My reading of the budget deal

Here's a link to the full text of the "budget deal" that was recently passed:
http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/P ... 16_xml.pdf

It's 74 pages. I've read it all. Here's my summary of what's actually in it.

Note that as is often the case with legislation, a lot of it inserts paragraphs (or modifies paragraphs/lines/clauses) in existing parts of the US Code, and without looking at (and reading large swaths of) the modified law(s), the full consequences of a change can be hard to determine. Indeed, sometimes an "edit" in a new bill can look innocuous by itself, but contain sneaky side effects once it takes its place in part(s) of the full US Code. I haven't looked for these, I've just read the current bill and presumed it doesn't have unintended (or intended) consequences that aren't fully apparent.

Also, some of the new bill invokes arcane accounting messiness that is already part of the existing US Code with regard to the budget process, so unless one is very familiar with that process (I'm not) it can be hard to tell what really is and isn't affected with regard to some of the new bill.

That said, let's look at what the "Budget Control Act of 2011" says.

=============================================

Page 1: Title and table of contents.

Page 2: Severability clause. Congress declares that if any part of this Act is declared unconstitutional, their intent is that the rest shall be allowed to stand. I think that's a bad idea with legislation like this (because it can disrupt checks and balances built into the Act), but there you have it.

=============================================

Page 2: "TITLE I—TEN-YEAR DISCRETIONARY CAPS WITH SEQUESTER"

This is one of the parts that has the "automatic" cutbacks if they go over the spending caps. Of course, they can always redefine the caps if they get weak-kneed, and the following link says that that's pretty much what's been done ever since the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act was passed with similar caps/cutbacks, which negates what was supposed to be the "teeth" in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings:
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration
The current Act has the same weakness, of course. The above link is also worth reading because it defines what Congress means by "Sequester"/"Sequestration", terms that are used a lot in the recently passed Act. It means to cause "automatic" spending cuts, which again, isn't new with the current act, that was supposed to happen ever since the 1985 GRH bill. It remains to be seen whether Congress just dodges its own limits like they've been doing since 1985. Finally, the above link also points out that the cuts aren't really all-encompassing, they only affect whatever Congress hasn't exempted from sequestered cuts, like it has with Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt (the so-called "mandatory" as opposed to "discretionary" items).

Still on page 2: 15 days after a session of Congress adjourns (once a year, basically):

ELIMINATING A BREACH.—Each non-exempt account within a category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the enacted level of sequestrable budgetary resources in that account at that time by the uniform percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that category.

Um... Several ambiguous terms there, but it sounds as if each budget line items in a '"category" will be cut back (after the spending has been done for the year??) to match whatever that "category" was actually budgeted. See budget categories here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Unite ... ral_budget
It doesn't sound as if there will be an across-the-board X% cut if spending as a whole goes X% over budget, instead every "category" is going to be made to live within its own means.

Also note the gotcha in the term "non-exempt account" -- I presume it means just the "discretionary" budget items, not the "mandatory" ones, plus there may be "exempt" subcategories ("accounts") within even a discretionary "category".

This also doesn't sound like it would kick in if tax revenues failed to meet expectations and the feds didn't have enough money to prevent blowing the debt ceiling, it just sounds like capping the actual *spending* on budget items to what was actually budgeted to be *spent*. Actual debt limit blowouts are covered below.

Page 3: Apparently the President can at his own discretion exempt certain military spending (due to pre-existing legislation), this page says that if he does, the shortfall will be taken from the rest of the Defense budget to even things out.

Pages 3-4: Clauses about how partial-year budget items or budget modifications partway through the year are not exempt from the original annual budget caps, basically, they still count as additional spending.

Pages 4-8: OMB and CBO will be used as arbiters of budget balances, etc.

Pages 8-14: Contingency exemptions for national emergencies, disasters, up to a billion or so in Social Security tweaks, etc.

