Illinois Government Consultants Incorporated

A few days ago, former President Bill Clinton identified a constitutional escape hatch should President Obama and Congress fail to come to terms on a deficit reduction plan before the government hits its borrowing ceiling.

He pointed to an obscure provision in the 14th Amendment, saying he would unilaterally invoke it “without hesitation” to raise the debt ceiling, “and force the courts to stop me.”

On Friday, Mr. Obama rejected the idea, though not in categorical terms.

“I have talked to my lawyers,” Mr. Obama said. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

Adding another element of uncertainty, and possible court battles, to the debate do not seem to appeal to the White House. And it is, in any event, not clear that the nation’s creditors would continue to lend money to the United States were the president to take unilateral action.

The provision in question, Section 4 of the amendment, was meant to ensure the payment of Union debts after the Civil War and to disavow Confederate ones. But it was written in broader terms.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,” the critical sentence says, “shall not be questioned.”

The Supreme Court has said in passing that those words have outlived the historical moment that gave rise to them.

“While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War,” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the court in 1935, “its language indicates a broader connotation.”

In recent weeks, law professors have been trying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some have joined Mr. Clinton in saying it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling. Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existing debts. Still others say the president may do what he wants in an emergency, with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment.

The words of the provision are in important ways quite vague. “Nobody would argue,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, “that Section 4 is clear in its meaning, other than at the time everyone thought that the South, if they ever got back in control, would not pay Civil War debt.”

But Jack M. Balkin, a law professor at Yale, said it was possible to infer a broader principle.

“You’re not supposed to hold the validity of the public debt hostage to achieve political ends,” Mr. Balkin said. He added, though, that “Section 4 is a fail-safe that only comes into operation when everything else is exhausted.”

Mr. Obama’s statement largely dismissing the possibility of invoking the provision may have had a strategic element to it. A deficit reduction deal would seem to be more likely, after all, if both sides thought there was no alternative but economic chaos.

Mr. Obama’s reference to “a winning argument” suggested the likelihood that the courts would weigh in if he took unilateral action. But that is not certain.

“This is not a circumstance,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, “in which the courts have any plausible point of entry.”

Professor Balkin agreed. “This is largely a political question,” he said. “It is unlikely courts would decide these questions.”

Some law professors have put forward possible legal claims that might overcome threshold requirements for lawsuits, like the one in which plaintiffs show that they have been directly injured and so have standing to sue. “It’s unthinkable,” Professor Tribe responded, “that the courts would allow a gimmicky lawsuit to proceed.”

The president, moreover, can move quickly, but court cases take time. “At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?” Professor Balkin said. “It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.”

Another possible reaction to unilateral action from Mr. Obama is impeachment. Professor Tribe said that was “not politically a very plausible scenario.”

Professor Levinson was less certain. Impeachment by the House of Representatives “seems to me quite likely.” But, he added, “it is also literally unimaginable that the Senate would convict.”

A third possible response is what some law professors call “popular constitutionalism.” The meaning of the Constitution, these professors say, is in the end what the public believes it to be. The president and members of Congress may thus pay a political price for taking stands at odds with what the public understands to be their constitutional obligations.

————————-

Source:  The New York Times

The federal debt ceiling debate is already complicating life for state and local governments.

Maryland is postponing a bond sale that had been scheduled for Friday, after the state was warned that its credit rating would probably be lowered in the event of a federal downgrade. California, which typically issues short-term bonds at this time of year, is working to arrange bank loans instead, citing the market uncertainty. And state officials across the nation are trying to figure out what will happen to the federal payments they rely on for everything from Medicaid to unemployment to highway construction if a deal is not reached to raise the debt ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline.

States whose economies rely on the federal government — including Maryland and Virginia, home to many federal employees and contractors — are at the greatest risk if there is no agreement and Washington has to decide which payments to make and which to skip. They were among the states warned by Moody’s Investors Service this week that their credit ratings were being jeopardized by Washington — which would make it more expensive for them to borrow for costs like construction, through no fault of their own.

“For nearly 75 years we have worked hard to earn the highest credit ratings from all three rating agencies,” Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican, wrote this week to President Obama and members of Congress, urging them to raise the debt limit. “Now your failure to get the job done is hurting the businesses and citizens of our commonwealth.”

Many state and local officials are still hoping that a deal will be reached, averting a situation in which federal payments to the states could start to be cut in August. But a number of states have begun preparing for the worst.

Ric Brown, Virginia’s secretary of finance, said that it was a difficult task, made much more difficult by the lack of concrete information coming from Washington. “What you’ve got at the federal level, let’s face it, is outright chaos,” he said in an interview. “It’s hard to make sense out of that.”

In Maryland, the uncertainty over what will happen in Washington is complicating the state’s plans to sell bonds for school construction and to refinance some existing debt. The sale was pushed back to Monday after the state was warned that the debt ceiling debate could harm its credit rating.

Of course, if the debt limit is not raised and the federal government cannot meet all its costs, states and localities will face a new set of more serious problems. The National Conference of State Legislatures told members this week that there was little experience to guide their many “what if” questions, citing instead “a potpourri of ‘coulds,’ ” including the possibility that the federal government could pay its debts in the order in which they were received, or could prioritize which payments to make.

