zealand Dollar:

    New Zealand Economy Expands, NZD/USD Jumps to Record (2011-07-14)
    China's Economy Makes Kiwi More Appealing, NZD/USD at Record (2011-07-13)
    Search for Higher Yield Draw Investors to Kiwi (2011-07-06)
    NZ Dollar Reaches Record vs. US Dollar on Business Confidence (2011-06-30)
    Shrinking Trade Surplus Makes Kiwi Weaker (2011-06-27)

O.K., Smart Guys: Fix the Energy Problem How should the U.S. solve its energy problems? The experts brainstorm

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/07/ok-smart-guys-fix-energy-problem-how.html[/postlink]

Norman Pearlstine, Thomas Kuhn, Bob Shapard, Carol Browner, Jigar Shah, and T. Boone Pickens Henry Leutwyler
This Week

August 1, 2011
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think

The U.S. first became a net importer of oil in 1948. The intervening decades have led Americans down a steady path of price spikes, shortages, and compromised foreign policy decisions. Imported fuel means expensive gasoline, lost jobs, and hobbled industries, while climate change poses risks as dramatic as they are difficult to assess. So how do we fix our fuel and energy problems? To answer that question—the first in a quarterly series called Fix This—Bloomberg Businessweek Chairman Norman Pearlstine gathered BP Capital Management’s T. Boone Pickens; Bob Shapard, chairman and chief executive officer of Oncor Electric Delivery and chairman of GridWise Alliance; Carol Browner, former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy for President Obama and EPA administrator for President Clinton; Jigar Shah, CEO of the Carbon War Room; and Thomas Kuhn, president of Edison Electric Institute. Their conversation has been condensed and edited.


What do we mean when we talk about an energy crisis? Is that an appropriate term for framing this discussion?

Shah: The word energy is very confusing. Energy includes both transportation fuel—which I think people are very concerned about—and coal, solar, wind, and other things that produce electricity. People confuse the two, and while we have fast-rising prices of electricity—5 percent rate increases per year since 2000—the fourfold increase in oil prices since 1999 is a much bigger problem in terms of economics than our electricity problem.

Shapard: People perceive there to be a crisis in this country environmentally with carbon and other emissions. I think transportation is the place you go for the biggest impact, and I think it’s a combination of natural gas and electricity that can solve our transportation problem. You can convert a significant portion of our fleet to natural gas and/or electricity. It addresses our dependence on foreign oil, but just as importantly it addresses the environmental issues. While coal plants and power plants are viewed as the villain when it comes to carbon, [giving off] 39 percent of the emissions, 31 percent of the emissions are [from] cars, and the important point is we know the solution on cars.

Kuhn: Never in the history of the world have we been so dependent upon one commodity as we are on oil right now, and every recession has been preceded by a spike in the price of oil. A $10 increase in oil causes $75 billion to come out of this economy. There are a lot of electric cars that are going on the road all over the world, in India, China, and elsewhere. I drive a Chevy Volt. I haven’t visited a gas station in three months. I plug in, I drive at 2¢ a mile compared with 10¢ to 12¢ a mile—that’s about $1 a gallon equivalent.

Browner: One of the first things we did when [President] Obama came to office was set the first fuel-efficiency standards in almost 20 years. We said we can make cars more efficient, and that’s been making our automotive industry stronger.

Pickens: If you remember, President Obama, when he got the nomination, said in 10 years we will not import any oil from the Mideast. I was impressed with that. It’s different than all the other people that ran for President. They said elect me, and we’ll be energy independent. So I thought he’s got a plan, and I hope that he does have a plan.

If there’s a consensus here that we don’t have to be reliant on imported oil, why are we?

Browner: Some of these changes will require congressional action, because what we need to do is give the private sector the certainty and the predictability so that they’ll make the large-scale investments in these changes. They don’t want to start making investments where they think I’m going to build something but I’m not able to sell it.

Shah: Just to be slightly argumentative, I think we were in exactly the same place for both electricity and transportation in the 1970s. For electricity, we opened up that market. I started one of the largest solar companies in the U.S. We had that opportunity because we had net metering, we had streamlined interconnection standards, we had all sorts of ways for us to connect to the grid and actually provide [a new service to] customers who were dissatisfied with the services they were already being provided. Today if you own a gas station, you’re most likely under a franchise agreement with a large oil company that doesn’t allow you to add an alternative fuel station without their permission.

You talk to people in Washington all the time, Boone. Does anybody understand the problem well enough to know how to address it?

Pickens: Get yourself a crisis, and then something will come out of Congress. But we’re sitting here with a bill ready to go in the house, HR1380. [Editor’s note: HR1380 would amend the tax code to encourage investment in alternative energy.] There are 250 million vehicles in America: All I’m trying to address is 8 million 18-wheelers. Go to the past 10 years, and look at our costs with OPEC—$1 trillion in 10 years. The largest transfer of wealth from one group to another. Now go forward 10 years and take [the price of] $100 a barrel forward, which I think is being extremely conservative. That’s $2.2 trillion. Just take the 18-wheelers, that’s 2.5 million barrels a day. Now the $2.2 trillion that we’re going to pay 10 years in the future. … You cut OPEC in half with 8 million vehicles.

