Advertisement

May 22, 2013

Year Since the Debt Ceiling Deal: What’s Next?

Do you remember where you were when last year’s debt deal was sealed?  Few people remember the exact date of the debt ceiling deal made last summer or where they were; I happen to know the date and where I was because it was August 2nd, which is my birthday.  My husband says I get better with age – consensus is that the debt deal does not.  Nothing much usually happens in August; there are no federal holidays, lots of people go away on their summer vacations, and generally things in Washington are very quiet.  Well, last August 2nd, the nation’s – and some say the world’s – economy came to the brink and was saved (at least temporarily) due to the bipartisan deal on the debt ceiling, formally known as The Budget Control Act of 2011.

This measure was the result of months of debate, disagreement, dissent, and generally serves as a textbook illustration of the current dichotomy in political views.  The deal was like most compromises – imperfect and both sides feel they got some wins and some losses.  Members of Congress built in a fail-safe trigger – if the “supercommittee” (remember that?) couldn’t come to agreement on what to cut and how much, then automatic across-the-board reductions in spending would go into effect beginning January 1, 2013.  Now, five months away from that deadline most Members of Congress have buyer’s remorse.  The Act applies equal amounts of cuts to both defense and what those inside the Beltway call “non-defense discretionary programs,” which in English means everything that is not defense, not interest on the debt, and not entitlement programs (e.g., Medicaid, Social Security) that were carved out or whose cuts (e.g., the Medicare) were capped under the deal.  The Centers for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimate the Budget Control Act will result in cuts of approximately $109 billion per year, or $984 billion through 2021, for both the defense and “non-defense discretionary”.

Congress just achieved bipartisan agreement on a six-month deal on regular order annual appropriations to avert a government shutdown and get us past the election and push that debate into the next session of Congress – leaving the big ticket hot potato political and budgetary issues (read: problems) for the Lame Duck session.  Somehow between the November 6th election and New Year’s Eve Congress has to tackle the impending sequestration, expiring tax cuts,  fixing the reimbursement for physicians who treat Medicare patients (aka, “the doc fix” or SGR), raising the debt ceiling, etc.  There is not much bipartisan agreement on remedies to any of these issues but there is one thing both sides can agree upon now – no one should be buying airline tickets home for the holidays quite yet.

©2013 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

The Drinker Biddle Health Government Relations team is composed of lawyers and government relations professionals who have extensive experience advancing client interests before the legislative and executive branches of government at the federal, state and municipal levels. We use this experience to assist health care providers, academic medical centers, membership trade organizations, health professional societies, patient advocacy associations and other entities advance their public policy and advocacy agendas. 

(202) 230-5126

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.