If the federal government were to stop paying some employees or contractors next month, or were to hold back Social Security checks, it could have a “profound effect on state and local tax revenues,” according to a report issued this week by the Pew Center on the States. On top of that, a delay in the payments that states and local governments rely on would pose cash-flow problems for many states. The Pew report noted that the federal government owed $10.4 billion in tuition assistance next month, when the academic year begins.

August is also the peak of the road construction season. In June, the states got $4 billion worth of reimbursements for transportation projects from the federal government, said Jack Basso, the director of program finance and management for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Now the association is trying to figure out whether money in the highway trust fund — which comes mostly from the federal gas tax — would be protected if the debt limit were not raised.

An interruption in payments would put states in a bind, Mr. Basso said, since they use the money to pay private contractors. “They would have to face ‘How are we going to pay our bills?’ ” Mr. Basso said.

California had been preparing to issue $5 billion worth of short-term bonds next month, but now its treasurer, Bill Lockyer, is seeking to put together a bridge loan with banks instead.

“Given the situation in Washington, the treasurer decided it would be prudent to develop a contingency plan, a Plan B,” said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman.

Mayors are also watching the debate in Washington nervously. Several said in interviews that they were not worried in the short term. But some, including Mayor Ralph Becker of Salt Lake City, said they were worried about the general economic harm that a federal default would cause. “We all fear and see the specter, the dark clouds that would hide our beautiful blue skies and mountains,” he said. “It’s hanging over us.”

——————–

Source:  The New York  Times

The contentious budget talks that have dominated Washington for months intensified Wednesday, prompting President Obama to say he would accept a short-term hike in the debt ceiling if it gave lawmakers time to finalize a comprehensive deal.

Obama had pledged to veto any short-term measure, but White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president could accept an extension of “a few days” if it allowed a long-term deficit-reduction and debt-ceiling deal to work its way through Congress.

The White House concession added to a whirlwind week in which negotiations appeared to be changing daily. At first, leaders were focused on a fallback plan that would raise the debt ceiling but do little to control future borrowing. Then they started considering an ambitious, but complicated, bipartisan strategy for raising taxes and cutting cherished health and retirement programs.

By Wednesday evening, as House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) huddled with Obama at the White House, aides in both parties said a grand bargain to slice $4 trillion out of the federal budget over the next decade was back on the table.

All of those options remain in the mix. “There are multiple trains heading towards the station, and we have to decide,” Carney said before Obama met with the two GOP leaders. “We need to be sure that that fail-safe option is there — even as we pursue, aggressively, the possibility of doing something bigger.”

Republican leaders went on record 10 days ago against the Obama proposal, saying that as long as the deal included higher tax revenue, it could not pass the House. And they maintained that stance after Wednesday’s meeting.

In a brief interview after the White House meeting, Cantor said he remained committed to “not raising taxes” but did not deny that discussions included a larger plan. “Again, there are a lot of things that may or may not be possible, but we’re just trying to drive toward a result right now,” he said.

The mood has changed in the past two days after the bipartisan “Gang of Six” senators unveiled a plan to shave at least $3.7 trillion off the deficit. Despite the fact that the plan included new tax revenue by closing loopholes, it received a relatively warm reception in some Republican quarters.

That has given Democrats hope that GOP resistance may be weaker than previously believed to a rewrite of the tax code that would raise significant new revenue — a key goal of negotiations between Obama and Boehner.

Still, the proposal came under fire Wednesday from some key Republicans, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who said it calls for a tax increase of at least $2 trillion over the next decade.

By Wednesday afternoon, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a leader of the Gang of Six effort, said his primary push now is for “an option at some point for the Senate and the House to vote on the plan we’ve put together — which is the only bipartisan plan that’s come from anywhere.”

As the negotiations moved closer to the Aug. 2 deadline, the key obstacle to a deal remained the vehement opposition among many House Republicans to the proposals, especially ones that include higher tax revenue.

Some Democrats and administration officials question whether the GOP leadership can effectively sell a compromise to a fractious caucus determined to cut spending at all costs, particularly the bloc of 87 freshman Republicans. Democrats say they are not sure if there is any way to satisfy the needs of that faction. “We want to accommodate their needs,” Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) said of the House leaders. “We just don’t understand what their needs are.”

In part, this is the same dilemma facing GOP leaders as they try to negotiate. They don’t know what will sell, and selling is the only option they have. Boehner is not an arm-twister — as he campaigned for the speaker’s chair last year he vowed that he would take a more gentle, consensus-driven approach. Rank-and-file lawmakers are surveyed, their opinions sought out, their temperature taken, and then decisions are made about how to maneuver.

“It’s not an issue of style as much as it is an issue of the American people just aren’t where we need them to be yet in order to move the Congress,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

“Part of this is just a slow education process of having people come to the realization of what it’s really going to take to balance the budget,” Nunes said. “I don’t think having a strong-arm style would have been any more helpful. It probably would have hurt early on.”

For the moment, Democrats are still waiting for an answer from House Republicans about the direction to take. “We have a plan to go forward over here, so I await word from the speaker,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday.

Later, after the meeting with Obama and Vice President Biden, Boehner huddled in the Capitol with a group of freshman lawmakers. GOP aides said it could be several more days before Boehner’s leadership team makes clear which path it intends to pursue.