Browner: Between what Mr. Pickens has been talking about in terms of the long-haul vehicles and the commitment on electric cars, it would be a huge change in our fleet in this country.

Pickens: Don’t call me Mr. Pickens, O.K.? It makes me feel old when you do that.

Browner: Well, it’s respectful.

Is technology a place that can give us clean or cleaner coal or allow us to do more aggressive fracking for natural gas?

Browner: I personally think the natural gas industry needs to be fully transparent. What scares people is what they don’t know. Right now [fracking] is regulated differently in different states, and I think if the industry would join together and say we’re going to disclose exactly what we’re doing, we’re going to take a giant step forward.

On energy, we certainly know a lot of things that we could do very, very quickly. Energy efficiency is not complicated. There’s a nice little company in Washington, Opower, that works with utilities to send the customer an explanation of how much electricity they’re using in comparison to their neighbors, and you know what the effect of that is? People stop using as much electricity. They don’t want to be less efficient than their neighbors are, and they’re able to achieve a 1 percent to 3.5 percent reduction.

Shapard: If we could reduce electricity consumption by 10 percent, you’d save $25 billion a year in energy costs, you’d reduce CO₂ by about what you get in 10 percent electric vehicle penetration. The problem is people don’t know how to do it. Think about the way you buy electricity today. It’s like going to the grocery store, throwing groceries in your bag, walking out the front door, and once a month the grocer sends you a bill for $800. You didn’t break down eggs from milk from bacon. That’s the way you get electricity, just a big lump bill. If we can give you real-time feedback, studies have shown you’ll use less, you’ll use it smarter.

Shah: I love Opower, but ultimately energy efficiency through individual action is just people spending money out of their own pocket. [It] hasn’t worked for 35 years. I really don’t believe it.

Browner: People make wise decisions when they have access to information. Do you know what percentage of people now use a seat belt? It’s over 90 percent.

Shah: But it’s mandated. There’s a law.

Browner: We got there by educating people.

When we talk about the automotive industry, is the change going to come out of Detroit?

Browner: It’s going to come through the regulators. What regulations do is they create market opportunities for the capital investments, because they create predictability and certainty. When the President said all cars are going to be 35 miles per gallon for the average fleet by 2017, the automotive industry knew what kind of investments they needed to make.

Shah: Here’s one thing that we don’t have in transportation, which I think is critical: There is almost no way in hell that you’re going to get an entrepreneur into transportation. There’s at least 15 different engine technologies that have been invented since the 1960s, but only someone with 50 full-time regulatory affairs people can actually get through the National Transportation Safety Board, through all the EPA regulations, and all of the other things to actually bring a new car to market. Like the group that won the X Prize, right? That’s an actual gasoline-powered vehicle that goes 120 miles to the gallon, and it’s an extraordinary engineering feat. I guarantee you that thing is never going to come to market.

What can we look to that can change the equation in terms of electric vehicles?

Kuhn: Battery technology is making major advancements. Lithium ion batteries [are] coming from a lot of government-supported research with the automobile companies and other companies around the world.

Pickens: Well, don’t end up on a Chinese battery.

Shapard: Even the auto companies are telling us that within five years the price of these batteries could drop in half and the functionality grow.

Shah: But the beauty of the electric vehicle is the business model innovation. There [are] 17 things that you can do that I’ve counted, and you might be able to do more, with an electric battery as an electric utility. The grid’s got to stay at 60 hertz to keep everything running well, and you can use batteries to do this instead of spending reserves with natural gas, which is far more expensive.

Browner: So what you’re saying is when I’m not driving, my car would become part of the electric utility system?

Shah: In California their peak demand for electricity is roughly 60,000 megawatts. If you have 250,000 electric cars, just 250,000 out of 30 million cars they probably have over there, at 20 kilowatts a piece, which is what a lot of these full electric cars are, that’s 5,000Mw. So you now have one-twelfth of the entire grid of storage.

The problem is people go to the dealership and will never buy an electric vehicle. So what you have to do, and entrepreneurs are doing this now, is convert these into vehicle services contracts. You say here’s a free car, just pay me $400 a month, which is what you would have paid for your lease payment, and I’ll get the $4,000 a year out of the utility because you don’t want to deal with the paperwork.

Norman Pearlstine, Thomas Kuhn, Bob Shapard, Carol Browner, Jigar Shah, and T. Boone Pickens Henry Leutwyler
This Week

August 1, 2011
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think

The U.S. first became a net importer of oil in 1948. The intervening decades have led Americans down a steady path of price spikes, shortages, and compromised foreign policy decisions. Imported fuel means expensive gasoline, lost jobs, and hobbled industries, while climate change poses risks as dramatic as they are difficult to assess. So how do we fix our fuel and energy problems? To answer that question—the first in a quarterly series called Fix This—Bloomberg Businessweek Chairman Norman Pearlstine gathered BP Capital Management’s T. Boone Pickens; Bob Shapard, chairman and chief executive officer of Oncor Electric Delivery and chairman of GridWise Alliance; Carol Browner, former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy for President Obama and EPA administrator for President Clinton; Jigar Shah, CEO of the Carbon War Room; and Thomas Kuhn, president of Edison Electric Institute. Their conversation has been condensed and edited.