Pages 14-15: Setting a "discretionary spending limit" -- this is the amount that can be spent in total on all "discretionary" budget categories (um, what, no limit on non-discretionary "mandatory" spending?):

2012 fiscal year "security category" spending limit is $684B. (Military, homeland security, etc.)
2012 fiscal year "nonsecurity category" spending limit is $359B. (All other "discretionary" spending)

2013 fiscal year "security category" spending limit is $686B.
2013 fiscal year "nonsecurity category" spending limit is $361B.

2014 fiscal year discretionary spending limit is $1.066T.

2015 fiscal year discretionary spending limit is $1.086T.
...
2021 fiscal year discretionary spending limit is $1.234T.

Pages 15-27: Definitions, tweaks to existing (now outdated) budget law, revisions to rules of House/Senate that try to prevent passing budget/law changes that simply ignore the caps, etc.

In short, this "title" section of the Act puts limits on discretionary spending for the next ten years.

...unless a future Congress sets them to something else or removes them.

Also, these all change if the "deficit reduction commission" fails, see below.

=============================================

Pages 27-30: "TITLE II—VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT"

Between September 30 and December 31 of this year, the House and Senate have to vote on a joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States".

They don't have to pass it. If it fails to pass, they don't have to change it and try to pass it again. They don't have to make a real effort to pass it or write it in such a way that it has a chance of passing. They don't even have to make it a balanced budget amendment. All they have to do is give *something*, anything, maybe a pay raise for themselves, the title specified above, and vote on it. Period.

Woo woo.

=============================================

Pages 30-43: "TITLE III—DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS"

Contrary to the implication of the title, this is where they raise the debt ceiling. In fact, they give Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling (within limits)

They do however give Congress the ability to deny a debt ceiling request.

1. Before December 31, 2011, Obama (or whoever happens to be President in December ) can submit a written certification that the national debt (actually, "debt subject to limit" ) is within $0.1T of the current debt limit (i.e. about to blow the debt cap), and this authorizes the Treasury to borrow an additional $0.9T. This triggers an immediate $0.4T bump in the debt limit, with the remaining $0.5T left hanging, pending Congressional approval/disapproval/apathy.

Congress can vote to deny the additional $0.5T, or let it slide. If they vote to deny it, the President can veto their denial, and Congress has the option to override the veto if they can, same as any other Congressional action.

2. If after the above occurs, the President may later (no time limit) submit another written certification that the national debt is within $0.1T of the new debt limit, and authorize Treasury to borrow an additional amount, as follows:

a) $1.2T, or

b) $1.5T if a balanced budget amendment has actually been handed to the states to ratify, or

c) however much the "commission" proposal (see below) includes in deficit reduction if their proposal is passed by Congress (but not to exceed $1.5T if the balanced budget amendment fails in Congress).

Congress can also vote to disapprove this Presidential debt limit increase.

Pages 43-51: "SEC. 302. ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET GOAL"

If the commission fails to recommend $1.2T+ in deficit reduction, or Congress fails to enact those recommendations by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending limits specified above (see the summary of pages 14-15) will be automatically changed to the following limits:

2012 (remains the same)

2013 fiscal year "security category" spending limit is $546B (was $686B).
2013 fiscal year "nonsecurity category" spending limit is $501B (was $361B).
(Total remains at $1.047T)

2014 fiscal year "security category" spending limit is $556B.
2014 fiscal year "nonsecurity category" spending limit is $510B.
(was $1.066T total with no category limits, new total is still $1.066T)

2015 fiscal year "security category" spending limit is $566B.
2015 fiscal year "nonsecurity category" spending limit is $520B.
(was $1.086T total with no category limits, new total is still $1.086T)

...

2021 fiscal year "security category" spending limit is $644B.
2021 fiscal year "nonsecurity category" spending limit is $590B.
(was $1.234T total with no category limits, new total is still $1.234T)

Note that the total spending remains the same, but that if Congress fails to meet the "$1.2T in deficit reduction (which may be achieved via tax increases)" goal by passing the commission's recommendations (presuming the commission can even agree to such), defense spending takes in the shorts and is drastically reduced, while "domestic" spending gets to go on a spending spree with what used to be the military's money.