Republicans are awaiting the outcome of the Senate’s debate on a bill that places caps on federal spending and then sends a constitutional amendment to the states mandating a balanced budget.

With Democrats in control of the Senate, that proposal’s defeat is likely to come by the weekend.

———————–

Source:  The Washington Post

 President Obama seized on the re-emergence of an ambitious bipartisan budget plan in the Senate on Tuesday to invigorate his push for a big debt-reduction deal, and he summoned Congressional leaders back to the bargaining table this week to “start talking turkey.”

The bipartisan proposal from the so-called Gang of Six senators to reduce deficits by nearly $4 trillion over the coming decade — and its warm reception from 43 other senators of both parties — renewed hopes for a deal days after talks between Mr. Obama and Congressional leaders had reached an impasse.

Financial markets rallied on the news. And with time running out before the deadline of Aug. 2 to raise the government’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, Mr. Obama’s quick embrace of the plan left House Republicans at greater risk of being politically isolated on the issue if they continue to rule out any compromise that includes higher tax revenues.

Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader who has led opposition to any deal including tax increases, later issued a statement saying the bipartisan Senate plan includes “some constructive ideas to deal with our debt.”

But Mr. Cantor stopped far short of endorsing it. And House Republicans passed legislation on Tuesday evening calling for deep spending cuts and the adoption of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Though the legislation has no chance of passing the Senate, the 234-to-190 vote was a symbolic statement by conservatives heading into the end game of a confrontation whose economic and political stakes are hard to overstate.

The Senate group’s plan, modeled on the recommendations last year of a bipartisan fiscal commission established by Mr. Obama, calls for both deep spending cuts and new revenues through an overhaul of the income-tax code.

But while its sponsorship by staunch conservatives as well as liberals suggested enough flexibility within both parties to get a deal eventually, it would be all but impossible to turn it into detailed legislation — at the moment it is a four-page outline — and pass it in less than two weeks. Both parties were considering ways to use the proposal as the basis for a broader budget agreement if they can find a way to get past the immediate pressure to increase the debt limit.

Tuesday marked the return to the bipartisan Senate group of Senator Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican of Oklahoma, two months after he abandoned the effort by two other Republicans and three Democrats to reach a deal, saying it would not cut spending enough. On Monday he had laid out his own $9 trillion debt-reduction plan, but acknowledged it could not be passed.

Mr. Coburn’s willingness to sign on to the bipartisan approach signaled that at least some conservatives, having made their principled point, might now be ready to bargain.

And Republicans increasingly are showing signs of splintering. Some conservatives within Congress and outside have become increasingly vocal in asserting that the party is at risk of putting ideological purity ahead of the chance for a major deficit reduction that includes substantial Democratic concessions, including cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending.

In appearing in the White House briefing room just hours after the Gang of Six went public with its proposal, Mr. Obama sought to use the development to increase the pressure on House Republicans even as they moved toward a vote on their bill.

The bill passed by the House would slash spending for next year, cap future spending levels and advance a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Its passage was a rejoinder of sorts to a plan hatched by the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, that would allow Republicans to accede to a $2.4 trillion increase in the government’s debt limit without actually voting for it, but also without the dollar-for-dollar spending cuts that House Republicans had demanded in return.

The House bill “isn’t the easy choice,” said Representative Rich Nugent, Republican of Florida, “but it’s the right choice.”

House Democrats excoriated the Republican plan, which they said would devastate entitlement programs though the mandatory spending cuts as a result of the cap. “Regardless of what other parts of this bill say,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, ”there is no way to meet these goals without destroying Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans’ programs, and military preparedness.”

Democrats are certain to make the House Republicans’ proposal an issue in the 2012 elections, along with the House Republicans’ budget passed earlier this year that would remake Medicare and Medicaid. But most attention shifted to the Gang of Six blueprint, and the reaction to it from the White House and Congressional leaders, who were cooler to it than Mr. Obama. 

While Mr. Obama said he did not agree with all of the senators’ plan, by his endorsement of its thrust and his remarks to reporters, he plainly sought to isolate further the House Republicans.

“We have a Democratic president and administration that is prepared to sign a tough package that includes both spending cuts and modifications to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that would strengthen those systems” while also providing new revenues, Mr. Obama said. And, he added, “we now have a bipartisan group of senators” and a majority of Americans who agree with such a balanced approach.

Forty-nine senators, 25 Democrats and 24 Republicans, were present for a closed-door meeting in the Capitol where those in the Gang of Six, except Mr. Coburn, outlined the debt-reduction plan that had been seven months in the works.

“It is early to say, but their timing is good,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee. He added, “It helps that the three Republicans senators are three of the most conservative, most respected members of the Senate who are Republicans.”

Besides Mr. Coburn, those are Senators Michael D. Crapo of Idaho and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who formed the group with Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia. The other two Democrats are Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

A spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner said, “This plan shares many similarities with the framework the speaker discussed with the president, but also appears to fall short in some important areas.”

The timing displeased both Senate leaders — the majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, and Mr. McConnell — who have been negotiating the fallback plan to raise the debt limit that Mr. McConnell initiated last week. At a closed-door luncheon for Democratic senators, Mr. Reid gave Mr. Warner 24 hours to develop a plan on how to move forward — a challenge the Gang of Six met later to discuss.