What do we mean when we talk about an energy crisis? Is that an appropriate term for framing this discussion?

Shah: The word energy is very confusing. Energy includes both transportation fuel—which I think people are very concerned about—and coal, solar, wind, and other things that produce electricity. People confuse the two, and while we have fast-rising prices of electricity—5 percent rate increases per year since 2000—the fourfold increase in oil prices since 1999 is a much bigger problem in terms of economics than our electricity problem.

Shapard: People perceive there to be a crisis in this country environmentally with carbon and other emissions. I think transportation is the place you go for the biggest impact, and I think it’s a combination of natural gas and electricity that can solve our transportation problem. You can convert a significant portion of our fleet to natural gas and/or electricity. It addresses our dependence on foreign oil, but just as importantly it addresses the environmental issues. While coal plants and power plants are viewed as the villain when it comes to carbon, [giving off] 39 percent of the emissions, 31 percent of the emissions are [from] cars, and the important point is we know the solution on cars.

Kuhn: Never in the history of the world have we been so dependent upon one commodity as we are on oil right now, and every recession has been preceded by a spike in the price of oil. A $10 increase in oil causes $75 billion to come out of this economy. There are a lot of electric cars that are going on the road all over the world, in India, China, and elsewhere. I drive a Chevy Volt. I haven’t visited a gas station in three months. I plug in, I drive at 2¢ a mile compared with 10¢ to 12¢ a mile—that’s about $1 a gallon equivalent.

Browner: One of the first things we did when [President] Obama came to office was set the first fuel-efficiency standards in almost 20 years. We said we can make cars more efficient, and that’s been making our automotive industry stronger.

Pickens: If you remember, President Obama, when he got the nomination, said in 10 years we will not import any oil from the Mideast. I was impressed with that. It’s different than all the other people that ran for President. They said elect me, and we’ll be energy independent. So I thought he’s got a plan, and I hope that he does have a plan.

If there’s a consensus here that we don’t have to be reliant on imported oil, why are we?

Browner: Some of these changes will require congressional action, because what we need to do is give the private sector the certainty and the predictability so that they’ll make the large-scale investments in these changes. They don’t want to start making investments where they think I’m going to build something but I’m not able to sell it.

Shah: Just to be slightly argumentative, I think we were in exactly the same place for both electricity and transportation in the 1970s. For electricity, we opened up that market. I started one of the largest solar companies in the U.S. We had that opportunity because we had net metering, we had streamlined interconnection standards, we had all sorts of ways for us to connect to the grid and actually provide [a new service to] customers who were dissatisfied with the services they were already being provided. Today if you own a gas station, you’re most likely under a franchise agreement with a large oil company that doesn’t allow you to add an alternative fuel station without their permission.

You talk to people in Washington all the time, Boone. Does anybody understand the problem well enough to know how to address it?

Pickens: Get yourself a crisis, and then something will come out of Congress. But we’re sitting here with a bill ready to go in the house, HR1380. [Editor’s note: HR1380 would amend the tax code to encourage investment in alternative energy.] There are 250 million vehicles in America: All I’m trying to address is 8 million 18-wheelers. Go to the past 10 years, and look at our costs with OPEC—$1 trillion in 10 years. The largest transfer of wealth from one group to another. Now go forward 10 years and take [the price of] $100 a barrel forward, which I think is being extremely conservative. That’s $2.2 trillion. Just take the 18-wheelers, that’s 2.5 million barrels a day. Now the $2.2 trillion that we’re going to pay 10 years in the future. … You cut OPEC in half with 8 million vehicles.

Browner: Between what Mr. Pickens has been talking about in terms of the long-haul vehicles and the commitment on electric cars, it would be a huge change in our fleet in this country.

Pickens: Don’t call me Mr. Pickens, O.K.? It makes me feel old when you do that.

Browner: Well, it’s respectful.

Is technology a place that can give us clean or cleaner coal or allow us to do more aggressive fracking for natural gas?

Browner: I personally think the natural gas industry needs to be fully transparent. What scares people is what they don’t know. Right now [fracking] is regulated differently in different states, and I think if the industry would join together and say we’re going to disclose exactly what we’re doing, we’re going to take a giant step forward.

On energy, we certainly know a lot of things that we could do very, very quickly. Energy efficiency is not complicated. There’s a nice little company in Washington, Opower, that works with utilities to send the customer an explanation of how much electricity they’re using in comparison to their neighbors, and you know what the effect of that is? People stop using as much electricity. They don’t want to be less efficient than their neighbors are, and they’re able to achieve a 1 percent to 3.5 percent reduction.

Shapard: If we could reduce electricity consumption by 10 percent, you’d save $25 billion a year in energy costs, you’d reduce CO₂ by about what you get in 10 percent electric vehicle penetration. The problem is people don’t know how to do it. Think about the way you buy electricity today. It’s like going to the grocery store, throwing groceries in your bag, walking out the front door, and once a month the grocer sends you a bill for $800. You didn’t break down eggs from milk from bacon. That’s the way you get electricity, just a big lump bill. If we can give you real-time feedback, studies have shown you’ll use less, you’ll use it smarter.

