President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner are continuing to work on a deal that would allow a debt-ceiling increase, even as both sides denied reports Thursday that an agreement was imminent.

According to a Democratic congressional aide, discussions have centered on a version of the so-called grand bargain the two leaders have sought — minus a key element, new tax revenues, that has been rejected by Republicans. The White House told congressional Democrats about this proposal during the last 24 hours.

The deal would amount to as much as $3 trillion in spending cuts, and would likely be deeply opposed by rank-and-file Democrats who have insisted that any package that includes cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security must also include new tax revenue.

For both sides, a deal of that sort would also amount to a bet on the next election, because the tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush expire at the end of 2012.

Republicans want to renew those tax cuts, while Obama has promised to allow taxes to go up on higher-income Americans when the current rates expire.

Boehner’s spokesman flatly denied that such a deal was underway.

“While we are keeping the lines of communication open, there is no ‘deal’ and no progress to report,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

Arriving for his daily briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also immediately denied a New York Times report that the sides were closing in on a major deal.

“There is no deal. We are not close to a deal,” he said. Still, he allowed that there was “the potential here for a significant agreement.”

“We are not there, but we remain hopeful that we could get there,” he said.

Boehner has called a Friday morning meeting of the entire GOP conference in the House. He is not expected to unveil a proposal at that time, a GOP aide said.

Other congressional aides, including a spokesman for Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the majority leader, also said they were not familiar with a pending deal.

“Eric is not aware of any deal or that any deal is close,” said Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring.

Boehner reiterated at his weekly news conference earlier Thursday that House Republicans continue to work with the president to achieve an agreement and avoid default by Aug. 2, when the Treasury Department has said it will run out of money to pay all of the nation’s bills.

“The ball continues to be in the president’s court,” Boehner said.

Also on Thursday, freshmen lawmakers will meet with representatives of Standard Poor’s, the rating agency that has said it would downgrade U.S. bonds if the nation defaults. The meeting was arranged by freshman Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.).

Congressional leaders met behind closed doors Wednesday, among themselves and at the White House, and more talks may occur Thursday, though none have been formally announced.

At a closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats, reports of a cuts-only deal drew outrage. “Many of us were volcanic,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).

Senators were not briefed on the proposed deal during the lunch meeting with Jacob Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, but news reports trickled in during the session.

Staff writer Michael A. Memoli contributed to this report.

A long-standing feud between South Florida House members Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Allen West turned to insults Tuesday after an exchange of speeches on a debt-reduction bill.

Wasserman Schultz chastised West on the House floor for supporting a bill that would cut Medicare and other spending.

“The gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries — unbelievable from a member from South Florida,” said Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat.

West, a Republican from Plantation who lives in Wasserman Schultz’s district, responded with an email to her and House leaders: “Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige.

“You are the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the U.S. House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!”

West said her behavior “dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign headquarters, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.”

He was referring to a demonstration by Wasserman Schultz and others outside West’s campaign headquarters, claiming West showed insensitivity by writing a political column in a local biker magazine that includes pictures and articles that they said disrespected women.

Jonathan Beeton, communications director for Wasserman Schultz, responded: “I don’t think that Congressman West is upset at the congresswoman, but rather with the fact that she highlighted that he and other Republicans are once again trying to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, children and the middle class.”

The dust-up generated considerable attention because of Wasserman Schultz’s role as chair of the Democratic National Committee and West’s prominence in the new “tea party” crop of freshman Republican lawmakers.

Has New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie already seen his “Glory Days?”

According to a new poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm, the man who has become a Republican rock star nationally could face some troubles at home. The poll showed that Christie’s approval rating in New Jersey has sunk to 43%, a 10-point drop since the beginning of the year.

The PPP poll shows that Christie has particularly lost support among independents, a bloc crucial in a state where Republicans need such swing voters to win statewide. And the poll shows Christie losing in a hypothetical 2013 reelection match-up with Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a Democratic rising star.

The more intriguing race is a fantasy showdown between Christie and one of his biggest critics, the real, nonmetaphorical rock star, Bruce Springsteen.

According to PPP, the Freehold, N.J., native would start off any race tied at 42% with Christie, but with room to grow among Democratic voters.

Unlike Christie, Springsteen’s favorability numbers stand at 50%, with Democrats unsurprisingly thinking more highly of the performer than Republicans. Unlike Springsteen, Christie has actually run a state and succeeded in politics.

In March, Springsteen, who now lives in Colts Neck, wrote a letter to a local newspaper criticizing Christie’s state budget cuts.

“The article is one of the few that highlights the contradictions between a policy of large tax cuts, on the one hand, and cuts in services to those in the most dire conditions, on the other,” Springsteen wrote to the editors of the Asbury Park Press. “The cuts are eating away at the lower edges of the middle class, not just those already classified as in poverty, and are likely to continue to get worse over the next few years.”

The governor is a die-hard Springsteen fan who has said that he’s seen the Boss play more than 120 times.

Christie has continued to resist calls that he run for president. On Tuesday, he reiterated his disinterest to a group of prominent donors in Manhattan. Politico’s Mike Allen reported that Christie listed his family and his desire to stay to finish his first term in New Jersey as the two biggest reasons for not getting in.

PPP surveyed 480 New Jersey voters from July 15-18. The margin of error for the
survey is plus or minus 4.5%.

Springsteen’s songs have been adopted/co-opted by presidential aspirants from Ronald Reagan to John Kerry, but we think that if Bruce actually did enter politics, some of the items from his catalog would have to be reworked in light of the modern climate. Here are some possibilities:

Meet Me at a Fundraiser Tonight in Atlantic City

Because the Night is Better for Cable-news Ratings

Born to Run if Booker Doesn’t Get In

That Mansion on the Hill isn’t Mine

Fox News Channel Freeze-Out

The Price You Pay Also Helps Support the DNC

The Ghost of Tom Kean

You Can Look, But You Better Not Touch Because Security Will Beat You Senseless

The Rising, but What Do the Cross Tabs Say About White Men, Ages 36-54?

I’ve Never Met That Jersey Girl

My Hometown is Whatever Town I’m in Today

Campaigning in Iowa Wednesday, Rep. Michele Bachmann brushed off recent reports that she has severe migraines that have led her to seek hospital treatment.  

The Republican presidential candidate told reporters after her “backyard chat” with voters here that she had been in Washington on Tuesday night voting on GOP-proposed budget legislation and had arrived in Iowa well after midnight.  

“I keep a very rigorous schedule,” she said. “I feel great. So we’ve answered that.”

“What I’m here to talk about is the debt ceiling, and I think it’s been very clear that people in Iowa do not want us to continue government spending and increase the debt ceiling. Everywhere I go, this is what people are talking about,” the Minnesota congresswoman said. “They want the economy turned around. They want job creation; that’s my focus.”

Bachmann did not answer any additional questions about the news reports, directing reporters to read the statement that she released Tuesday. Her staff surrounded her and escorted her inside the home of the supporter who was hosting the event, pushing back reporters.

During her remarks, Bachmann did not mention the recent news coverage and instead focused primarily on a message of curbing federal spending and her opposition to raising the federal debt ceiling as she spoke to more than 50 voters in a shaded backyard about 20 miles south of Des Moines.

She opened her remarks by writing figures on a whiteboard on stage — showing what she said was the increase in the nation’s debt from when she first arrived in Congress ($8.67 trillion) to when President Obama took office ($10.62 trillion) to today ($14.3 trillion).