“I’m happy to work and use anything in the Gang of Six that we can,” Mr. Reid said. “But remember we only have 13 days — 13 days — and there’s a number of senators who have said they’ll do everything they can to stop the debt ceiling from being increased, that they would in effect allow us to default on our debt.”

After the Republican senators’ luncheon, Mr. McConnell said of the Gang of Six outline, “I haven’t had a chance to decide how I feel about it.”

—————————–

Source:  The New York Times

A bipartisan effort in the Senate to allow President Obama to raise the federal debt ceiling in exchange for about $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years gained momentum Sunday, as leaders agreed they would have to act in the next two weeks to avert a potential default by the U.S. government.

The growing sentiment for raising the federal limit on U.S. borrowing sets the stage for a week of largely scripted actions on Capitol Hill, where leaders in both chambers are looking to build support for the plan being crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Republican leaders will first push forward in the House and the Senate with a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. The measure is virtually certain to fail in the Senate, which will then take up the debt limit proposal by midweek.

If that clears the Senate, the House is expected to revise the measure, adding a proposal to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years — savings that will come through cuts to domestic programs but not new tax revenue. The plan would also create a new congressional panel that would, by the end of the year, seek to come up with a way of reducing the deficit potentially by trillions more through cuts in entitlements and other new tax revenue.

While the debt-limit plan has broad support in the Senate, the prospects in the House are less clear and rely largely on whether House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) will bring the proposal up for a vote and how many House Democrats would support it since few Republicans are expected to get behind it.

“At a minimum, Congress has a way to take action and avoid default on the U.S. debt. It’s critical,” Jacob Lew, Obama’s budget director, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

At the same time, the White House will continue to push for as big a deal as possible to cut the deficit, which would include spending cuts and changes to entitlements as well as increases in tax revenue.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Lew said he hoped the Republicans could compromise with Obama on a big deal. But he did not express optimism. “The question is: Do we have a partner to work with?” he asked.

Informal talks between the White House and Congress over the weekend did not appear to move the two sides significantly closer to a big deal. Leaders face an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the federal debt ceiling or face a potentially damaging government default on its obligations. They say they need to get a piece of legislation underway by week’s end to clear procedural barriers and raise the debt ceiling in time.

Most lawmakers were focusing on the new Senate plan, originally proposed last week by McConnell and further developed by Reid. Under the plan, Obama would be able to raise the debt ceiling three times over the next year for a total of $2.5 trillion. Congress could also vote on a resolution of disapproval each time, assigning blame to Obama for increasing the nation’s debt.

In addition to the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, the plan would create a new committee of 12 lawmakers, which would issue a report to Congress by the end of the year on how to cut trillions more from federal deficits over the next 10 years. This panel would seek agreement where Obama and Republicans haven’t been able — primarily over changes to entitlement programs and whether raising new tax revenue should play a key role in cutting the deficit.

“At the end of the day Republican leaders have made it clear that we will not be the ones to put the government into default,” Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the chamber’s No. 2 Republican, said on ABC’s “This Week. “Now the House of Representatives has to make its decision about what it will do.”

“We basically have to accept this responsibility and do this job and lead,” said the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Obama and Boehner have both shown a keen interest in a “grand bargain,” but the issue of taxes has so far proven in­trac­table. Such a deal could still be achieved in the coming weeks, though the prospects have dimmed.

Before taking up the McConnell-Reid plan, the House and Senate will consider the “cut, cap and balance” approach being pushed by Republicans. The House is slated to vote early this week on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would significantly scale back government spending and make it harder for lawmakers to raise taxes.

Nearly 40 House Republicans have said they would not support an increase in the debt ceiling without such a constitutional amendment. But Democrats strongly oppose the measure.

Other Republicans will continue to exert pressure for even bigger cuts. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) will propose on Monday a plan to cut $9 trillion from the federal deficit over 10 years. “The McConnell plan is more of Washington not taking responsibility,” he said on Sunday.

Lew expressed confidence that the debt ceiling will be raised despite some GOP objections. “There will be a fringe that believes that playing with Armageddon is a good idea, but I don’t think that’s where the majority will be,” he said.

———————

Source:  The Washington Post

The state is notifying all 211,000 participants in the Illinois Cares Rx program that they either will be paying more for their drugs beginning Sept. 1 or are being terminated from the program.

However, about 5,700 recipients have mistakenly been sent letters telling them they no longer qualify for the drug assistance program because they no longer meet income eligibility limits.

The Department of Healthcare and Family Services is in the process of sending that group new letters stating that they do, in fact, still qualify for the program.

“Based on their income data we had on file from their last application, they were over (the limit),” said DHFS spokesman Mike Claffey.  “Subsequently, we got updated information.  There is a group whose income has dropped and they remain eligible.”

The changes are the result of the new state budget, which cut funding for Illinois Cares Rx about in half, from $107 million to $53.7 million.  Because of the reduction, the income maximum for participants was lowered, and co-payments for those who still qualify were increased.

Before the change, a single-person household could have income of up to $27,610 to qualify for the program. The maximum has dropped to $21,780.  For a two-person household, the limit was lowered from $36,635 to $29,420.