Shah: I love Opower, but ultimately energy efficiency through individual action is just people spending money out of their own pocket. [It] hasn’t worked for 35 years. I really don’t believe it.

Browner: People make wise decisions when they have access to information. Do you know what percentage of people now use a seat belt? It’s over 90 percent.

Shah: But it’s mandated. There’s a law.

Browner: We got there by educating people.

When we talk about the automotive industry, is the change going to come out of Detroit?

Browner: It’s going to come through the regulators. What regulations do is they create market opportunities for the capital investments, because they create predictability and certainty. When the President said all cars are going to be 35 miles per gallon for the average fleet by 2017, the automotive industry knew what kind of investments they needed to make.

Shah: Here’s one thing that we don’t have in transportation, which I think is critical: There is almost no way in hell that you’re going to get an entrepreneur into transportation. There’s at least 15 different engine technologies that have been invented since the 1960s, but only someone with 50 full-time regulatory affairs people can actually get through the National Transportation Safety Board, through all the EPA regulations, and all of the other things to actually bring a new car to market. Like the group that won the X Prize, right? That’s an actual gasoline-powered vehicle that goes 120 miles to the gallon, and it’s an extraordinary engineering feat. I guarantee you that thing is never going to come to market.

What can we look to that can change the equation in terms of electric vehicles?

Kuhn: Battery technology is making major advancements. Lithium ion batteries [are] coming from a lot of government-supported research with the automobile companies and other companies around the world.

Pickens: Well, don’t end up on a Chinese battery.

Shapard: Even the auto companies are telling us that within five years the price of these batteries could drop in half and the functionality grow.

Shah: But the beauty of the electric vehicle is the business model innovation. There [are] 17 things that you can do that I’ve counted, and you might be able to do more, with an electric battery as an electric utility. The grid’s got to stay at 60 hertz to keep everything running well, and you can use batteries to do this instead of spending reserves with natural gas, which is far more expensive.

Browner: So what you’re saying is when I’m not driving, my car would become part of the electric utility system?

Shah: In California their peak demand for electricity is roughly 60,000 megawatts. If you have 250,000 electric cars, just 250,000 out of 30 million cars they probably have over there, at 20 kilowatts a piece, which is what a lot of these full electric cars are, that’s 5,000Mw. So you now have one-twelfth of the entire grid of storage.

The problem is people go to the dealership and will never buy an electric vehicle. So what you have to do, and entrepreneurs are doing this now, is convert these into vehicle services contracts. You say here’s a free car, just pay me $400 a month, which is what you would have paid for your lease payment, and I’ll get the $4,000 a year out of the utility because you don’t want to deal with the paperwork.

Youth Quarterback Camps Find a Profitable Seam

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/07/youth-quarterback-camps-find-profitable.html[/postlink]

By Paul Wachter
This Week

August 1, 2011
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think
Previous
Next
Related Items
NFL's Silent Stakeholders
BA-Iberia Tap U.S. Pickup to Outdo Air France-KLM, Lufthansa
Electronic Arts Must Face Ex-Athletes’ Antitrust Claims
The Rapture Profiteers
Air France, Lufthansa Drop on Results; Singapore Also Misses

 Happy Campers Clarkson: Mason Levinson/Bloomberg; Leinart: Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images; Brees: Steve Clarkson—NFL washout and youth football eminence—was standing among 100 or so prepubescent boys as they ran between cones, avoided fake blitzes, and threw post and curl routes. Watching on the sidelines was a horde of eager parents, many of whom had plunked down $600 for Clarkson’s four-day Air 7 program. “It’s a big commitment,” says Jay Tuttle, who drove his 11-year-old two hours to the Los Angeles high school field. “But Steve really pushes my son’s skill set.”

For others, it’s a bargain. In the past two decades, Clarkson has become the country’s premier youth quarterback guru. His list of former pupils includes Super Bowl champion Ben Roethlisberger. Joe Montana hired him to tutor his sons. Last year, University of Southern California head coach Lane Kiffin offered a scholarship to David Sills, a Clarkson pupil who has yet to start high school. Youth quarterback coaching also happens to be an avocation Clarkson more or less created and then transformed into a miniature fiefdom. In addition to his Sunday Air 7 camps, he charges up to $10,000 per month for private lessons. “What you’re seeing at the quarterback position, at earlier ages, is specialization,” says Josh Heupel, the co-offensive coordinator at the University of Oklahoma. And there are plenty of takers. “This has been good for Miller,” says Eric Moss, watching his 9-year-old from the sidelines, “whether he plays football in the future—or invades China.”

