New Details in Debt Limit Deal: Where $136 Billion in Cuts Will Come From

[brooklynite]

Source: New York Times

The full legislative text of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s agreement in principle with President Biden to suspend the nation’s borrowing limit revealed new and important details about the deal, which House lawmakers are expected to vote on this week.

The centerpiece of the agreement remains a two-year suspension of the debt ceiling, which caps the total amount of money the government is allowed to borrow. Suspending that cap, which is now set at $31.4 trillion, would allow the government to keep borrowing money and pay its bills on time — as long as Congress passes the agreement before June 5, when Treasury has said the United States will run out of cash.

In exchange for suspending the limit, Republicans demanded a range of policy concessions from Mr. Biden. Chief among them are limits on the growth of federal discretionary spending over the next two years. Mr. Biden also agreed to some new work requirements for certain recipients of food stamps and the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program.

Both sides agreed to modest efforts meant to accelerate the permitting of some energy projects — and, in a surprise move, a fast track to construction for a new natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to Virginia that has been championed by Republican lawmakers and a key centrist Democrat.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/business/debt-ceiling-agreement.html

[lark]

1. Paywalled.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

2. The Pentagon gets a pass again, paid and walled off.

[lark]

3. Of course they did.

just hope no more than $10m was stolen out of the $86m increase for IRS.
Food stamps have time limits already. Is the benefit being reduced from 180 days and if so what's the new limit.

Are there any other major bombs in there?

[deurbano]

4. See if this works:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/business/debt-ceiling-agreement.html?unlocked_article_code=gtR0Oxdo0ngajyq6fKotL7c7J5370kNIXEWi0Sb0mAgqzfW7e_wQdzcPxDukzrg0VRetNE_gEyuNmPNZIxJKwgfPRfQJ9_Kbbld4YZc0teK5A65eniUX0hhMzLOs9L33nwjaFR_yq0Y4xbTO1Azqx7k7jAPqHS4I7CgP1wbappKIKwY56ORV__EV0P8txofu_pZl5ZtxNy-cDOT3rDaV0881WeDTRGi53MlHbN2Y9drkKaocxcZ0gjdeit-jLIGXIReshG175ms8-lb_8RhA-aCmXk6gCVD2WyNvmVqtDmwH4QnvhP6f7oTacP3eQKuBguviTDlSYEv0_hcXyM10RLQ&smid=url-share

[lark]

7. Thank you, that worked perfectly and answered my questions up to this point.

[cloudythescribbler]

22. lark & others -- here's a link to use in a wide range of paywalls in the future (save)

[link:https://www.removepaywall.com/|

[lark]

24. Thank you! I saved this and will use it.

Haven't paid NYT for a subscription in years, but occasionally they do have an article I want to read.

[PXR-5]

5. Try this;

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/business/debt-ceiling-agreement.html

[lark]

8. Thank you

[PXR-5]

6. Maybe give Elon less for his

WAY OVERPRICED lunar lander (aka Starship).

Oh no, can't hurt the oligarchs.

[oldsoftie]

10. It would likely be more expensive to fund a full NASA staff for the program.

China is planning to put people on the moon. So this effort cant be dropped.

[PXR-5]

15. I'm not against the Space Program,

In fact as an astronomer I am pro space exploration.

The LM was the most affordable part of the Apollo program, that Starship was designed to reach Mars, it's overkill IMHO to just shuttle astronauts down to the lunar surface.

Something small and simple is what we need, I haven't had a chance to see what Blue Origin has planned, it might be more efficient.

[oldsoftie]

16. Are both going to be used or is the govt going to pick one?

[PXR-5]

17. As far as I know they will fund both.

As a space nerd, great, nice to have options.

But as a citizen it's wastefull.

[oldsoftie]

19. I agree; pick the best & go with it

One HAS to be better Than the other

[underpants]

9. $10B from IRS '24&'25. Work requirement empty nesters 50-54. Student Loan $ still available

[oldsoftie]

11. If only we could get rid of some of the tax breaks for the wealthy.

At the very least give us a flat rate of X% for earners above a certain level so NOBODY gets out of paying SOME tax.

[Elessar Zappa]

12. Yeah,

there should be some type of minimum rate that all people pay (except those below a certain income obviously), regardless of write-offs and loopholes.

[oldsoftie]

18. I wish someone would propose it. You'd still get to use your losses;

you'd just have to spread it out over more than one year if the loss takes you below the 10/15/whatever% "minimum tax".
If it was kept below the current rates it seems like it would be harder for SOME to vote against. I'd say 90% of the population would agree that nobody who makes 6+ figures should get away with paying NOTHING

[AllaN01Bear]

14. hear. hear.

[yaesu]

13. I'm not gonna comment about how I really feel about cutting programs

For the poor. What I will say is this will not help president Biden get reelected,.

[Elessar Zappa]

20. He's President.

With that job comes the need to make tough decisions.

[honest.abe]

21. He didnt really have any other realistic options.

It had to pass the House which is controlled by the R's. Elections have consequences.

[Demsrule86]

26. Right because voting for Republicans who would get rid of all benefits if they could is the

better choice. And the cuts were relatively minor and not even close to what was demanded by Republicans, but the 'I want I want' (even when it is not possible) caucus can't understand that governing always involves compromise. We don't have the House so the spending was not going to be increased in the next two years anyway...and the cuts are quite minor if you look at them. President Biden did a good job and I believe this will help him to be reelected. and electing Republicans is never the right answer.

Didn't some understand after 2016 that electing Republicans carries great peril for us? Roe is lost and corporations are free to poison our water and air thanks to the Trump-appointed SCOTUS justices. The choice is between Biden and a Republican...probably Trump. I doubt our Republic would survive if this were to happen. So rather than criticizing (IMHO) our remarkable president, perhaps you should lend a hand to prevent the catastrophe that would ensue should President Biden lose. But I believe he will win personally...so I think you are wrong that President Biden's election is affected by this compromise which IMHO was necessary to save our economy.

[walkingman]

23. This is a terrible deal for the environment.

Some say, "But look what the Inflation Reduction Act has in terms of Climate Change".

Well, Biden has approved 6,430 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in his first two years, more than Trump, a an $8 billion drilling project in Alaska, and now a pipeline for DINO Manchin. Any improvements by the IRA are more than offset by these actions. Then on top of it more money for Defense only cutting non-defense discretionary spending.

I think it is a terrible deal and I hope no Dems vote with the GOP to approve it.

[onenote]

25. It's called horse trading and its as old as politics itself.

And i hope every Democrat votes for it, although I know some won't.

[Demsrule86]

27. Really? We have had two terrible ruling from SCOTUS that endanger our water and our air thanks

to those in 16, that thought electing a Republican would help our environment and not hurt our numbers in SCOTUS...they actually said that 'Courts were unimportant'.The GOP holds the House, unfortunately, so there is a limit to what can be done. But it could have been much worse without President Biden's masterful compromise.

[maxsolomon]

28. "Key Centrist Democrat"?

Just say Manchin.