“We’ve seen one outrageous bill after another,” she said, listing the nation’s economic “bailout” package approved in 2008 and President Obama’s stimulus and healthcare programs as examples. “I have taken on a Republican president, my Republican leadership, because I put principle over party.”

I love my party; I’m proud to be a Republican, but I believe more in the principles of this country.”

The White House signaled Wednesday that President Obama could accept a short-term deal to raise the debt ceiling, but only if it appeared lawmakers were close to an agreement on a significant deficit reduction plan.

The hope of such a “grand bargain” was revived Tuesday by the so-called Gang of Six senators, who outlined a deal that would achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction in the next decade through spending cuts, entitlement reform and an overhaul of the tax code.

But Congress must act to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2, and the plan discussed in the Senate Tuesday was just a framework, not specific legislation that could take weeks to move through Congress.

Obama has repeatedly called for a debt limit increase that would carry the government through to 2013, arguing that the political environment for another increase would only grow more challenging with both the White House and Congress at stake in 2012.

Press secretary Jay Carney said at his daily briefing Wednesday that the president still believes that. But, “if both sides agree to something significant, we will support the measures needed to finalize the details of that.”

“We need to be sure that that fail-safe option is there, even as we pursue aggressively the possibility of doing something bigger,” Carney told reporters.

A plan based on a legislative maneuver devised by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell may be that fail-safe option, or perhaps it would be a simple extension for a matter of weeks or months that would allow time for the Gang of Six plan to move through. It is unclear, though, which if any plan could pass both the Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-led House.

Obama reached out Tuesday night to House Speaker John Boehner, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and McConnell. Both parties’ leadership will be coming to the White House Wednesday for separate meetings.

—The House Ethics Committee on Wednesday announced the hiring of an outside counsel to review the case against Rep. Maxine Waters and misconduct allegations against the committee staffers involved in investigating the veteran Los Angeles congresswoman.

The panel voted unanimously Tuesday night to hire Washington attorney Billy Martin.

“Serious allegations have been made about the committee’s own conduct in this matter,” the panel’s Republican chairman Jo Bonner of Alabama and top Democrat, Linda Sanchez of California, said in a statement. “The committee has not taken these allegations lightly.”

Martin’s hiring comes days after the disclosure of internal committee documents by Politico alleging that staff members working on the Waters’ investigation had unauthorized contacts with Republican committee members and inappropriately withheld information from Waters’ defense team. Waters, a Democrat, contends the revelations showed she cannot get a fair hearing from the panel.

Once the committee receives the findings of the investigation of its own staff’s handling of the Waters’ case, it will then decide whether to pursue the case against Waters, one of Los Angeles’ most enduring African American politicians.

Waters has been accused of intervening on behalf of a bank where her husband owned stock and served on the board.

But the case against her, which grew out of an investigation that began two years ago, has been stalled by partisan strife within the committee, which operates largely in secret.

Earlier Wednesday, a coalition of government watchdog groups including Common Cause and the League of Women Voters called on the committee to bring in an outside counsel to complete the Waters’ probe to ensure the investigation’s credibility.

The committee hired outside counsels in 1988 and 1995 to investigate allegations of misconduct against House Speakers Jim Wright (D-Texas) and Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), saying it was necessary to assure the public that the probes would be fair and objective.

Waters, a high-ranking member of the House committee that oversees banking, came under scrutiny for calling then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson to set up a September 2008 meeting during the financial crisis between his staff and representatives of minority-owned banks. The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that referred the case to the House Ethics Committee, said the discussion at the meeting “centered on a single bank, OneUnited.” Three months later, OneUnited received $12 million in federal bailout funds.

The House Ethics Committee also accused Waters’ chief of staff, Mikael Moore, who is also her grandson, of working to help the institution, even as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, urged Waters to “stay out of it” because of her husband’s ties to the bank.

Waters, 72, has defended her actions, saying she didn’t benefit financially and was acting on behalf of minority banks in general, not just OneUnited. Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams, served on the OneUnited board from January 2004 to April 2008, and owned stock in the bank when Waters set up a September 2008 meeting between Treasury Department officials and representatives of minority-owned banks. The most recent financial disclosure report filed by Waters shows her husband’s investment in the bank was valued at between $100,000 and $250,000 last year.

Delays in the case have drawn criticism from watchdog groups. Waters was due to go on trial before fellow House members last fall, but the case was put off to allow for further investigation after a new piece of information was discovered during preparation of a witness for the hearing.

richard.simon@latimes.com

President Obama may be stuck in Washington during the debt ceiling debate, but that doesn’t mean he’s not reaching out to voters in key battleground states.

On Wednesday, the president will again sit down for interviews with local television reporters, something he’s done nearly a dozen times this year, according to a review of his daily schedule.

Aside from two weekend trips to Camp David, Obama hasn’t left the nation’s capital since June 30, just after he admonished Congress to get to work on a deal to avoid a potentially catastrophic default.

Though he’s been a regular television presence of late — with multiple news conferences and regular updates on negotiations from the White House — his press office is using these local interviews to maximize his exposure in the places they’re most focused on in 2012.

The latest round of interviewees includes the CBS affiliate in Columbus, Ohio, a key region in the all-important swing state. (Last weekend, the administration also leaked the announcement of Richard Cordray as the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the city’s largest newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch).

Obama will also sit down with KMBC in Kansas City, Mo., a state he narrowly lost to John McCain in 2008.

The third interview is with KABC in Los Angeles. California has been reliably Democratic in presidential races for two decades. But it just so happens that GOP candidateMitt Romney is in the city Wednesday.

Overall the president has been quizzed by reporters from local affiliates in 16 states since February, most of them key electoral prizes in the 2012 campaign.

Four stations each from Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia have gotten these prized opportunities (the Virginia total includes an interview with Washington-based WRC-TV, which reaches millions of homes in the commonwealth).

Obama has done three interviews with North Carolina stations, and two each with outlets in Florida, Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin. The list also includes six interviews with Spanish-language outlets — and just one with a local Fox station, out of about three dozen interviews.

White House aides have regularly stressed the need for the president to utilize a variety of platforms to get his message out in this new media age. He recently held the first-ever White House Twitter town hall meeting.

These interviews, often heavily promoted as “exclusives” by the local stations, are seen as a particularly effective technique.

On Friday, the president will leave Washington briefly for a more traditional town hall meeting, on the campus of the University of Maryland just outside the district boundary.

After representatives of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the State Department and the Defense Department touted the success of U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan for more than an hour Wednesday, lawmakers aggressively questioned them about a subject that forced panelists into near silence: corruption in President Hamid Karzai’s government.
 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, noted that in April 2009, Karzai issued a decree to release drug traffickers who were caught with more than 260 pounds of heroin.
 
“True or false?” Feinstein asked.
 
Thomas Harrigan, chief of operations for the DEA, paused and answered: “I believe they were pardoned.”

Feinstein, apparently dissatisfied, continued: “To what extent is the Afghan government involved in drug trafficking?”
 
“We’re concerned with levels of corruption … but the bottom line is we don’t know what we don’t know,” Harrigan responded.
 
Feinstein pressed Harrigan again: “You’re the head of the whole thing. Do you believe the Afghan government is involved in drug trafficking?”
 
“If the evidence is there, we’ll pursue it to the very end,” Harrigan said.