Clarkson has given rise to one of football’s most profitable gimmicks, and one of its few economic gushers during the National Football League’s lockout that ended on July 25. There are now hundreds of camps run by an array of entrepreneurs ranging from NFL royalty to lesser quarterbacking profiteers. The Mannings—Peyton, Eli, and paterfamilias Archie—host the Manning Passing Academy every summer in Louisiana. The less famous Johnsons—Rob (who played for the Buffalo Bills and Tampa Bay Buccaneers), Bret (a brief stint with the Atlanta Falcons), and their dad, Bob—operate Camp Quarterback in California. And then there’s former high school offensive coordinator Terry Copacia. His brainchild, Terry Copacia’s All-State Quarterback School, holds two-day clinics throughout the country for $189 per student, grades seven and up. Darin Slack, who played for the Division-II University of Central Florida, charges $545 for his three-day Quarterback Academy, more than the four-day Manning affair.

The prices are justified, aspiring youth football moguls insist, by the fact that the position can be taught in a way a 7-foot frame or 95-mile-per-hour fastball cannot. And even if the NFL is out of reach for most kids, private coaches can help them earn a college scholarship—or at least make their high school’s first string. Quarterbacks also happen to be a good commodity to trade in since, private coaches note, they’re more likely to come from comfortable backgrounds. “It’s not a race thing,” says Clarkson, an African American. “It’s the demands of position. You have to be a stable person, and you’ll find most quarterbacks come from stable, two-parent homes.” Coincidentally, two-parent homes are more likely to be able to afford expensive quarterback coaches.

Clarkson discovered these truths with his first client, Perry Klein. After a season backing up John Elway in Denver—followed by two more seasons in Canada—Clarkson believed his career was over by 1986. That year, however, his great-aunt forwarded him an advertisement from a father looking for someone to help his 15-year-old son switch to football from gymnastics. “We threw the ball around on the lawn, and I remember thinking, the kid is O.K. but a little slender,” recalls Clarkson. “Then walking to the car, I turned around, and Perry was doing back flips. You could tell he was a great athlete. A light bulb went off in my head: If I could teach this kid to be a quarterback, he might be something special.” Clarkson took the job and devised a program targeting footwork, an efficient throwing motion, and reading defenses. Klein eventually won a Los Angeles high school title and spent two seasons with the Falcons. Soon other parents came calling, including Montana. “Just because you’re a Hall of Famer doesn’t mean you’re going to be a great coach,” Clarkson says.

By Paul Wachter
This Week

August 1, 2011
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think
Previous
Next
Related Items
NFL's Silent Stakeholders
BA-Iberia Tap U.S. Pickup to Outdo Air France-KLM, Lufthansa
Electronic Arts Must Face Ex-Athletes’ Antitrust Claims
The Rapture Profiteers
Air France, Lufthansa Drop on Results; Singapore Also Misses

 Happy Campers Clarkson: Mason Levinson/Bloomberg; Leinart: Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images; Brees: Steve Clarkson—NFL washout and youth football eminence—was standing among 100 or so prepubescent boys as they ran between cones, avoided fake blitzes, and threw post and curl routes. Watching on the sidelines was a horde of eager parents, many of whom had plunked down $600 for Clarkson’s four-day Air 7 program. “It’s a big commitment,” says Jay Tuttle, who drove his 11-year-old two hours to the Los Angeles high school field. “But Steve really pushes my son’s skill set.”

For others, it’s a bargain. In the past two decades, Clarkson has become the country’s premier youth quarterback guru. His list of former pupils includes Super Bowl champion Ben Roethlisberger. Joe Montana hired him to tutor his sons. Last year, University of Southern California head coach Lane Kiffin offered a scholarship to David Sills, a Clarkson pupil who has yet to start high school. Youth quarterback coaching also happens to be an avocation Clarkson more or less created and then transformed into a miniature fiefdom. In addition to his Sunday Air 7 camps, he charges up to $10,000 per month for private lessons. “What you’re seeing at the quarterback position, at earlier ages, is specialization,” says Josh Heupel, the co-offensive coordinator at the University of Oklahoma. And there are plenty of takers. “This has been good for Miller,” says Eric Moss, watching his 9-year-old from the sidelines, “whether he plays football in the future—or invades China.”

Clarkson has given rise to one of football’s most profitable gimmicks, and one of its few economic gushers during the National Football League’s lockout that ended on July 25. There are now hundreds of camps run by an array of entrepreneurs ranging from NFL royalty to lesser quarterbacking profiteers. The Mannings—Peyton, Eli, and paterfamilias Archie—host the Manning Passing Academy every summer in Louisiana. The less famous Johnsons—Rob (who played for the Buffalo Bills and Tampa Bay Buccaneers), Bret (a brief stint with the Atlanta Falcons), and their dad, Bob—operate Camp Quarterback in California. And then there’s former high school offensive coordinator Terry Copacia. His brainchild, Terry Copacia’s All-State Quarterback School, holds two-day clinics throughout the country for $189 per student, grades seven and up. Darin Slack, who played for the Division-II University of Central Florida, charges $545 for his three-day Quarterback Academy, more than the four-day Manning affair.

The prices are justified, aspiring youth football moguls insist, by the fact that the position can be taught in a way a 7-foot frame or 95-mile-per-hour fastball cannot. And even if the NFL is out of reach for most kids, private coaches can help them earn a college scholarship—or at least make their high school’s first string. Quarterbacks also happen to be a good commodity to trade in since, private coaches note, they’re more likely to come from comfortable backgrounds. “It’s not a race thing,” says Clarkson, an African American. “It’s the demands of position. You have to be a stable person, and you’ll find most quarterbacks come from stable, two-parent homes.” Coincidentally, two-parent homes are more likely to be able to afford expensive quarterback coaches.