Note that Obama's own 2010 budget allocated about $700B to the "security category" -- the recent budget deal allocated $686B, but if the "$1.2 trillion in deficit reduction" fail to materialize, the "security category" gets slashed to $556B, while the "non-security category" (largest subcategories being Health and Human Services, Department of Transportation, HUD, etc.) get a windfall of the $130B slashed from defense.

Who approved this bullshit? Why is the military the only one that gets ass-raped if Congress can't agree on $1.2T in deficit reduction, while total spending remains the same and "social services" get a big 39% pay raise?

[EDIT TO ADD: There are also spending cuts applied across the board, including to mandatory spending, if Congress fails to achieve the $1.2T in deficit reduction by December -- see post farther down in this thread.]

Guess who's going to be lobbying the shit out of Congress to NOT pass the $1.2T in deficit reduction?

And if Reid/Pelosi pack the Commission with six military-hating, welfare-loving Democrats, they can block any $1.2T deal right there, fucking the military and giving a big boon to domestic "discretionary spending". Whee.

=============================================

Page 52-71: "TITLE IV—JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION"

Creates a 12-person Gosudarstvenniy Komitet po Planirovaniyu Joint Select Committee, tasked with creating a five-year-plan draft legislation that allegedly reduces the deficit by a total of at least $1.2T over the next ten years.

Consists of 3 people appointed by Harry Reid, 3 people appointed by Nancy Pelosi, 3 people appointed by John Bohner, and 3 people appointed by Mitch McConnell.

The JSC will (in theory) craft the actual US Code changes which, if implemented by Congress, would reduced the deficit by a total of $1.2T+ over the next ten years. They must accomplish this by November 23, 2011, passing it by majority vote, or else the whole effort gets scrapped.

If they actually do pass it, Congress is obligated to do an up-or-down vote on it by December 23, 2011, but if it fails, it is scrapped, and the above-mentioned "fuck the military" limits kick in. [EDIT TO ADD: As well as across-the-board cuts to all spending categories, see post elsewhere in this thread.]

If they do pass it, the "savings" aren't used to pay off the debt, Obama is free to raise the debt limit even further by an equal amount and spend it all.

As I read the Act, if the JSC/Congress act to reduce the deficit by say $1.5T over the next ten years, Obama is allowed to raise the debt limit $1.5T THIS year, and he and the Dems can spend that much more THIS year, that much more NEXT year, that much more the year AFTER, etc...

Actually, they'd be allowed to spend TWICE that much, since the "savings" give them that much more they can spend without hitting the current debt limit, *and* allow Obama to raise the debt limit by an equal amount and they can spend *that* too.

Note, by the way, that the "$1.2T+ in deficit reduction over 10 years" can be achieved entirely by tax increases -- there's nothing in this section of the Act which requires a dime of spending cuts.

And, of course, they can play the usual game of "spend more now, pack 'deficit reduction' into years 7-10, which future Congresses will never actually follow when *they* sit down to make *their* future budgets".

=============================================

Pages 71-74: "TITLE V—PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM CHANGES"

Authorizing the spending of $10 billion more on pell grants, removal of "interest subsidized loans" to "professional students", and termination of "direct loan repayment incentives" (wait, what?)

=============================================

And there you have it. Analysis/comments to follow.

Nice job. Thanx.

Your report confirms my suspicion -- all the Dems have to do is block a deal in the Magic Committee, and the defense budget automatically gets nailed.

Lots of room for further shenanigans as well; the BBA clause is a window-dressing exercise.

Sounds like we would have been better off letting the government smash into the debt limit .....

Observations, in no particular order:

1. CBO/Congress claim this Act directly reduces the deficit by $897B over ten years due to the discretionary spending caps on pages 14-15. Note, however, that spending continues to increase year after year.

It authorizes $1.043T in discretionary spending in 2012, $1.047T in 2013, $1.066T in 2014, all the way up to $1.234T in 2021. That's an 18% rise in 10 years, a 1.7% rise each and every year.