So while the officials testifying noted that after reaching a peak cultivation level of 193,000 hectares in 2007, Afghan poppy cultivation fell by more than one-third in 2009, they couldn’t offer satisfactory answers about corruption, an issue that may only be magnified as the United States begins its troop drawdown.

“Lack of Afghan political will might undermine international [counter-narcotics] efforts,” Feinstein said.

Six Republican presidential candidates participated in a tea-party sponsored debate on Twitter on Wednesday — and the results showed both the promise and the limits of the social medium.

The format allowed the six, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Thaddeus McCotter, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and businessman Herman Cain, to interact directly with supporters and detractors — and allowed their respective messages to be relayed and retweeted across the ever-expanding platform.

The downside: Each candidate had to compress those messages into 140-character bursts, which meant most could only address issues in a general way, using familiar bullet-style talking points.

Their responses frequently overlapped each other, resembling a virtual dinner party where all the guests shout at the same time.

It took awhile to get going, as well, as each candidate laboriously pounded out an abbreviated opening statement. Thirty-five minutes into the event, not a single question had been asked.

After that, the candidates answered a series of broad questions, largely signaling their similar positions with respect to repealing the Democratic healthcare overhaul, reducing regulatory burdens on business, and cutting government spending.

Most said that the U.S. had no business intervening in the ongoing Libyan conflict, with Bachmann suggesting that the administration, in formally recognizing a rebel group, could be aiding terrorists.

McCotter, a congressman from Michigan who recently entered the race, said that while he disagreed with the White House’ rationale for becoming involved, the U.S. could not simply walk away. Johnson, a libertarian, said he would pull forces out of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

McCotter’s opening remarks illustrated the curious mix of the apocalyptic and the abbreviated that often marked the event:

“Our American Dream is endangered. America’s dismantling. Abroad, our troops fight terrorists tyrants; Iran goes nuclear,” he tweeted. “communist China claims the 21st Century. At home, R 14 mil unemployed; 30+ mil underemployed; inflation up; real wages down.”

There were few uncomfortable questions asked of the participants and little talk about the debt ceiling crisis in Washington except in general terms. Bachmann again restated her opposition to raising the limit, a sentiment shared by many of the attendees of the event.

And, again, the nature of the circumscribed replies engendered by Twitter allowed candidates to say as little as they wanted. Bachmann was asked about the sizable minority of American individuals and businesses that don’t pay taxes, and replied, “Simple. Fair. Flat. Everyone should pay something.”

The prompted a follow-up question: “Are you talking about Fair Tax or Flat Tax?” that drifted off into the digital ether, unanswered.

The most compelling aspect of the debate may have been the Twitter statistics: Bachmann’s name was mentioned the most often by Twitter participants (1,238), while Cain’s words were retweeted the most often (1,211).

According to the organizers, The Tea Party.net, there were 3,800 mentions of candidates and 4,500 retweets of their comments.

Neither Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty nor Ron Paul participated in the debate, but a new poll Wednesday showed that it may be in the best interests of candidates such as the ones who did attend to start distinguishing themselves from each other.

A poll by Public Policy Polling indicated that an “electability” gap is widening between Romney and the rest of the GOP field, with Romney the only Republican who is showing the potential to compete and perhaps beat President Obama.

Trying for a second day to brush aside questions about whether her migraine headaches would affect her ability to serve as president, Republican candidate Michele Bachmann released a letter from Congress’ attending physician stating that she was “overall in good general health.”

The letter released late Wednesday by Dr. Brian P. Monahan said that the Minnesota congresswoman had a “well-established diagnosis of migraine headaches with aura.” The letter said evaluations by Monahan’s office, as well as by a board-certified consulting neurologist, included brain scans and detailed lab work, which were normal.

“Your migraines occur infrequently and have known trigger factors of which you are aware and know how to avoid,” Monahan wrote in the letter to Bachmann. “When you do have a migraine, you are able to control it well with as-needed sumatriptan and ondansetron,” he said. The first medication is commonly used for treatment of migraines and the second lessens nausea, often a side effect of the headaches.

The physician added that Bachmann had not needed daily medications to manage the condition or medical attention from his office. When asked about the “trigger factors” for the headaches, Bachmann’s spokeswoman said in an email that “the letter speaks for itself.”

Bachmann’s health became a campaign issue this week after the Daily Caller published a story asserting that her migraines were occasionally incapacitating and have required hospitalization in some instances.

Bachmann’s strategy for dealing with media inquiries about her health varied during her campaign events Wednesday. After a “backyard chat” with voters in Norwalk, Iowa, on Wednesday morning, aides circled her as she greeted voters to form a protective barrier between Bachmann and reporters who approached to ask questions.

But after her spokeswoman said the candidate was taking questions only from voters, Bachmann interrupted to say she would address the matter.

“We were voting last night in Washington, D.C.; we got here at about 1 o’clock in the morning — I keep a very rigorous schedule,” she said. “I feel great. So we’ve answered that. What I’m here to talk about is the debt ceiling, and I think it’s been very clear that people in Iowa do not want us to continue government spending and increase the debt ceiling. Everywhere I go this is what people are talking about.”

As reporters tried to follow up, Bachmann aides and supporters surrounded her and rushed her up to the porch and inside her host’s home.

Later at Palmer’s Deli in West Des Moines — where she scratched her request for a spinach salad and instead ordered chili with “lots of onions” as well as a grilled “Hawaiian” sandwich with ham, bacon, cheese, pineapple and banana peppers — she demonstrated steely message discipline during a brief media conference in front of her campaign bus.

Asked whether she would release her medical records and how frequently her headaches occur, she noted that she had released a statement on the issue and immediately pivoted to the debt ceiling.

“The focus that I’ve had, again, is on the fact that as commander in chief I’m going to make sure that we get our fiscal house in order,” she said. “I will not be looking at raising the debt ceiling; that’s not what I’m hearing.”

When asked whether the migraine questions were becoming a distraction, she again turned to spending issues, waved goodbye and boarded her bus.

Presidential candidates have dealt with questions about their health in different manners over the years. After facing questions about his episodes of the skin cancer melanoma, 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain allowed a small group of reporters to review more than 1,200 pages of medical records from the previous eight years.

The campaign of President Obama, who smoked while he was running for president, released a one-page summary of his medical history from his doctor in May 2008.

Some of Bachmann’s admirers have already begun to express annoyance about the questions regarding the candidate’s health. In Norwalk, a man lectured reporters: “We don’t care about the migraines.”

After meeting Bachmann in West Des Moines, Maxine Maggard, 74, and her son Lance Maggard, 51, described the headache reports as just another “political ploy.”

“It would have no effect on how she would govern,” Lance Maggard said.

maeve.reston@latimes.com

As the debt ceiling debate enters its final stages, House Republicans face increasing political isolation in their opposition to sweeping budget reforms that President Obama has pushed for and polls show most Americans now prefer.

Republican resistance to compromise has turned a significant bloc of voters against them, according to several new polls, and has frustrated members of their own leadership as well as establishment GOP figures.

The fear among leading Republicans is that the party may lose an opportunity to lock in budget cuts that go beyond anything Democrats had previously been willing to consider. Five-term Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said he had never seen any spending reductions attached to a debt ceiling vote.

“It’s inconceivable,” Cole said. “Some of the members who haven’t been here don’t appreciate how much John Boehner has gotten for them.”

Boehner, an Ohio Republican and the House speaker, is leading an effort to try to prepare his restive House Republicans for a vote to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate have begun lining up behind a plan, offered by a bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Six,” to reduce the long-term deficit by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade. That plan would include about $1.2 trillion in additional tax revenues over the 10-year period that House Republicans have so far resisted.