Clarkson discovered these truths with his first client, Perry Klein. After a season backing up John Elway in Denver—followed by two more seasons in Canada—Clarkson believed his career was over by 1986. That year, however, his great-aunt forwarded him an advertisement from a father looking for someone to help his 15-year-old son switch to football from gymnastics. “We threw the ball around on the lawn, and I remember thinking, the kid is O.K. but a little slender,” recalls Clarkson. “Then walking to the car, I turned around, and Perry was doing back flips. You could tell he was a great athlete. A light bulb went off in my head: If I could teach this kid to be a quarterback, he might be something special.” Clarkson took the job and devised a program targeting footwork, an efficient throwing motion, and reading defenses. Klein eventually won a Los Angeles high school title and spent two seasons with the Falcons. Soon other parents came calling, including Montana. “Just because you’re a Hall of Famer doesn’t mean you’re going to be a great coach,” Clarkson says.

Open thread: Senate to vote on debt bill at 1 p.m., or maybe not

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/07/open-thread-senate-to-vote-on-debt-bill.html[/postlink]

posted at 12:09 pm on July 31, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

They’re supposed to vote at 1 p.m., but according to Plouffe and another “Democrat familiar with the situation,” there’s still no bill. What’s the hold up? In all likelihood, they’re haggling over the “triggers” that’ll happen if the new Super Commission can’t agree on, or Congress won’t accept, new deficit reduction proposals later this year. Jen Rubin’s hearing the following from a Republican source on the Hill:

The second tranche works like this: If a new congressional commission introduces a plan totaling at least $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving and it’s passed by Christmas there are no across-the-board cuts. Or, if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts are avoided. However, if there is no commission package passed AND the BBA is not passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion including Medicare and defense (the details of which aren’t final) go into effect. If the across-the board-cuts go into effect, the debt ceiling is only raised $1.2 trillion (likely insufficient to keep the government operating for long), meaning “we could do this all over again, depending on economic growth.” In other words, if we went to sequestration the total debt ceiling increase would be $2.1 trillion in two doses.

So there’s the BBA concession: Democrats can avoid new cuts in the second stage entirely if they pass the amendment. As for the automatic Medicare/Pentagon reductions, that’s obviously designed to make both sides in Congress think twice before rejecting the Super Commission’s recommendations. The precise formula for that is still being negotiated too. According to Jake Tapper, the White House wants fully 50 percent of the automatic cuts to affect the Pentagon and 50 percent to be spread across various other discretionary programs. GOP hawks won’t go for that, especially since the only alternative might be approving a Commission package that includes new revenues.

As I write this, the Senate has just begun its session and Reid is insisting that they’re “cautiously optimistic” about a deal but not there yet. Here’s your thread for tracking today’s drama. Exit question: How many Republican and Democratic votes will this bargain get in the House? Progressives are reportedly already murmuring about balking because of the lack of revenue in the deal, which means Boehner will need a majority of his previous Republican majority on yesterday’s vote to get this through. (Here’s one vote forecast.) I wonder if they’ll do it on the first try or, a la TARP, if it’ll take a market panic and subsequent re-vote to get it done. Stand by for updates.

Update: The post-deal spin starts before the deal is even struck:

“I don’t think we’ve been hurt at all,” McConnell said on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’.

“The American people wanted us to do something about out-of-control spending and … the debt ceiling is going to produce what many people would believe is a complete change in the trajectory of the federal government beginning to get spending under control,” said McConnell, who is likely to be largely responsible for any package that wins muster with Congress.

Update: John Bolton sounds the alarm for hawks:

Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.

While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.

Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will no

posted at 12:09 pm on July 31, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

They’re supposed to vote at 1 p.m., but according to Plouffe and another “Democrat familiar with the situation,” there’s still no bill. What’s the hold up? In all likelihood, they’re haggling over the “triggers” that’ll happen if the new Super Commission can’t agree on, or Congress won’t accept, new deficit reduction proposals later this year. Jen Rubin’s hearing the following from a Republican source on the Hill:

The second tranche works like this: If a new congressional commission introduces a plan totaling at least $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving and it’s passed by Christmas there are no across-the-board cuts. Or, if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts are avoided. However, if there is no commission package passed AND the BBA is not passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion including Medicare and defense (the details of which aren’t final) go into effect. If the across-the board-cuts go into effect, the debt ceiling is only raised $1.2 trillion (likely insufficient to keep the government operating for long), meaning “we could do this all over again, depending on economic growth.” In other words, if we went to sequestration the total debt ceiling increase would be $2.1 trillion in two doses.

So there’s the BBA concession: Democrats can avoid new cuts in the second stage entirely if they pass the amendment. As for the automatic Medicare/Pentagon reductions, that’s obviously designed to make both sides in Congress think twice before rejecting the Super Commission’s recommendations. The precise formula for that is still being negotiated too. According to Jake Tapper, the White House wants fully 50 percent of the automatic cuts to affect the Pentagon and 50 percent to be spread across various other discretionary programs. GOP hawks won’t go for that, especially since the only alternative might be approving a Commission package that includes new revenues.