“This is a voluntary, optional state program,” Claffey said.  “Due to the nature of the state’s fiscal problems, we had to look across the board where we can to trim programs where we can.  We are able to maintain significant help for more than 75 percent of the people in the program.”

DHFS expects 40,000 and 45,000 participants to lose their Illinois Cares Rx aid.

David Vinkler, associate director of AARP Illinois, said reduced funding is better than Gov. Pat Quinn’s original proposal to do away with the program entirely.

“We definitely wanted to see full funding (but) in the end we’re much gladder to see 160,000 people with the service than seeing them all gone,” Vinkler said.

Still, he said, “This definitely will cause major problems for seniors.

“This basically could drive people toward a nursing home placement,” Vinkler said.  “If they go into a nursing home, then the state is paying $3,000 a month once they get onto Medicaid.”

Illinois Cares Rx is geared toward lower-income seniors, so Vinkler said it is likely that many of them will be Medicaid clients if they go into nursing homes.

“A lot of these programs were put in the budget to save the state money,” he said.  “Cutting back on them now, you may see an immediate savings, but in the long run it may cost the state more money.”

Coburn said his agency is recommending that people who are terminated from Illinois Cares Rx should make sure the state has accurate income information for them.  Second, since Illinois Cares Rx pays for Medicare Part D premiums, people losing their state coverage should check to see if less expensive Part D plans are available, he said. 

He also recommended that people obtain 90-day supplies of medication before their coverage runs out and speak with their doctors about using less expensive generic drugs.

The agency also sent a fact sheet to counseling agencies on how to advise seniors who have questions about the changes.

Beth Monnat, a pharmaceutical assistance specialist for Senior Services of Central Illinois, said the agency has received only about 10 calls so far, but the letters went out only this week.

“We think there’s going to be a lot of people calling,” she said.  “I think next week will be more of an indicator of what things will be.”

Monnat said the agency will make appointments for people to review their options.

“It’s going to be hard for some people,” she said.

Teri Johnson, benefits specialist for the Area Agency on Aging Lincolnland, said that agency also has received some calls from people wondering “how are they going to pay their prescriptions.”

She said that agency also is making appointments with people who want to discuss their options and can refer them to other places for help.

***

Four versions of letter

Four versions of the Illinois Cares Rx letter are being mailed, each tailored to the specific circumstances of the recipient.  One version, for example, is being mailed to people still eligible for the program who have Medicare, while another goes to those who do not have Medicare. 

Letters for those still eligible contain new co-payment amounts.

The letters also provide phone numbers for agencies and help lines where people can get information about the changes.

“People are going to be confused by these letters,” predicted John Coburn, senior attorney at Chicago-based Health and Disability Advocates.  “One neighbor is going to get one that says they are terminated, another is going to get one that says their co-pays are going up.”

In fact, it is possible two people in the same household could get different letters, depending on whether they are on different prescription-drug payment plans. 

Some retirees can continue to obtain drugs through their employers’ health plans.  If they still qualify for Illinois Cares Rx, they receive $25 a month rebate checks through the program.  That rebate is ending Sept. 1.

Income eligibility for Illinois Cares Rx

                             Current limit                    New limit

One person               $27,610                      $21,780          

Two people              $36,635                      $29,420

Three or more           $45,657                      $37,060

——————–

Source:  The State Journal Register - The Oldest Newspaper in Illinois

President Obama prepared Thursday to bring bipartisan talks over the debt to a close, as Senate leaders worked across party lines to craft an alternative strategy to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit and avert a government default.

“It’s decision time,” Obama told congressional leaders after meeting at the White House for a fifth straight day. Obama gave Republicans until early Saturday to tell him whether any of three options for trimming the federal budget would win GOP support.

“We need concrete plans to move this forward,” he said.

A breakthrough in the White House talks looked unlikely, however, leaving the Senate framework as the chief option for raising the debt limit before Aug. 2, when the Treasury will be unable to pay its bills without additional borrowing authority.

That deadline loomed ever larger Thursday, as China, the U.S. government’s largest foreign creditor, called on U.S. policymakers to take action to protect the interests of investors. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke warned that failure to raise the debt ceiling would amount to “a self-inflicted wound” that would cause “a very severe financial shock” to the global economy. And Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told lawmakers that they are running out of time.

“We’ve looked at all available options, and we have no way to give Congress more time to solve this problem,” Geithner told reporters after meeting behind closed doors with Senate Democrats. “The eyes of the country are on us, and the eyes of the world are on us, and we need to make sure that we stand together and send a definitive signal that we are going to take the steps necessary to avoid default.”

The ticking clock spawned a day of high political theater on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers grew increasingly nervous about the lack of movement in the House. Many conservative Republicans continued to deny claims of impending calamity, and Democrats unleashed an unusually harsh and personal attack against the man they view as the biggest impediment to compromise, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Cantor “shouldn’t even be at the table” in the White House talks, where Cantor has eclipsed House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) as the voice of the GOP in demanding unprecedented spending cuts while rejecting Democratic calls for fresh tax revenue.

Reid accused Cantor of fueling the “irresponsible voices in the Republican Party” who continue to view default as a legitimate option for restraining the size of government.

“More than anything else, he is holding up an agreement at this point,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the No. 3 Democratic leader, said of Cantor.