The White House indicated for the first time Wednesday that Obama would be willing to accept a short-term stop-gap plan, but only for a few days while Congress worked out the legislative details of a larger fix.

Either way, House Republicans remain the key obstacle to passing a debt ceiling increase and avoiding a possible federal default after Aug. 2. Their strict adherence to a no-new-taxes pledge all but rules out consideration of a larger agreement on deficits and the debt ceiling. Their position is reinforced by the fear that “tea party” groups will mount primary challenges against many Republicans who vote for anything that could be characterized as a tax increase.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and other high-profile conservatives have amplified such worries by harshly denouncing compromise proposals. Bachmann, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, began airing a new television ad Wednesday in Iowa that reiterates her opposition to a debt limit increase.

Many House GOP members came into office with expectations that their new movement would quickly succeed in shrinking the government and halting the growth of debt — expectations many GOP leadership figures consider unrealistically high.

Boehner, at the center of negotiations with the White House over a sweeping deficit-reduction deal, has had to spend much of the last several days trying to get his members to lower their expectations and ease their hostility to a compromise.

On Tuesday, he arranged a vote designed to appeal to conservatives by linking a debt ceiling increase to tight spending caps. The vote passed the House but is considered unlikely to advance. Still, Boehner’s move gave conservatives a showcase vote while also nudging them off their rigid opposition to lifting the debt ceiling. That step could make it easier to approve a new measure in the days ahead.

But the task remains difficult among the large group of freshman who came to Washington determined to cut the size and scope of government — to “do something, not be something,” as they often say.

The new class of freshman and their conservative allies in the House are not as responsive to party leadership as earlier generations of lawmakers. They openly profess more allegiance to each other.

“I’m fired up more than I’ve ever been that we truly are going to change the way business is done,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a rising star of the conservative flank, as the House passed the debt ceiling package he sponsored.

The party’s enthusiasm for budget cuts over compromise may leave Republicans with less than they could have otherwise achieved. Obama had proposed a 3-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, even carving into Medicare and Social Security while drawing opposition from within his own ranks.

Former Rep. Vin Weber, a Minnesota Republican first elected alongside Ronald Reagan, admires the principled approach in the new GOP lawmakers on the Hill. He just doesn’t know if it makes good politics.

“If it’s an all-or-nothing strategy, you’re likely to end up with nothing,” said Weber, now a GOP consultant. “The notion of just standing firm for your principle at the expense of achieving your goal is just wrong.”

A case in point is the back-up plan being crafted to raise the debt ceiling. It is far less ambitious than the Gang of Six plan, providing less than $1.5 trillion in cuts, a level unacceptable to many in the GOP.

It would still represent an unprecedented accomplishment for a GOP House speaker. Nonetheless, rank-and-file House Republicans are unlikely to embrace it.

In the end, it may be a negative reaction in financial markets, rather than political pressure, that spurs action.

Boehner’s “got a big problem,” Weber said. “You’ve got to make the case that the broad conservative principles can be served by this agreement.”

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

As the debt ceiling debate enters its final stages, House Republicans face increasing political isolation in their opposition to sweeping budget reforms that President Obama has pushed for and polls show most Americans now prefer.

Republican resistance to compromise has turned a significant block of voters against them, according to several new polls, and has frustrated members of their own leadership as well as establishment GOP figures.

The fear among leading Republicans is that the party may lose an opportunity to lock in budget cuts that go beyond anything Democrats had previously been willing to consider. Five-term Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said he had never seen any spending reductions attached to a debt ceiling vote.

“It’s inconceivable,” Cole said. “Some of the members who haven’t been here don’t appreciate how much John Boehner has gotten for them.”

Boehner, an Ohio Republican and the House speaker, is leading an effort to try to prepare his restive House Republicans for a vote to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate have begun lining up behind a plan, offered by a bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Six,” to reduce the long-term deficit by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade. That plan would include about $1.2 trillion in additional tax revenues over the 10-year period that House Republicans have so far resisted.

The White House indicated for the first time Wednesday that Obama would be willing to accept a short-term stop-gap plan, but only for a few days while Congress worked out the legislative details of a larger fix.

Either way, House Republicans remain the key obstacle to passing a debt ceiling increase and avoiding a possible federal default after Aug. 2. Their strict adherence to a no-new-taxes pledge all but rules out consideration of a larger agreement on deficits and the debt ceiling. Their position is reinforced by the fear that “tea party” groups will mount primary challenges against many Republicans who vote for anything that could be characterized as a tax increase.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and other high-profile conservatives have amplified such worries by harshly denouncing compromise proposals. Bachmann, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, began airing a new television ad Wednesday in Iowa that reiterates her opposition to a debt limit increase.

Many House GOP members came into office with expectations that their new movement would quickly succeed in shrinking the government and halting the growth of debt — expectations many GOP leadership figures consider unrealistically high.

Boehner, at the center of negotiations with the White House over a sweeping deficit-reduction deal, has had to spend much of the last several days trying to get his members to lower their expectations and ease their hostility to a compromise.

On Tuesday, he arranged a vote designed to appeal to conservatives by linking a debt ceiling increase to tight spending caps. The vote passed the House but is considered unlikely to advance. Still, Boehner’s move gave conservatives a showcase vote while also nudging them off their rigid opposition to lifting the debt ceiling. That step could make it easier to approve a new measure in the days ahead.

But the task remains difficult among the large group of freshman who came to Washington determined to cut the size and scope of government — to “do something, not be something,” as they often say.

The new class of freshman and their conservative allies in the House are not as responsive to party leadership as earlier generations of lawmakers. They openly profess more allegiance to each other.

“I’m fired up more than I’ve ever been that we truly are going to change the way business is done,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a rising star of the conservative flank, as the House passed the debt ceiling package he sponsored.

The party’s enthusiasm for budget cuts over compromise may leave Republicans with less than they could have otherwise achieved. Obama had proposed a 3-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, even carving into Medicare and Social Security while drawing opposition from within his own ranks.

Former Rep. Vin Weber, a Minnesota Republican first elected alongside Ronald Reagan, admires the principled approach in the new GOP lawmakers on the Hill. He just doesn’t know if it makes good politics.

“If it’s an all-or-nothing strategy, you’re likely to end up with nothing,” said Weber, now a GOP consultant. “The notion of just standing firm for your principle at the expense of achieving your goal is just wrong.”

A case in point is the back-up plan being crafted to raise the debt ceiling. It is far less ambitious than the Gang of Six plan, providing less than $1.5 trillion in cuts, a level unacceptable to many in the GOP.

It would still represent an unprecedented accomplishment for a GOP House speaker. Nonetheless, rank-and-file House Republicans are unlikely to embrace it.

In the end, it may be negative a reaction in financial markets, rather than political pressure, that spurs action.

Boehner’s “got a big problem,” Weber said. “You’ve got to make the case that the broad conservative principles can be served by this agreement.”

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

Even as the House of Representatives was set to vote on the Republican “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan to raise the debt ceiling, House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that discussions continue on alternative proposals, which are coming into shape as the likely basis of a final deal.

The plan being voted on Tuesday afternoon would cut spending by $111 billion in 2012 and cap future outlays to 19.9% of the nation’s gross domestic output. It also would require that Congress send a balanced-budget constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, a lengthy process.