As I write this, the Senate has just begun its session and Reid is insisting that they’re “cautiously optimistic” about a deal but not there yet. Here’s your thread for tracking today’s drama. Exit question: How many Republican and Democratic votes will this bargain get in the House? Progressives are reportedly already murmuring about balking because of the lack of revenue in the deal, which means Boehner will need a majority of his previous Republican majority on yesterday’s vote to get this through. (Here’s one vote forecast.) I wonder if they’ll do it on the first try or, a la TARP, if it’ll take a market panic and subsequent re-vote to get it done. Stand by for updates.

Update: The post-deal spin starts before the deal is even struck:

“I don’t think we’ve been hurt at all,” McConnell said on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’.

“The American people wanted us to do something about out-of-control spending and … the debt ceiling is going to produce what many people would believe is a complete change in the trajectory of the federal government beginning to get spending under control,” said McConnell, who is likely to be largely responsible for any package that wins muster with Congress.

Update: John Bolton sounds the alarm for hawks:

Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.

While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.

Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will no

Deal update: $2.4T in cuts and ceiling hikes — both in two parts

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/07/deal-update-24t-in-cuts-and-ceiling.html[/postlink]

posted at 8:42 am on July 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

ABC reports this morning that Congressional leaders have already begun briefing their caucuses on the eleventh-hour deal that emerged from the White House last night. Jonathan Karl notes that the deal is contingent on getting enough support from each House caucus to form a majority, and in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. We’ll come back to that in a moment, but Karl also updates the story on the deal. The topline numbers are apparently $2.4 trillion in matching spending cuts and debt-ceiling raises instead of $2.8 trillion, but now both are split into two parts:

The current framework would give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two parts: roughly half of it now and the balance at the end of the year.

Each increase would be subject to a Congressional resolution of disapproval.

If Congress voted to disapprove that increase, however, the President could veto their disapproval.

The AP reported earlier on the $2.4 trillion number, too, although they say the cuts will be “slightly more” than the debt-ceiling boost. That’s still enough to get Barack Obama past the 2012 election, but not by much. It guarantees that the debt ceiling will be a 2012 election issue, although by now that was a given anyway.

However, the added McConnell wrinkle is interesting — and potentially a big win for Republicans. Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama. If they “disapprove,” Obama will veto the disapproval and end up owning all of the political baggage for the debt-ceiling increases. That’s a steep price to pay for Obama just to protect himself through the next election, although he could turn it on its ear and refuse to veto the second increase disapproval and force this fight all over again. That would, however, put the country back in “crisis” mode, and that would still be all on Obama.

This brings the deal closer to what I predicted yesterday; in fact, it almost matches it exactly. But can the leaders get the votes for it? If Obama endorses this deal, most Democrats will have no choice but to back it; after all, they have been doing the most Chicken Little screeching about the consequences of legislative failure. Boehner and McConnell will lose a significant number of Republicans, but both will probably hold a majority of their caucuses. I’d expect an agreement along these lines to pass quickly through Congress, maybe fast enough to avoid having to pass a $50 billion, two-week extension to gain time for the debate.

Update: Added “ceiling” to headline for more clarity.

Update II: McConnell tells CNN that they are “very close” to a deal. I’d interpret that to mean that they’re shopping the deal to the caucuses to make sure they can get the votes.

posted at 8:42 am on July 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

ABC reports this morning that Congressional leaders have already begun briefing their caucuses on the eleventh-hour deal that emerged from the White House last night. Jonathan Karl notes that the deal is contingent on getting enough support from each House caucus to form a majority, and in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. We’ll come back to that in a moment, but Karl also updates the story on the deal. The topline numbers are apparently $2.4 trillion in matching spending cuts and debt-ceiling raises instead of $2.8 trillion, but now both are split into two parts:

The current framework would give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two parts: roughly half of it now and the balance at the end of the year.

Each increase would be subject to a Congressional resolution of disapproval.

If Congress voted to disapprove that increase, however, the President could veto their disapproval.

The AP reported earlier on the $2.4 trillion number, too, although they say the cuts will be “slightly more” than the debt-ceiling boost. That’s still enough to get Barack Obama past the 2012 election, but not by much. It guarantees that the debt ceiling will be a 2012 election issue, although by now that was a given anyway.

However, the added McConnell wrinkle is interesting — and potentially a big win for Republicans. Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama. If they “disapprove,” Obama will veto the disapproval and end up owning all of the political baggage for the debt-ceiling increases. That’s a steep price to pay for Obama just to protect himself through the next election, although he could turn it on its ear and refuse to veto the second increase disapproval and force this fight all over again. That would, however, put the country back in “crisis” mode, and that would still be all on Obama.

This brings the deal closer to what I predicted yesterday; in fact, it almost matches it exactly. But can the leaders get the votes for it? If Obama endorses this deal, most Democrats will have no choice but to back it; after all, they have been doing the most Chicken Little screeching about the consequences of legislative failure. Boehner and McConnell will lose a significant number of Republicans, but both will probably hold a majority of their caucuses. I’d expect an agreement along these lines to pass quickly through Congress, maybe fast enough to avoid having to pass a $50 billion, two-week extension to gain time for the debate.