Democrats have been kinder to Boehner, who briefly seemed willing to work with Obama to craft a landmark debt-reduction package. But Boehner abandoned that effort last weekend, when it became clear that he would have to convince the House rank and file to consent to a rewrite of the tax code that would raise upwards of $1 trillion in fresh revenue over the next decade.

Cantor, by contrast, has drawn a hard line against taxes, casting himself as a champion of the tea party-influenced freshmen who gave Republicans control of the House last fall.

Boehner and Cantor went out of their way Thursday to present a unified front. Boehner slung his arm around Cantor’s shoulders during a televised news conference, telling reporters that “we have been in this fight together.”

“Listen, we’re in the foxhole,” Boehner said. “This is not easy. Because what we’re trying to do here is solve a problem that has eluded Washington for decades. I’m glad Eric’s there, and those who have other opinions, they can keep them to themselves.”

Still, clear differences were apparent between the two GOP leaders. While Cantor dismissed the strategy emerging in the Senate as unworkable, Boehner on Thursday opened the door wide to that approach, saying, “I think it’s worth keeping on the table.”

“What may look like something less than optimal today, if we’re unable to get to an agreement, might look pretty good a couple of weeks from now,” Boehner told reporters. When asked whether the strategy could win a 218-vote majority in the House, the speaker said: “I have no idea.”

Details of the Senate approach were sketchy. Reid said he is working with the White House and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on “a number of different alternatives” for pushing a debt-limit increase quickly through the Senate and the more hostile House.

“We’re not there yet . . . So I’m not in a position right now to tell you where we are going to go,” Reid told reporters at the Capitol.

Reid confirmed, however, that discussions are focused on what McConnell has called “Plan B”: an elaborate legal framework to raise the debt limit by $2.5 trillion that would place the entire political burden for the unpopular move on Obama.

Unveiled earlier this week, McConnell’s plan included no mechanism to force the sharp spending cuts that Republicans have demanded in exchange for voting to lift the debt limit. But in a sign of the unusual political times, Democrats said they were reluctant to go along with that proposal and are pressing to add roughly $1.5 trillion in cuts to government agencies to the measure.

Talks were also underway over a plan to appoint 12 lawmakers from both parties to draft a long-term framework to stabilize the national debt. The new debt committee would be given a deadline, and its recommendations would be fast-tracked to a vote in the House and Senate without amendment, similar to the process used to close military bases.

Late Thursday, McConnell told a radio interviewer that the new debt-reduction panel would “probably be part of the bill” and that it would likely be asked to issue its report by the end of the year.

Given the high stakes, Reid and McConnell were moving quietly. Too much information, Reid said, could “kill” the deal. “It’s best to try to move this down the field very slowly and make sure every step of the way is covered,” he said.

Separately, House leaders are pursuing an amendment to the Constitution that would require Congress to balance the budget. With a vote expected next week, House GOP aides said the vote could go a long way toward soothing conservative angst over the debt limit, even if it doesn’t pass. The Senate is scheduled to vote on a similar measure next week.

House GOP leaders, meanwhile, have summoned rank-and-file lawmakers to an unusual Friday morning meeting to discuss the path forward, a few hours before Obama has scheduled a White House news conference.

Before bringing talks to a close Thursday, Obama gave Republicans three options: The far-reaching $4 trillion deal that includes taxes and cuts to entitlement programs; a $2 trillion package that would require each side to give only a little; and a much smaller package that would include no tax increases and no cuts to entitlement programs — and do much less to solve the nation’s financial problems.

————————

Source:  The Washington Post

The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday of a “huge financial calamity” if President Obama and the Republicans cannot agree on a budget deal that allows the federal debt ceiling to be increased. Moody’s, the ratings agency, threatened a credit downgrade, citing a “rising possibility” that no deal would be reached before the government’s borrowing authority hits its limit on Aug. 2.

And the latest bipartisan negotiating session on Wednesday evening ended in heightened tension. Republicans said Mr. Obama had abruptly walked out in an agitated state; Democrats described the president as having summed up with an impassioned case for action before bringing the meeting to a close and leaving.

Across Washington, officials were weighed down with a sense that they were hurtling toward a crisis. Grim-faced lawmakers spent the day shuttling from meeting to meeting in search of a way out of the fix.

The stakes are high, for the economy, the financial markets and both parties. But the pressure was particularly intense on Republican leaders, who only weeks ago seemed to be on the offensive and in a strong position to extract major concessions from Mr. Obama and the Democrats.

For months, the Republican leaders have emphatically pledged that there will be no increase in the federal debt ceiling absent huge cuts in government spending and fundamental changes in popular social programs, all without the whiff of a tax increase.

Now, with negotiations stalled and a potential default by the United States government just over the horizon, they are being held to those promises by their own rank-and-file, leaving them in a bind that is defying easy resolution and putting them at risk of being blamed if things end badly.

Behind closed doors and by phone, they groped for a solution and struggled to assert some kind of control over the situation as rank-and-file Republican members, especially in the House, grew more confrontational.

Panic had not yet set in, but the worry and tension were evident as seasoned lawmakers of both parties whose experience told them that Congress always finds a white-knuckle way to avert disaster wondered if this was going to be the time when it did not.