• Also

• 

  Symbolic House vote on debt ceiling approaches

• 

  GOP to lay marker down on debt-ceiling as public sounds disapproval

• 

  Sen. Tom Coburn quits ‘gang of six’

Even if passed by the House, it’s likely to fail in the Democratic-controlled Senate. President Obama vowed to veto it even if the Senate did approve it, with aides derisively deeming it “dodge, duck and dismantle.”

Boehner dismissed criticism that the House was wasting time on a symbolic measure to appease the GOP’s conservative base, saying Tuesday that “anything’s possible.”

“I’m not going to give up hope on ‘Cut, Cap and Balance.’ But I do think it’s responsible for us to look at what Plan B would look like,” he said.

The Republican leadership “had a long conversation” Monday about that “Plan B” — a deal being worked out by Senate leaders, based on a legislative strategy devised by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  

“There are a lot of options available to us. There have been no decisions made as of yet,” Boehner said, noting that no other plan has the required 218 votes to clear the chamber.

In the Senate, meanwhile, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) announced he was rejoining what had been called the “Gang of Six,” a bipartisan group that was developing its own deficit reduction plan, based on the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission created by Obama last year.

The group is proposing immediate cuts of $500 billion with a commitment of up to $4 trillion in cuts over the next decade.

Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

Bill Clinton says if he were president, he would not hesitate to raise the debt-ceiling himself under authority he argues is granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The two-term Democrat, who squared off with Republicans during two government shutdowns, contended in an interview Monday that the 14^th Amendment allows for the president to ensure the nation’s debt is covered. He said he would “force the courts to stop me.”

• Also

• 

  GOP to lay marker down on debt-ceiling as public sounds disapproval

• 

  Opponents of raising debt ceiling risk government breakdown, study says

• 

  Sarah Palin on debt ceiling: ‘Reload,’ don’t ‘retreat’

“I think the Constitution is clear, and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said in a talk with Joe Conason of the National Memo.

Whether the 14^th Amendment does, indeed, provide the president with the power to unilaterally raise–or ignore–the debt ceiling has been the subject of fierce debate among legal scholars. The language of Section 4 of the amendment states that the “validity of the public debt . . . shall not be questioned,” leading Clinton and some advocates to argue that the executive branch can take steps to ensure that the nation does not default on its obligations.

But others, including liberal scholar Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School who once taught President Obama, contend that the amendment means that Congress, which holds the power of the purse, is under a constitutional obligation to cover its past appropriations by extending the nation’s borrowing authority.

“Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution,” Tribe wrote in a recent op-ed in the New York Times.

But that is not a universal opinion. Other scholars argue that the debt ceiling itself is a violation of the 14^th Amendment because it allows Congress to play “political games” with the nation’s credit. And there are some, like Clinton, who believe that Obama could essentially declare a national emergency and raise the debt ceiling under Section 4 of the 14th amendment.

“The president can go on television on July 30 (or whatever the practically last possible moment is) and say that he has been advised by (some of) his lawyers that the Constitution is indeed not a suicide pact and that Section 4 does in fact authorize him to take whatever steps are necessary to leave the national debt ‘unquestioned,’” wrote Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, on the Balkinization legal blog.

The Obama administration has shown little willingness to consider that option, however. The top lawyer for the Treasury Department wrote the New York Times to say “the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress, not the president,” and that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner believes “Congress has an obligation to ensure we are able to honor the obligations of the United States.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney told USA Today on Tuesday that raising the debt ceiling unilaterally is “not an option.”

But that hasn’t stopped some conservatives from being fearful that the president could wind up doing it anyway if Congress fails to strike a deal before Aug. 2. One, Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, said at a “tea party” meeting earlier this month that such a move by Obama could be an “impeachable act.”

He said it would result “in the biggest war of all time.”

The prospects for a significant debt-ceiling compromise were revived Tuesday, as President Obama signaled possible support for a plan being offered by the so-called Gang of Six senators that includes both steep spending cuts and an overhaul of the tax code.

Making a surprise appearance in the White House press briefing room, Obama said the package crafted by the bipartisan group is “broadly consistent with the approach I’ve urged,” and called it a “very significant step” in the months-long negotiations over raising the nation’s debt ceiling.

• Also

• 

  Bill Clinton would raise debt ceiling, bypass Congress

• 

  House set for symbolic debt ceiling vote, eyeing ‘Plan B’

• 

  GOP to lay marker down on debt-ceiling as public sounds disapproval

• 

  Opinion: The Gang of Six provides a debt-ceiling escape hatch?

As the House began debating the GOP’s “cut, cap and balance” plan, Obama also told reporters that time is running out to reach a deal and avert what would be a catastrophic default.

“We don’t have any more time to engage in any more symbolic gestures,” the president said. “We don’t have any more time to posture.”

An executive summary of the Gang of Six plan outlines an immediate $500 billion in spending cuts, with a total of $3.7 trillion in deficit reduction in the next decade.

The proposal is based on recommendations from the bipartisan deficit commission that Obama commissioned last year, which he had initially been cool to.

It includes entitlement reforms — a major concern of Democrats — and “fundamental” tax reform, something that Republicans have been wary of throughout the debt negotiations.

What was significant was the support it received, conceptually, from so many Republicans in the Senate — including Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the third-ranking GOP member of the chamber.

“We now have a bipartisan group of senators who agree with that balanced approach and we’ve got the American people who agree with that balanced approach,” Obama said. “My hope … is that [congressional leaders] tomorrow are prepared to start talking turkey and actually getting down to the hard business of crafting a plan that can move this forward in time for the August 2nd deadline,”

Obama cautioned that he had not yet seen full details of the Gang of Six plan, and Press Secretary Jay Carney later said the White House would study the proposal to ensure it was consistent with the president’s principles.

The president said that following the House vote on its debt-ceiling plan, he would call House Speaker John Boehner to arrange for a new round of talks at the White House this week.

“There’s going to have to be a broader agreement on the part of all the leadership that we’re going to get this done in a serious way, and we’ve got a tight deadline to do it,” Obama said.

Meanwhile, a new poll indicates that Americans increasingly recognize the urgency of raising the debt ceiling. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found that 55% of respondents said they believe that not raising the ceiling would be problematic, while just 18% say it would not be a real and serious problem.

Janice Hahn was officially sworn in as California’s newest member of Congress on Tuesday, one week after her special election victory in the state’s 36th U.S. House district.

The former Los Angeles councilwoman took the oath of office in the well of the House chamber, administered by Speaker John Boehner.

• Also

• 

  Janice Hahn savors victory as she looks forward to 2012

• 

  In California race, a test run for the Obama campaign

• 

  Janice Hahn files FEC complaint over offensive video

“Americans are counting on us now more than ever to solve their problems, and working together with courage and in good faith, I believe we can and we will,” Hahn said in brief remarks to the chamber after being sworn in.

Hahn also noted the death of her mother just one day before her election, saying it was the first accomplishment she would not share with her.

Reps. Pete Stark (D-Fremont) and David Dreier (R-San Dimas), the senior Democrat and chair of the California Republican delegation, respectively, also delivered floor statements welcoming her to the 112th Congress.

Hahn, a Democrat in an area where her party enjoys an 18-point registration edge, defeated Republican Craig Huey, 54.6% to 45.4% on July 12.

She takes office as the debate over the debt ceiling nears a climactic moment. One of her first votes will be on the Republican “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan, which would cut spending by $111 billion in 2012 and cap future outlays to 19.9% of the nation’s gross domestic output.