And there's no limit, reduction, or any other kind of handbrake on "mandatory" spending. [EDIT TO ADD: Unless the $1.2T deficit reduction goal isn't met, in which case there are across-the-board cuts to all spending categories.]

Spending continues to go UP.

As others have pointed out, this is "897B in deficit reduction" only in the sense that we *could* have increased our spending even *more* (and had even *bigger* deficits), and are opting not to. Yeah, and I'm reducing my household deficit by $1,400,000 by not buying the Bugatti I'd like to have...

When will Congress actually get around to spending LESS?

And beyond that, when does DEBT reduction actually become a goal? "Yeah, we're still overspending each and every year, but at least it's $897T less than we *wanted* to..."

We're still getting deeper and deeper into the hole we're digging until we *stop* spending more than we make. This Act doesn't do that.

2. The only "incentive" for the Commission to pass an alleged $1.2T in deficit reduction, and for Congress to actually vote to enact it, is if you don't want military spending to be slashed and domestic spending to be increased. There are NO other penalties for failure to pass the $1.2T in deficit reduction, no automatic cuts to overall spending, nothing. [EDIT TO ADD: Actually there is, there will be triggered across-the-board spending cuts if the goal isn't met, sufficient to reach a total of $1.2T in deficit reduction.]

If on the other hand you're a liberal who would *love* to transfer $130B+ every year from the military to welfare, Deparment of Education, etc. etc., as well as not wanting to see Big Government trimmed by $1.2T, you have a HUGE incentive to block the $1.2T deal. Unless maybe the $1.2T deal is accomplished by $1.2T in tax increases (especially on EvilCorporations(tm) and the EvilRich(tm)), in which case you might have to sit down, think hard, and decide whom you hate more -- is it better to fuck the military, or fuck the Rich? [EDIT TO ADD: They can still screw the military without facing mandatory spending cuts themselves by forcing through $1.19T in tax increases, not *quite* hitting the $1.2T goal]

Either way, someone gets fucked.

3. Obama gets to raise the debt limit up to $2.1T, more than enough to get him past his re-election in November of 2012, unless his buddies in the Senate get a big case of Stupid and vote to block his debt limit increases.

4. There's no incentive to pass a balanced budget amendment.

Summary:

There are no "real" cuts in spending. There's $897B in "well we could have spent more". First-year "could have spent more" is only $21B (CBO). Place your bets on whether future self-restraint on increases will proceed apace.

There are strong incentives for Democrats to oppose, tooth-and-nail, the $1.2T deficit reduction plan, whatever it might end up being (and it may be a big shit sandwich). There are NO incentives for them to support it. [EDIT TO ADD: They'll want to avoid the $1.2T in across-the-board triggered cuts, but they can do that by gutting programs they don't like, or forcing through $1.2T in tax increases.]

Even if the $1.2T deficit reduction plan miraculously materializes and passes, it just gives Obama license to raise the debt ceiling by an equal amount, allowing the "savings" to be spent TWICE over and evaporated.

The $1.2T deficit reduction plan can consist of $1.2T in tax increases.

It saves Obama's bacon for re-election, and gives no budget leverage to fiscal conservatives in 2012.

There's a big chance the military will get fucked.

There's absolutely no incentive to pass a balanced budget amendment.

The "$2.1T in deficit reduction" people are touting for this Act counts ~$0.9T in "we could have spent more", and $1.2T in "Commission savings" if that ever actually materializes, and there's no incentive for it from a Democrat's perspective.

Actual "savings": They *could* have spent $21B more next year but decided not to. Future budgets are, as usual, subject to revision by the next Congress, who the hell knows what they'll do.

That's a 100-fold overstatement of the actual "savings" accomplished by this budget deal.

[EDIT TO ADD: Unless they find a dodge, it seems there *will* be *some* kind of $1.2T reduction over the next 10 years -- if future Congresses don't simply repeal it -- but it could take many forms, not all of them good, *and* future spending could simply be piled on top of it.]

