Senate Democrats Said to Offer Plan to Delay Spending Cut

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

U.S. Senate Democrats later today will unveil a $120 billion plan for a 10-month delay in automatic spending cuts for defense and domestic programs set to begin March 1, according to a Senate Democratic aide.

Half of the cost of putting off the across-the-board cuts would be covered by revenue increases and the other half by spending cuts, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Feb. 12.

The plan would set a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate for the highest earners, a provision known as the “Buffett Rule” after billionaire investor Warren Buffett. It also would deny companies the ability to deduct the costs of moving jobs and investments out of the U.S., said the aide, who asked not to be identified in discussing the proposal before it was made public.

Next month’s deadline for the cuts to take effect marks another fiscal showdown between President Barack Obama and Republicans. Unless Congress acts, $1.2 trillion in across-the- board spending cuts, known as sequestration, will take effect, weighing on U.S. economic growth.



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/senate-democrats-said-to-offer-plan-to-delay-spending-cut.html

[still_one]

1. first cut should be their salary, especially good Harry. After what he did with the filibuster,

along with some democrats, effectively nothing will get accomplished now, and I would not be surprised to see any Supreme Court appointments get filibustered if a seat becomes vacant.

Expect nothing for the next two years, unless the dens cave in, then expect a lot of pain

[illegaloperation]

2. Personally, I agree with what Reid did.

You see, the Republicans still control the House and talking filibuster wouldn't accomplish much - not yet at least.

If Democrats do gain the House again (which is hard because of the gerrymandering), then they should by all means implant the talking filibuster.

Trying to do the reform right now may angry the House Republicans (which are already unreasonable anyway) and that may make passing an bill through the House harder.

[still_one]

3. From all signs hagel will be filibustered, and if that occurs, you can almost bet if their is a

vacancy in the supreme court, they will filibuster that too

Obviously I disagree with your position. If we had the true majority in the Senate, which we don't because of the filibuster, we would have leverage over the house. Now there is very little pressure we can apply, and the odds a good that the sequester will occur or the Democrats will cave

They have essentially made the President a lame duck

[Purveyor]

4. An Supreme Court appointment is when the 'real fun' begins. It'll be crazy, indeed! eom

[still_one]

5. unfortunately

[illegaloperation]

7. I am not at all concern about Hagel.

Republicans cannot win on Hagel. It would be bad optics for the Republicans to block one of their own especially one who has two purple hearts.

As for the Supreme Court justices, I agree there could be problems.

[AlbertCat]

6. Senate Democrats Said to Offer Plan to Delay Spending Cut

What? This is a headline? It sounds like a rumor! "Said to offer"?

Or "later today WILL unveil...."? That's not "said to". That is "will offer".