Hahn replaces Jane Harman, who resigned in February to lead a Washington think tank, the Woodrow Wilson International Center. Harman returned to the House to witness Hahn’s swearing in.

With Hahn now seated, the balance of power in the chamber stands at 240 Republicans and 193 Democrats. There are two vacancies: the Nevada seat vacated by Republican Dean Heller, who resigned after being appointed to the Senate; and the New York seat formerly held by Democrat Anthony Weiner, who resigned over a sexting scandal.

Both seats will be filled during special elections on Sept. 13. Democrats have won the previous two special elections, including one for a seat that was previously held by a Republican.

President Obama endorsed a bill Tuesday that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a 15-year-old law denying federal benefits for same-sex couples. 

“The president has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people – our families, friends and neighbors,” said White House spokesman Shin Inouye.

• Also

• 

  New York City to hold a lottery for first day of gay weddings

• 

  Defense of Marriage Act called unconstitutional by bankruptcy judge

• 

  Gay couples in legal limbo with immigration

• 

  Obama stops short of endorsing gay marriage

• 

  Obama hints shift on gay marriage

DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

Inouye said the bill introduced by Sen.Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to repeal it would “uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”

In the past, Obama has voiced support for civil unions for gay couples, but stopped short of supporting same-sex marriage, and instead has said his views are “evolving.”

Last year, Obama supported the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Earlier this year, the administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court, though it would continue to enforce the law unless it is repealed. But Obama supported the use of “discretion” by immigration officials in cases of married same-sex couples in which one spouse is undocumented.

Yet even as Feinstein spoke to a group of reporters about Wednesday’s Senate committee hearing on the repeal, Obama had not officially endorsed it.

Advocates of the repeal were elated upon the announcement.

“It is rare that a White House endorses a bill that has yet to pass first in either the Senate or the House,” said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the gay rights advocacy group Courage Campaign, in a statement. “His support makes clear to all Americans that the Defense of Marriage Act has no place in our society.”

Michele Bachmann says her migraine headaches are “easily controlled” with medication, that the episodes have not slowed her on the campaign trail and that they would not affect her ability to function as president should she be elected.

The presidential candidate read a prepared statement Tuesday afternoon while at a campaign stop in Aiken, S.C., to respond to a report by the Daily Caller that said the Minnesota congresswoman has been victimized by such intense migraines that they would periodically incapacitate her and require her to be hospitalized or seek medical care. The story said that Bachmann relied on medication to keep the migraines at bay.

• Also

• 

  Michele Bachmann suffers from migraines, but campaign disputes severity

• 

  Michele Bachmann under fire for ‘gay therapy,’ police reports, IRS work

• 

  Pawlenty, Bachmann exchange blasts

“Since entering the campaign, I have maintained a full schedule between my duties as a congresswoman and as a presidential candidate traveling across the nation to meet with voters in the key, early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina,” Bachmann said. “I have prescription medication that I take whenever symptoms arise and they keep the migraines under control. Let me be abundantly clear: My ability to function effectively has never been impeded by migraines and will not affect my ability to serve as commander in chief.”

Bachmann noted that 30 million Americans suffer from migraines—and “while I appreciate the concern for me and my health, the greater concern should be the debate that is occurring in Washington over whether or not we will increase our debt, spending and taxes.”

Time magazine is reporting that after Bachmann delivered her statement, her aides aggressively prevented ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross from asking follow-up questions about Bachmann’s health.

Actor Martin Sheen, who portrayed a president on television and is the father of admitted drug user Charlie Sheen, testified before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday to ask Congress for continued support of drug courts, an alternative criminal justice program.

A drug court is a special docket that addresses the cases of nonviolent drug offenders. Members participate in substance abuse treatment programs – usually for at least one year – and are subject to random drug testing. There are currently more than 2,500 drug courts across the country, treating more than 120,000 Americans.

Drug court advocates contend that the courts help reduce recidivism, reducing the number of people in prison and returning law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to society. Drug court participants reported 25% less criminal activity and had 16% fewer arrests than comparable offenders not enrolled in drug courts, according to a Justice Department study.

“It’s a deeply personal [issue],” Sheen told reporters after the congressional hearing, adding that “it’s no secret I’ve been through a 12-step program.”
 
Sheen quickly reminded lawmakers that he’s no expert on the subject.
 
“Celebrity, to a greater or lesser degree, is often confused for credibility. For instance, I am not a former president of the United States,” Sheen said in his opening remarks, a reference to his role as President Jed Bartlet on the Emmy award-winning television show “The West Wing.” Sheen is also well-known for his critically acclaimed role in “Apocalypse Now,” a 1979 film about the war in Vietnam.
 
Despite his amateur political status, Sheen noted that he helped create a drug court in Berkeley in 1996. Graduates from that drug court helped establish sober-living houses in the area. Since then, he’s been an advocate for drug courts because “it is an extension of my work with the peace and social justice community,” he said.

• Also

• 

  In emerging Senate plan, Obama sees new hope for major debt deal

• 

  Obama endorses Feinstein bill to repeal Defense of Marriage Act

• 

  Senate report: Funds funneled to private contractors in drug war go untracked

The hearing was called by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who chairs the Judiciary Committee’s crime and terrorism subcommittee.

Earlier Tuesday, Sheen joined fellow actor Matthew Perry and more than a dozen members of Congress to address hundreds of people in a rally in support of drug courts.
 
The advocates, holding up signs that said “Drug Courts $ave Lives,” pressed lawmakers to commit a minimum of $88.7 million in the 2012 budget toward drug courts, noting that the courts offer a significant return on investment. Every dollar spent on drug courts yields an average of $2 in savings for the criminal justice system.

Beyond the dollars and cents, drug courts have helped reclaim the lives of many who had succumbed to drug addiction.
 
“You have no idea how … far that money really does go,” one drug court graduate said at the rally.

Others charge that with a soaring national debt, drug courts should be funded by states.
 
“With out-of-control spending and surging public debt threatening our nation’s stability, increased federal funding of state and local courts should not be a priority,” David Muhlhausen, research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said before the subcommittee.

Adding some fire to his rivalry with his home-state colleague, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Tuesday that Michele Bachmann did not have the requisite executive experience to be elected president in 2012.

Though he has campaigned intensively here for many months, Pawlenty has been overshadowed recently by the Minnesota congresswoman, who has shot up in the polls. But Pawlenty warned against putting too much stock in Bachmann’s surge.

• Also

• 

  Pawlenty’s bid may face defining moment in coming weeks

• 

  Michele Bachmann suffers from migraines, but campaign disputes severity

• 

  Minnesota spats: Pawlenty, Bachmann exchange blasts

“You can’t measure these things in one moment in time,” said Pawlenty, who served as Minnesota’s governor from 2002 until January. “It unfolds over a long period of time and many months. . . . The sentiment almost always shifts and the early sentiment is almost always wrong.”

After taking questions from Iowa voters in Marshalltown on Tuesday, Pawlenty directly questioned Bachmann’s credentials — stating that experience running “a large enterprise under difficult and challenging circumstances with a public component to it and driving it to results” was “a necessary prerequisite” to being president of the United States.

“She doesn’t have it,” Pawlenty said of that experience, speaking to reporters at the Marshalltown Public Library in the midst of his “Road to Results” RV tour through Iowa. 

The former governor predicted Bachmann would have difficulty getting elected: “I don’t think the country’s going to do that again. They learned the lesson of big speeches and no experience with Barack Obama and it didn’t work.”     