Looks to me like a big shit sandwich for fiscal conservatives, and the Democrats should be high-fiving each other. Behind closed doors, they probably are.

will read tonight or tomorrow morning, *much* appreciated Ichy

Obamacare has completely trapped the Democrats on fiscal policy. In order to pay for Obamacare’s trillions of dollars in new spending, they had to raise taxes by $500 and raid Medicare by another $500 billion. As a result, all the low-hanging revenue and spending fruit are already gone. As even The Washington Post's Ezra Klein admits, the Democrats must now argue for higher taxes, and not just on the wealthy. In order to pay for all their entitlement programs, the middle class is going to have to pay more, too. But Ezra can admit this because he doesn’t have to win elections; Democrats in public offices do. That is the reason you haven’t seen a Democratic budget since Obamacare became law and it is the reason you will not see another one till at least 2013.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... ightjacket

As even The Washington Post's Ezra Klein admits, the Democrats must now argue for higher taxes, and not just on the wealthy. In order to pay for all their entitlement programs, the middle class is going to have to pay more, too.

No, not "now" -- after Obama's re-election.

With this recent "budget deal", the GOP let the Democrats off the hook until sometime in 2013, by giving him enough of a debt ceiling increase that the Dems won't run out of (BORROWED) money again until after the elections.

Brilliant.

So the Tea Party (and their ilk) must put pressure on the GOP (and Dems) to actually reduce spending. Holding to a "No New Taxes" pledge cannot be bad at election time.

Outstanding! Thanks for taking the time to slog through all that. What a fecking mess.

So the Tea Party (and their ilk) must put pressure on the GOP

"ILK" has pejorative connotations. Was that your intended use?

Outstanding! Thanks for taking the time to slog through all that. What a fecking mess.

Please expand on the Medicare portion of the trigger cuts.

As even The Washington Post's Ezra Klein admits, the Democrats must now argue for higher taxes, and not just on the wealthy. In order to pay for all their entitlement programs, the middle class is going to have to pay more, too.

No, not "now" -- after Obama's re-election.

With this recent "budget deal", the GOP let the Democrats off the hook until sometime in 2013, by giving him enough of a debt ceiling increase that the Dems won't run out of (BORROWED) money again until after the elections.

Brilliant.

One more reason not to re-elect the effing expletive.

Please expand on the Medicare portion of the trigger cuts.

Sure. Page 51:

(9) ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDICARE.—If the per-
centage reduction for the Medicare programs would
exceed 2 percent for a fiscal year in the absence of
paragraph (8), OMB shall increase the reduction for
all other discretionary appropriations and direct
spending under paragraph (6) by a uniform percent-
age to a level sufficient to achieve the reduction re-
quired by paragraph (6) in the non-defense function.

So in other words, if going over the spending cap would cause a scaleback reduction, Medicare is all but exempt. It gets cut back 2% while other categories get slashed even more to make up the difference and save Medicare from substantial reductions.

I read the paragraph before the one you cite, and it appears that your quoted paragraph would cover medicare reductions over 2%. I could be wrong, however, I do not see why or how Ryan and several significantly conservative Senators would vote for such a laughably unbalanced trigger.

So the Tea Party (and their ilk) must put pressure on the GOP

"ILK" has pejorative connotations. Was that your intended use?

A big deer?

The pressure must be kept up. There are enough problems in the government to provide years of criticism. The "left" never relaxes pressure. The "right" should do the same.

The public has bought in (a tiny bit) to the idea of reducing government (a tiny bit.) Now the public must be sold on the idea that, "The government cannot give you a job, it can see that no one else gets in your way though."

In other words, we've been screwed again.

I read the paragraph before the one you cite, and it appears that your quoted paragraph would cover medicare reductions over 2%. I could be wrong, however, I do not see why or how Ryan and several significantly conservative Senators would vote for such a laughably unbalanced trigger.

No, it covers the case where a triggered reduction in a category *would* have (without the Medicare exemption) caused Medicare to be reduced by more than 2% in a year.