Update: Added “ceiling” to headline for more clarity.

Update II: McConnell tells CNN that they are “very close” to a deal. I’d interpret that to mean that they’re shopping the deal to the caucuses to make sure they can get the votes.

Sixth Quarter of Gains for Yuan

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/07/sixth-quarter-of-gains-for-yuan.html[/postlink]

The Chinese yuan posted the sixth straight quarterly gain on the speculation that China will allow the currency to appreciate faster in order to slow growth of consumer prices.

The People’s Bank of China increased the reference rate for the yuan to 6.4716 per dollar today, allowing the currency to fluctuate 0.5 percent in either side of the target. Li Daokui, the adviser to the central bank, explained the rise of prices in June by higher costs of agricultural products and pork. China Securities Journal said today, citing the State Information Center, the inflation is estimated to be 5.3 percent in the first half of 2011 and about 4.9 percent for the whole year.

USD/CNY traded at 6.4648 today as of 11:22 GMT, fluctuating near its opening rate of 6.4644, after rising as high as 6.4680 and falling as low as 6.4625.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Chinese Yuan, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Chinese Yuan:
» Yuan Appreciates Above 6.5 vs. USD for a Short Time (2011-04-29)
» Chinese Yuan Appreciates with Other Asian Currencies (2011-04-02)
» China Allows Yuan Appreciate, Can It Do So? (2011-01-12)
» Yuan Rises Beyond 6.6 per Dollar as China Battles Inflation (2010-12-31)
» Can Yuan's Gains Be Limited by Demands for Slower Appreciation? (2010-12-29)

The Chinese yuan posted the sixth straight quarterly gain on the speculation that China will allow the currency to appreciate faster in order to slow growth of consumer prices.

The People’s Bank of China increased the reference rate for the yuan to 6.4716 per dollar today, allowing the currency to fluctuate 0.5 percent in either side of the target. Li Daokui, the adviser to the central bank, explained the rise of prices in June by higher costs of agricultural products and pork. China Securities Journal said today, citing the State Information Center, the inflation is estimated to be 5.3 percent in the first half of 2011 and about 4.9 percent for the whole year.

USD/CNY traded at 6.4648 today as of 11:22 GMT, fluctuating near its opening rate of 6.4644, after rising as high as 6.4680 and falling as low as 6.4625.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Chinese Yuan, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Chinese Yuan:
» Yuan Appreciates Above 6.5 vs. USD for a Short Time (2011-04-29)
» Chinese Yuan Appreciates with Other Asian Currencies (2011-04-02)
» China Allows Yuan Appreciate, Can It Do So? (2011-01-12)
» Yuan Rises Beyond 6.6 per Dollar as China Battles Inflation (2010-12-31)
» Can Yuan's Gains Be Limited by Demands for Slower Appreciation? (2010-12-29)

Export & Import Prices Push Aussie Higher

[postlink]https://breakinghotnewsonline.blogspot.com/2011/07/export-import-prices-push-aussie-higher.html[/postlink]

The Australian dollar gained today versus the euro and the Japanese yen as the advance of import and export prices prompted the speculation that the central bank will raise interest rates.

Australian import prices rose 0.8 percent in the second quarter, while export prices increased by 6.0 percent. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index of regional shares climbed 1.1 percent. The positive economic data caused most market participants to bet that the next move of the Reserve Bank of Australia will be hike, not cut.

AUD/JPY climbed from 84.87 to 85.20, while EUR/AUD fell from 1.3302 to 1.3284 as of 8:35 GMT today.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Australian Dollar, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Australian Dollar:
» Aussie Goes Lower as China's Manufacturing Slows (2011-07-21)
» AUD/USD Trades Higher After RBA Minutes (2011-07-19)
» Aussies Goes Down as Europe Hurts Risk Appetite (2011-07-18)
» AUD Fall with Stocks & Commodities on Concerns for Global Growth (2011-07-15)
» Aussie Heads Down on Europe Woes & China's Growth (2011-07-11)

The Australian dollar gained today versus the euro and the Japanese yen as the advance of import and export prices prompted the speculation that the central bank will raise interest rates.

Australian import prices rose 0.8 percent in the second quarter, while export prices increased by 6.0 percent. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index of regional shares climbed 1.1 percent. The positive economic data caused most market participants to bet that the next move of the Reserve Bank of Australia will be hike, not cut.

AUD/JPY climbed from 84.87 to 85.20, while EUR/AUD fell from 1.3302 to 1.3284 as of 8:35 GMT today.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Australian Dollar, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Australian Dollar:
» Aussie Goes Lower as China's Manufacturing Slows (2011-07-21)
» AUD/USD Trades Higher After RBA Minutes (2011-07-19)
» Aussies Goes Down as Europe Hurts Risk Appetite (2011-07-18)
» AUD Fall with Stocks & Commodities on Concerns for Global Growth (2011-07-15)
» Aussie Heads Down on Europe Woes & China's Growth (2011-07-11)