Amid questions about whether he would be able to raise money to support his campaign in the event of a weak finish in next month’s Ames Straw Poll, Pawlenty refuted the notion that this is a “make-or-break” moment for his campaign. He came in sixth of eight candidates in a recent Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Bachmann leading the pack.

“Our goal between now and Ames, which is less than 30 days away, is to move from back of the pack to at least towards the front of the pack,” he said.

“We don’t have to win it, but we have to show good progress and I’m confident that we will.” At the same time, he said, if his campaign is “in last place or close to last place, then we’ll have think about it some more. But our goal in 30 days is to show significant progress.”

President Obama has endorsed a new bill by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, another step in what the president has termed his “evolving” views on same-sex marriage.

• Also

• 

  New York City to hold a lottery for first day of gay weddings

• 

  Defense of Marriage Act called unconstitutional by bankruptcy judge

• 

  Photo: Sen. Dianne Feinstein

• 

  Gay couples in legal limbo with immigration

“The president has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people — our families, friends and neighbors,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday. “He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage said they were disappointed, but not surprised. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.

“There is zero chance that Congress is going to repeal [the law] anytime soon, so this is primarily political theatrics on President Obama’s part,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, an advocacy group that opposes gay marriage.

The announcement is one of the president’s bolder moves regarding gay marriage. In the past, he has voiced support for civil unions for gay couples, but stopped short of supporting same-sex marriage.

Last year, Obama supported the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Earlier this year, the administration announced it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, though the administration said it would continue to enforce the law unless it was repealed. But Obama subsequently supported the use of discretion by immigration officials in cases of married same-sex couples in which one spouse is undocumented.

Advocates of the repeal were elated at the news.

“It is rare that a White House endorses a bill that has yet to pass first in either the Senate or the House,” Rick Jacobs, chairman of the gay rights advocacy group Courage Campaign, said in a statement. “His support makes clear to all Americans that the Defense of Marriage Act has no place in our society.”

Despite Obama’s support, the bill faces long odds. With 27 co-sponsors, Feinstein has just fewer than half the votes for a filibuster-proof majority. And in the Republican-controlled House, Speaker John A. Boehner has taken on the responsibility of defending the act in court since the administration bowed out.

Feinstein plans to make the case that the law should be repealed because the issue should be left up to the states.

“Family law has traditionally been the preserve of state law. The single exception is the Defense of Marriage Act,” she said, speaking to reporters before Obama’s announcement.

“This is not a cause which we are going to drop,” Feinstein said. “We are not faint hearts about this.”

Supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act disagreed with her argument.

“The federal government doesn’t get to tell the states what their laws will be,” Gallagher said. “And the states don’t get to decide for Congress what Congress’ laws should be.”

christine.maiduc@latimes.com

The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a Republican-backed plan to extend the nation’s borrowing capacity in return for a cap on future government spending and a balanced budget amendment.

The vote on the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan was largely symbolic, called to give voice to the conservative majority that has refused to compromise with the White House on raising the debt ceiling. It passed 234-190, with Democrats largely united in opposition.

• Also

• 

  In emerging Senate plan, Obama sees new hope for major debt deal

• 

  Bill Clinton would raise debt ceiling, bypass Congress

• 

  House set for symbolic debt ceiling vote, eyeing ‘Plan B’

The proposal would cut spending by $111 billion in 2012 and cap future outlays to 19.9% of the nation’s gross domestic output. It also would require that Congress send a balanced-budget constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, a lengthy process.

Some Republicans who voted no did so because they oppose any increase in the debt ceiling, even with spending cuts.

The plan is all but certain to stall in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and Obama has threatened to veto it should it reach his desk. But it now clears the way for a final round of negotiations aimed at settling on a consensus plan that could move through both chambers.

Earlier Tuesday, President Obama said he planned to call Speaker of the House John A Boehner (R-Ohio) after the vote to invite the parties back to the White House.

As the House debated its plan, the so-called Gang of Six senators outlined the framework of a new proposal that appeared to revive the chances of a “grand bargain” that would achieve significant deficit reduction through both spending cuts, entitlement reform and new revenues.

Obama signaled he could embrace such a plan, saying it matched his call for a “balanced approach.” Boehner countered that it resembled proposals that had been rejected during previous White House negotiations.

But Eric Cantor, the House majority leader who had pulled out of early White House negotiations in opposition to tax increases, said it “does seem to include some constructive ideas.”

Members of Congress are likely to remain in Washington through the weekend, with the clock ticking for legislation to raise the debt ceiling to be introduced so that it could pass by the Aug. 2 deadline issued by the Treasury Department.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that all parties would share in the blame if the debt ceiling is not raised and the government defaults — 39% say they’d blame Republicans in Congress, while 35% would blame Obama and Democrats in Congress, and another 17% said each side equally.

With the deadline swiftly approaching for a deal to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis, the volume on Capitol Hill is about to be cranked up to “11.”

House Republicans are pushing ahead with votes this week on a proposal backed by chamber conservatives that would raise the debt ceiling the required $2.4 trillion but would ultimately cap government spending at 18% of the nation’s gross domestic product, require Congress to pass a balanced budget each year, and slash more than $110 billion from the 2012 fiscal year budget.

The measure, which may pass the House by a majority vote but is expected to go nowhere after that, is either a final, defiant — albeit symbolic — stand by House Republicans before acceding to a compromise on the debt ceiling or a formal show of intransigence that illustrates how difficult it will be for the House to sign off on any deal that includes President Obama’s signature.

The White House Monday wasted no time twisting the dial, with the president threatening to veto the House bill, even though there’s little chance it can pass the Senate.

At any rate, it appears that with the Aug. 2 deadline for a debt-limit increase looming, things will slow down for a bit before they speed up. Republican leaders in the House and Senate have indicated that they want to fold in time for a floor debate in order to mollify conservatives on both ends of the Capitol, who are certain to squawk long and hard about any final deal that does not include the kind of significant spending cuts they seek.

That doesn’t mean both sides have stopped talking. Senate leaders are working on a budget proposal that would cut $1.5 trillion, while other reports have House Speaker John Boehner and the White House still working on some version of the “grand bargain” that could wipe out $4 trillion or more from the budget over the next decade but would also likely include some elements of entitlement-program reform as well as a some accord on modifying the tax code.

Then there is the in-case-of-emergency-break-glass option that was floated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week, which involves a dose of procedural flim-flammery that would provide the White House with a debt-ceiling increase to stave off economic calamity while handing the GOP some political cover by voting on the record against the increases.

But the attention, at least for the next couple of days, will fall on the House. The proposal being offered would force federal spending to fall below 20% of GDP by 2021, which would require massive spending cuts, likely including the Pentagon or entitlement programs or both. (Federal spending currently accounts for about one-quarter of GDP.)

It would also require Congress to pass a budget matching revenues with outlays. Because that would require altering the Constitution, that proposal would need the vote of two-thirds of both chambers. Those votes don’t exist in the Senate. Republicans came within one vote of a balanced-budget amendment in 1995. Such a constitutional amendment would then would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Although the vote will serve as an attempt to assuage House conservatives (and perhaps show them the limits of the support on the Hill for their proposals), Democratic groups are eager to use it to reinforce their running claims that the GOP is out to radically alter Medicare, a message many feared was growing muddled as Obama last week showed some willingness to also consider changes to the popular program.