“Our problem is, we made a big deal about this for three months,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

“How many Republicans have been on TV saying, ‘I am not going to raise the debt limit,’ ” said Mr. Graham, including himself in the mix of those who did so. “We have no one to blame but ourselves.”

Potential last-minute options were being gamed out around Capitol Hill. Senate Republicans were pushing their counterparts in the House to deliver some legislation, which could take the form of a balanced budget plan due on the House floor next week. A bipartisan group that had been working on a major deficit-cutting plan in the Senate was trying again to produce a proposal.

And Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and procedural maestro, was pushing his plan that would allow a debt limit increase to clear Congress without Republican fingerprints — and without the guaranteed cuts many in his party are demanding. He would establish an elaborate process where Congress would vote to disapprove instead of approve a debt limit request. That would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling via a successful veto of the disapproval if it came to that.

Despite resistance from conservatives and the initial unease many lawmakers expressed at such a slippery approach, the McConnell gambit was gaining credence as the best escape hatch. Senate Democrats went virtually silent on the idea for fear of jinxing it. While the White House said it was not the preferable option, it was viewed inside the West Wing as a real option nonetheless, even if it would transfer to Mr. Obama and his party all the political responsibility for a debt limit increase.

Some of Mr. McConnell’s colleagues were coming around to it as the reality of a possible default began to sink in.

“I strongly support Senator McConnell’s efforts to avoid a default on our nation’s debt, and the last-case emergency proposal he outlined yesterday to ensure that Republicans aren’t unduly blamed for failure to raise the debt ceiling,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.

But with House Republicans showing little to no appetite for Mr. McConnell’s plan, top lawmakers in both parties were looking for ways to sweeten the deal, perhaps by adding required spending cuts or somehow forcing consideration of a deficit-reduction package. Mr. McConnell portrayed his proposal as a last-stand way to spare Republicans from being blamed for a default if no alternative plan could be approved.

Recounting how the 1995 government shutdown helped President Bill Clinton win re-election the following year, Mr. McConnell said any impasse that drove down the nation’s credit rating and led to government checks being delayed could have the same result for Mr. Obama.

“He will say Republicans are making the economy worse,” Mr. McConnell said in an interview with the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “It is an argument that he could have a good chance of winning, and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of the economy. That is a very bad position going into the election.”

After the meeting at the White House, Republicans and Democrats offered differing versions of what by all accounts was a tense session.

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, said he raised the idea of taking what savings could be achieved now — roughly $1.4 trillion — and then having additional votes to raise the debt limit again before the elections in November 2012, with Republicans ultimately seeking a total of at least $2.4 trillion in cuts with no tax increases.

At this, Mr. Cantor said, the president “got very agitated, seemingly.” Mr. Cantor quoted the president as saying: “Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.”

Then, Mr. Cantor said, “He shoved back and said, ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out.”

“I was a little taken aback,” Mr. Cantor added.

Democrats said that Mr. Obama’s departure was not abrupt, but that he had forcefully made a case that Republicans had been unwilling to compromise. “Enough’s enough,” one Democrat familiar with the talks quoted Mr. Obama as saying.

Democrats said Mr. Obama had set a deadline of Friday for the two sides to determine whether they could reach a broad budget deal. If not, he said, they will turn to finding an accord over how to raise the debt limit without agreement on taxes and spending.

In Asia, Moody’s threat to downgrade the United States’ credit rating dragged down the U.S. dollar. The dollar was set for its steepest two-day loss against the euro in five weeks, Bloomberg reported, declining 0.3 percent in Tokyo by mid-afternoon Thursday, and hit a fresh four-month low against the yen.

Investors also rushed to buy assets seen as safer, like gold, which hit a record high on Thursday at over $1,589 an ounce.

——————

Source:  The New York Times

President Obama issued an executive order Monday asking independent regulatory agencies to join the administration’s effort to wipe out red tape in government.

The agencies, which include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, were asked to report results to the Office of Management and Budget within 120 days.

The nonbinding order expands a government-wide effort, underway since January, to reconsider ways in which the government has created too much paperwork and regulation for businesses at the risk of hindering economic growth.

Cass Sunstein, administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said in a statement: “With full respect for the independence of the independent agencies . . . the President has asked for their collaboration in the creation of a 21st-century regulatory system, using state-of-the-art tools and smart approaches to protect public welfare while promoting economic growth and job creation.”

The independent agencies were encouraged in February to do their own reviews of regulations, but Sunstein acknowledged that the language had a “vagueness and indirection.”

Sunstein said other agencies, which must follow the executive order issued in January, have come up with 30 plans that “are already benefiting from public scrutiny and input.”

“Millions of hours of paperwork have been eliminated, and millions of dollars have been saved,” he said.

———————–

Source:  The Washington Post

 President Obama tried on Sunday to revive the chances for a sweeping budget agreement to reduce the nation’s deficit and repair its perilous finances, but Congressional Republicans continued to balk, insisting on a more modest deal to avert a default on the national debt.

Mr. Obama, meeting with leaders from both parties at the White House, bluntly challenged Republicans a day after Speaker John A. Boehner pulled back from a far-reaching agreement aimed at saving as much as $4 trillion over 10 years, officials briefed on the negotiations said. The meeting ended after an hour and 15 minutes with little progress, but the two sides agreed to resume talking Monday, and every day after that, until a deal is done.

