WASHINGTON (AP) ? White House-backed legislation in the Senate to replace $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts would result in very modest deficit savings through the end of the budget year, officials said Wednesday, most if not of all of them through higher taxes on millionaires.
Instead, the bill drafted by Senate Democrats would spread one year's worth of anticipated savings over a decade, a move sponsors say is designed to prevent damage to a shaky economic recovery.
The Democrats' approach to the latest episode of budget brinkmanship comes as the two political parties vie for public support in advance of across-the-board cuts due to kick in on Friday.
The replacement measure, which has yet to be distributed publicly, proposes cuts in defense spending and elimination of a program of payments to certain farmers as well as a tax on millionaires as the main elements of an alternative.
Yet it also specifies that no defense reductions would take place for 18 months, and officials added that the elimination of the farm program would have virtually no impact on the deficit until a new budget year begins on Oct. 1.
The tax on millionaires would raise government revenues through the end of the budget year by an estimated $1 billion ? a figure that pales in comparison to the $85 billion in spending cuts due to take effect. White House spokesman Jay Carney recently told reporters at the White House the administration supports the measure.
The Senate is expected to vote on Thursday on rival Democratic and Republican plans to replace the spending cuts, known in Washington-speak as a sequester. Both bills are expected to fail.
In an indication that across-the-board cuts are inevitable, President Barack Obama has set a meeting with congressional leaders for the day they take effect. While the administration has warned of severe cuts in government services as a result of the reductions, few, if any, are likely to be felt for several weeks.
That could give the administration and lawmakers breathing room to negotiate a replacement, although Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said during the day there were limits to what could be negotiated.
"We can either secure those reductions more intelligently, or we can do it the president's way with across-the board cuts. But one thing Americans simply will not accept is another tax increase to replace spending reductions we already agreed to," he said.
Democrats said their proposal to replace across-the-board cuts was designed with the economy in mind.
It "seeks the same amount of savings in a more responsible way" as the $85 billion in cuts that will otherwise take effect, said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"The impact on the economy is much better. Sequestration as constituted would hurt economic growth and destroy jobs," he added.
Over a decade, the bill would cut deficits by an estimated $110 billion, half from higher taxes and half from the defense and farm program cuts.
That is in keeping with Obama's call for a balanced approach that combines selected spending cuts with closing tax loopholes.
Senate Democrats have been reluctant to spell out the details of their measure, although it is not clear if that results from its relatively small impact on the deficits through the end of the current budget year.
Across the Capitol, though, the party's leaders have talked openly of their desire to spread the cuts in their replacement measure over a longer period.
"It is entirely intentional," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and the party's senior member on the House Budget Committee. "The whole idea is to achieve the equivalent deficit reduction without hurting jobs and having disruption in the economy. You do that by having targeted cuts and eliminating tax loopholes over a longer period of time," he added.
He said the Democrats' approach is the same as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's recommendation, which is to help the recovery gain strength before beginning to make cuts.
In the Senate, Republicans have yet to disclose their own sequester replacement measure. Most of the rank and file favors an alternative that lets Obama adjust the cuts to minimize any impact on the public, but that approach has its critics among lawmakers who fear giving the White House that much authority.
____
Eds: AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this story
Associated Pressetta james songs east west shrine game underworld awakening haywire dog the bounty hunter tacoma narrows bridge open marriage
Warehouse stores like Costco or Sams are great places to get good prices on bulk products and discounts on electronics or gasoline, but they're not for everyone. Some people don't like paying a fee just to shop, or maybe you don't have space for bulk goods. We want to know: do you shop at warehouse stores? If you do, what do you buy that makes the membership fees worthwhile? 
A U.S. District Court in New York dismissed a shareholder lawsuit that claimed Facebook executives including Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg didn’t disclose enough about risks to the company’s advertising business as consumers shifted to mobile devices. In a separate Facebook-related case against NASDAQ, the same judge denied a motion to move the case to a different court. It’s a win for Facebook, as the company wades through a mess of litigation following its rocky IPO. “We are pleased with the court’s ruling,” the company said in a statement. The company’s shares have never recovered to the initial $38 price that the company sold stock at on its May 18 debut. The IPO, which raised about $16 billion for the company and early shareholders, was the most anticipated one since Google in 2004. Because Facebook’s shares have fallen more than 25 percent since the IPO, some investors have inevitably been disappointed. In this case, they said that Facebook executives sold billions of dollars of stock in the IPO even as internal projections suggested that the company’s revenues would fall short of earlier estimates. But the judge Robert W. Sweet said that the plaintiffs William Cole, Hal Hubuschman and Linda Levy bought their shares on the day of the IPO, well after Facebook had made several amendments to its IPO filing. Those amendments including warnings about the unproven ability of the company to make money on mobile platforms. The plaintiffs also cited several reports in the media that Facebook had lowered guidance to analysts, who then selectively disclosed that information to investors. In his ruling, Sweet said that even if Facebook disclosed internal projections that might have been material to the IPO, the plaintiffs hadn’t proven that it would have “significantly altered the total mix of information in the marketplace.” He also said that the timing of Zuckerberg’s decision to sell stock during the IPO wasn’t suspicious either because many executives routinely sell stock during public offerings. Lawyers for Facebook’s executives also argued that the case didn’t belong in that court or in California court, but instead in Delaware where Facebook is incorporated. In a separate class-action lawsuit against NASDAQ for allegedly botching orders on the day of the IPO, Sweet denied a motion to remand, or move the case to another court. The plaintiff in that case, Michael Zack, wanted the case to be heard in New York’s State