The previous paragraph goes, in effect, "blah blah blah anything that goes over its spending cap will be reduced by the percentage necessary to bring it back under its spending cap", but [verbatim now]: "except that the percentage reduction for the Medicare programs specified in section 256(d) shall not be more than 2 percent for a fiscal year."

That's paragraph 8. It explicitly says that Medicare isn't allowed to be reduced by more than 2% even if otherwise (without the clause on the end of paragraph 8) it "should" have because its budget category went so far over the cap.

Paragraph 9 then goes on to say, "(9) ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDICARE.—If the percentage reduction for the Medicare programs would exceed 2 percent for a fiscal year in the absence of paragraph (8)," (i.e., would have if not for the "2% reduction cap" at the end of paragraph 8), then instead what happens is that other things are sliced down to make up the difference (to keep the total amount of the spending caps from being exceeded).

And I wonder just how long the "leadership" have been waiting to drag this pre-written POS out into the light?

Wait, wait, wait, hold the presses.

Thanks to Shryke's question about the Medicare clause, I started asking myself, "self, why would they need to protect Medicare from triggered cuts when Medicare is in the "mandatory" spending category, and all I found were triggered cuts for discretionary (non-mandatory) spending?"

Turns out I did miss something. (Yeah, shocking, I know.)

Starting on page 46 is a section entitled, "CALCULATION OF TOTAL DEFICIT REDUCTION", and it blathered on about how OMB should calculate deficit reductions with some arcane math, which I originally read as dictating how OMB should determine whether the $1.2T goal had been met with regard to the Joint Select Committee's proposals.

Actually, it's a section on automatically applying*further* cuts if the JSC/Congress don't successfully agree on $1.2T in cuts, which does rather improve the overall worth of the budget Act.

It works like this:

After doing the obnoxious "transfer $180M per year from the military to the domestic categories" shift, it does the following math:

1. Start with the $1.2T deficit reduction goal, subtract off how much JSC/Congress *did* manage to agree on reducing (if any), then take 82% of *that* ("to account for debt service" (?)), then divide by 9 to determine how much will be forcefully snipped per year (since this trigger will kick in after the 2012 budget is already set, and applies to the nine years of 2013-2021).

If JSC/congress utterly fail to agree to any deficit reductions, that works out to $2.1T*0.82/9 = $109.3B per year. Kind of small potatoes when the deficit is running on the order of $1,500B per year, and it's how much the feds blow though in about a week but it's better than nothing.

2. From this amount (let's call it $109.3B), cut it in half and allocate one half to defense spending (both discretionary and mandatory) and the other half to non-defense spending (both discretionary and mandatory). So $54.65B to each.

3. Each of these will be split in a pro-rated fashion within their own discretionary/mandatory categories, and those amounts will be automatically taken off the top (reducing their future spending, in effect).

This would work out to roughly:

$50.0B further cut in defense discretionary spending
$4.65B in cuts in defense mandatory spending

$13.6B in cuts to discretionary non-defense spending
$41.05B in cuts to mandatory non-defense spending

The last category is the wildcard, it contains Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with other mandatory spending categories. It would be about a 1.8% reduction, probably not even enough to trigger the 2% limit on Medicare cuts discussed in the prior post.

So I take it back, there *are* across-the-board spending cuts to all budget categories, if the JSC and/or Congress fail to choose $1.2T in "deficit reduction" (not necessarily spending cuts) of their own over the next ten years. Unless a future Congress just repeals the whole arrangement.

On the downside, if the JSC/Congress make almost but not quite $1.2T in deficit reduction, there will be miniscule additional "triggered" across the board cuts to make up the difference, but the military will *still* lose the full $180B per year for the next ten years to domestic spending...

*Plus* the military would take it in the shorts even more, because although defense is not even close to 50% of the budget, it's going to be handed 50% of the triggered reductions necessary to reach the $1.2T deficit reduction goal.

I am feeling less childishly simple already!

My personal issues aside, I do hope this at least provies *some* measure of trust in Paul Ryan in those of you who generally wipe your ass with all GOP politicians' claims (normally a good policy).