White House officials said Mr. Obama was still determined to pursue the boldest package possible — one that would require new tax revenue as well as cuts in Medicare and other entitlement programs — but he faces steadfast opposition from Republicans and growing qualms among Democrats.

“Congress has to act,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.” “If they don’t act, then we face catastrophic damage to the American economy, and the leadership, to their credit, and I mean Republicans and Democrats, fully understand that.”

Mr. Geithner, noting that the Treasury issues 80 million checks a month, including Social Security payments to 55 million Americans, warned that failure to reach an agreement within the next two weeks could be calamitous. Delivering a version of the lecture he gave to the lawmakers at the White House last week, Mr. Geithner said a default would unhinge financial markets, drive up interest rates, and derail the economic recovery.

Mr. Obama, who arrived from Camp David shortly before the Sunday evening session, appeared to have made headway in at least one regard: lawmakers from both parties pledged not to let the United States default on its debt. That is what the Treasury said would happen after Aug. 2, when the government would lose its authority to borrow.

“Nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling; I haven’t heard that discussed by anybody,” the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said on “Fox News Sunday,” adding that he had an unspecified “contingency plan” to raise the ceiling if the talks fell apart.

Just as Mr. Obama was sitting down with Mr. McConnell and other leaders shortly after 6 p.m. on Sunday, with the men wearing open-collar shirts and blazers, he was asked whether he could get a deal done in 10 days, leaving enough time to draft and pass legislation before Aug. 2.

“We need to,” he replied.

The problem for Mr. Obama is that Republicans are not budging on their demand that any deal include no tax increases. The administration also needs Democratic lawmakers, but for many of them, it will be impossible to vote for a package composed entirely of spending cuts, especially to popular programs.

In a statement after the meeting, Mr. McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, said, “It’s baffling that the president and his party continue to insist on massive tax hikes in the middle of a jobs crisis.”

The House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, said she favored a large deal but that it “must do no harm to the middle class or to economic growth. It must also protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries.”

It was not clear that the president would be able to reconcile these positions, especially after Mr. Boehner set a lower bar for a deal that both parties might find more palatable. In a statement issued after the meeting, Mr. Boehner said the leaders should aim for a midrange deal that would build on spending cuts identified in talks led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Such a deal might produce savings of $2 trillion to $3 trillion over a decade.

Mr. Boehner appeared subdued at the meeting, officials said, letting the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, do most of the talking. Mr. Cantor reiterated his opposition to a bigger deal.

Privately, some in Congress expressed regret at Mr. Boehner’s decision on Saturday to walk away from an agreement that they said would have been a rare opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to radically restructure the government’s finances, rewrite the tax code and fix longstanding problems with Medicare and Medicaid.

In the end, officials briefed on the talks said, ideological differences over a tax overhaul bogged down the bigger agreement. Mr. Boehner, they said, was open to letting Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy people expire, while maintaining the cuts for middle-income wage-earners. But Democrats briefed on the talks said he made that contingent on rewriting the tax code by the end of this year, so that the loss of the cuts would be offset by lower overall tax rates.

The White House, officials said, was willing to put a deadline on a tax overhaul. But it rejected Mr. Boehner’s formula, arguing that it would place too much of a burden on the middle class while protecting the rich.

A Republican official familiar with the negotiations said Mr. Boehner “would only discuss new revenues if they came from economic growth and tax reform instead of tax increases.” And he insisted on a “trigger” that would set off deep spending cuts and other measures if the tax changes were not implemented before the end of 2011.

Mr. Boehner and the White House, Democratic officials said, also disagreed over the scope of cuts to entitlement programs, with the speaker demanding deeper cuts in Medicare and Medicaid than the administration was willing to accept.

Mr. Obama is pushing for a bigger deal on the argument that it will, paradoxically, be easier for Democrats and Republicans to sell to their rank and file, because they could present it as a historic effort to begin undoing years of deficit spending.

As Mr. Geithner said on “Face the Nation,” “It’s not clear that it’s easier trying to do less.”

Indeed, the hurdles to even a $2 trillion deal are numerous and significant, officials briefed on the negotiations said. During several rounds of talks led by Mr. Biden, the two sides identified spending cuts, and lower interest payments that would result from a reduction of the debt, which would have saved about $1.8 trillion over 10 years. But officials cautioned that there was never a deal.

Republicans, led by Mr. Cantor, rejected proposals to close loopholes or other tax breaks for owners of corporate jets, oil and gas companies and hedge funds. They said these measures, which would have raised about $130 billion, amounted to tax increases.

The administration has also proposed limiting deductions for high wage-earners, which the White House says would raise $290 billion. But there is little support for that in Congress. And if there are no tax measures in the deal, the leaders say, they will not be able to corral enough Democratic votes to pass it.

Mr. Geithner’s warnings about the high stakes were echoed by Christine Lagarde, the newly appointed managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Speaking on “This Week” on ABC, Ms. Lagarde said that a default by the United States would cause “interest hikes, stock markets taking a huge hit, and real nasty consequences, not just for the United States, but for the entire global economy.”

————————-

Source:  The New York Times