It authorizes $1.043T in discretionary spending in 2012, $1.047T in 2013, $1.066T in 2014, all the way up to $1.234T in 2021. That's an 18% rise in 10 years, a 1.7% rise each and every year.

And there is the beauty if (and only if) the monster inflation from the quantitative easings kicks in, since $1.234T will be about enough to buy a cup of coffee and a pack of gum.

To Everyone on DC: Take your time and read through Ich's post carefully. It's long, but worth it.

ELIMINATING A BREACH.—Each non-exempt account within a category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the enacted level of sequestrable budgetary resources in that account at that time by the uniform percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that category.

I had to read that three times and the language is so vague you can drive a mack through it.

1. Before December 31, 2011, Obama (or whoever happens to be President in December ) can submit a written certification that the national debt (actually, "debt subject to limit" ) is within $0.1T of the current debt limit (i.e. about to blow the debt cap), and this authorizes the Treasury to borrow an additional $0.9T. This triggers an immediate $0.4T bump in the debt limit, with the remaining $0.5T left hanging, pending Congressional approval/disapproval/apathy.

Congress can vote to deny the additional $0.5T, or let it slide. If they vote to deny it, the President can veto their denial, and Congress has the option to override the veto if they can, same as any other Congressional action.

Actually, that doesn't sound so bad. As I understand it, the reason Boehner and Reid were dragging it out on otherwise very similar compromises is that one wanted to make sure this issue came up again before 2012 and the other didn't. This seems to guarantee this issue will come up several times before the election.

2013 fiscal year "security category" spending limit is $546B (was $686B).
2013 fiscal year "nonsecurity category" spending limit is $501B (was $361B).

W.T.F.? I was thinking, oh, silly Ich, he swapped numbers... but I read on and WHAT THE FARK?

WHAT THE FARK?

WHAT THE FARK?

WHAT THE FARK?

If the committee comes to an impasse, Democrats get to gut the military in favor of pet programs?

How the fark did this escape note?

Note that Obama's own 2010 budget allocated about $700B to the "security category" -- the recent budget deal allocated $686B, but if the "$1.2 trillion in deficit reduction" fail to materialize, the "security category" gets slashed to $556B,

but matched by bloated spending all to make it look like "both parties hurt if they can't agree."

The JSC will (in theory) craft the actual US Code changes which, if implemented by Congress, would reduced the deficit by a total of $1.2T+ over the next ten years.

I doubt that even approaches 2%. whoop de doo.

If they actually do pass it, Congress is obligated to do an up-or-down vote on it by December 23, 2011, but if it fails, it is scrapped, and the above-mentioned "fuck the military" limits kick in

Unnnngh....

My only hope is that Congress won't have the courage to gut the military right before an election.

I knew we weren't gonna pass something "good." But this is a total disaster. And yet the people who were against this Satan sandwich (where's the sugar? not seeing it) are extremists.

1. Before December 31, 2011, Obama (or whoever happens to be President in December ) can submit a written certification that the national debt (actually, "debt subject to limit" ) is within $0.1T of the current debt limit (i.e. about to blow the debt cap), and this authorizes the Treasury to borrow an additional $0.9T. ...

Uhhh, how the fuck is he gonna do that? He just got $2.4 trillion!?
Is it possible he could spend it all in 5 months?

1. Before December 31, 2011, Obama (or whoever happens to be President in December ) can submit a written certification that the national debt (actually, "debt subject to limit" ) is within $0.1T of the current debt limit (i.e. about to blow the debt cap), and this authorizes the Treasury to borrow an additional $0.9T. ...

Uhhh, how the fuck is he gonna do that? He just got $2.4 trillion!?
Is it possible he could spend it all in 5 months?

"Current debt limit" at the time the Act was passed (August 1), which was already rubbing shoulders with the actual debt (i.e. within the $0.1T "bumper zone"). Obama has already fallen all over himself to request this $0.9T debt limit increase, and gotten it. He sure as heck wasn't going to wait until December.

That $0.9T was part of the full "$2.4 trillion" he was authorized to get (in installments) by the Budget Deal.