“Let’s let the American people decide,” Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the head of the Republican Study Committee, a House GOP policy arm, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Do they want something common sense as cutting spending, capping the growth in government and requiring a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?”

The American people, however, seem to be registering their disapproval with the GOP, according to a new CBS poll that showed just 21% of those surveyed approved of Republicans’ handling of the debt-limit crisis, compared with 43% approving of Obama’s stance.

Eric Cantor, the House majority leader and a key figure in the debt talks, made clear in an Op-Ed article Monday in his hometown paper in Richmond, Va., that he’s solidly behind the plan, which has support from “tea party”-backed freshmen legislators.

It remains uncertain what kind of ultimate compromise on the debt-ceiling Cantor would support. But observers hoping that this week would bring some relief from the histrionics of last week are likely to be disappointed.

Rick Perry’s flirtation with a presidential run may be nearing an end.

The Texas governor told the Des Moines Register — the largest newspaper in the leadoff nominating state — that he’s two to three weeks away from making a decision.

That timeframe puts him on track for an announcement in the first weeks of August, a time when the announced Republican contenders will be barnstorming Iowa ahead of the Ames Straw Poll, one of the nominating race’s major cattle calls.

It also promises to draw even more attention to an Aug. 6 prayer gathering that Perry is hosting at Houston’s Reliant Stadium, called: “The Response: a call to prayer for a nation in crisis.”

“As an elected leader, I’m all too aware of government’s limitations when it comes to fixing things that are spiritual in nature. That’s where prayer comes in, and we need it more than ever,” Perry says in a video posted to the event’s website.

In the Des Moines Register interview, Perry claims that running for president “is what I’ve been called to do,” and “what America needs.”

Perry’s entrance would undeniably scramble the GOP race. Rep. Michele Bachmann has emerged in the past month as the most prominent challenger to Mitt Romney’s status as national front-runner, owing to her connection with “tea party” activists and social conservatives.

Perry’s appeal is with just that faction of the GOP base, and unlike Bachmann — or any of the candidates, for that matter — he has a 10-year record in an executive office and the launching pad of one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing states.

“If anybody tries to argue the fact that we have not created an economic juggernaut in the state of Texas, then they’re either naive, they have a political agenda, or they’re just not paying attention,” Perry told the Register, hinting at what would be the foundation of his campaign’s message.

In jumping into the campaign pool, only Sarah Palin could make a bigger splash. Perry arguably has as close a political connection to Palin as anyone short of John McCain, who led the ticket when they ran for the White House in 2008. One of her first campaign events after the 2008 election was on Perry’s behalf, as he faced a primary challenge in his reelection bid from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Palin hasn’t offered the same kind of guidance as to when she might make a decision on running, however. By most accounts, she has not been taking the kind of preparatory steps that Perry is. Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad told the Register he has spoken with Perry, and expects him to visit the state soon. Key figures in New Hampshire, the first primary state, have also said Perry has reached out to them.

With less than a month to go before the Iowa straw poll, it has become make-or-break time for Tim Pawlenty. And he is quickening his pace accordingly.

Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor who has seen his months-long presidential bid gain little traction with Republican voters, has the most aggressive schedule this week of any GOP contender—and all of it will take place in Iowa, the state that has become his proving ground.

The straw poll, an Iowa tradition that is more of a test of candidate’s viability than a coronation, takes place in Ames on Aug. 13. A debate will be held in Ames two days earlier.

While other candidates will fan out beyond Iowa this week, the man they call T-Paw is scheduled for no fewer than 12 events across the Hawkeye State, mostly in the central region not far from the site of the poll.

He’s facing two formidable pressures: time and money. While Pawlenty has resisted saying that he needs to win the straw poll to establish his bona fides going forward, he has to show Iowans (and donors and the media) that he has at least a decent chance to win next February. Anything less than that and the vultures start locking in.

Pawlenty raised $4.3 million last quarter and has about $1.4 million to spend in advance of Ames. But he must be able to cover his traveling expenses, pay his staff (which ran up a $600,000 tab last quarter), and stay on the air with ads in the hope that a strong showing in the poll can propel him forward.

Time is running out in another way, as well. Each day brings the possibility that either Texas Gov. Rick Perry or Sarah Palin could enter the race, potentially draining conservative support—and money—away from the affable Minnesotan. Either Perry or Palin would immediately become a strong contender to win the Iowa caucuses.

Pawlenty’s plan all along has been to present himself as the experienced conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, but that strategy has been upended by the attention generated in Iowa by Rep. Michele Bachmann’s candidacy.

Pawlenty’s campaign may be counting on voters to move in his direction as Bachmann’s record falls under increasing scrutiny. And unlike Bachmann, who holds a day job in the House of Representatives, Pawlenty can dedicate himself full-time to campaigning.

The Republican National Committee is charging President Obama with “an apparent crime” in connection with a contest conducted by his campaign, a sensational claim that the White House argues is completely without merit.

If this were Clue, the GOP’s argument is this: Obama did it in the Map Room with the video camera.

Last month, the Obama campaign released a video (see below) featuring the president inviting his supporters to enter a raffle for a chance to have dinner with him and Vice President Joe Biden.

The video, the White House confirms, was filmed in the Map Room of the White House, and all related costs were paid by the Democratic National Committee.

RNC chairman Reince Priebus claims that the production runs afoul of a criminal statute that makes it “unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the federal government … to solicit or receive a donation of money … while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.”

In a letter to Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., Priebus asks the Department of Justice “to investigate this possible criminal act by the president of the United States.”

The White House says the Map Room, located on the ground level of the presidential mansion, is part of the “residence,” and points to a 1979 finding by the Office of Legal Council saying that “areas within the discrete private residence area … may therefore reasonably be seen to fall outside the reach of the statute.”

The RNC counters that the room “has been used for a myriad of official functions,” the first of which under Obama was the administration of a re-do of his oath of office one day after his public inauguration, when he and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. garbled the wording.

But most importantly, the White House also points out that Obama never in the video solicits a single penny in contributions. The contest, which has since ended, suggested supporters give $5 to enter, but a disclaimer noted that “no purchase, payment or contribution [is] necessary to win.”

“This is a disgraceful, desperate and politically-motivated attempt at getting headlines by a Republican Party awash in special interest cash which is fighting to preserve tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires at the expense of seniors,” DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.

A White House spokesman also provided links to paid campaign ads from past presidents filmed on the White House grounds.

The RNC’s request is the latest attempt by Republicans to kick up dust over presidential fundraising. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) has asked the White House and DNC to turn over documents to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by next week in connection to the same video.

The Justice Department is trying to protect its political appointees from the Fast and Furious scandal by concealing an internal “smoking gun” report and other documents that acknowledge the role top officials played in the program that allowed firearms to flow illegally into Mexico, according to the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Kenneth E. Melson, the ATF’s acting director, also told congressional investigators this month that the affidavits prepared to obtain wiretaps used in the ill-fated operation were inconsistent with Justice Department officials’ public statements about the program. Justice Department officials advised him not to raise his concerns with Congress about “institutional problems” with the Fast and Furious operation, Melson said.

“It was very frustrating to all of us,” Melson told congressional investigators in a private meeting over the Fourth of July holiday, “and it appears thoroughly to us that the department is really trying to figure out a way to push the information away from their political appointees at the department.”

Not only was the department slow to react, Melson said, but Justice Department officials indicated they did not want him to cooperate with Congress.

A transcript of his comments was released Monday by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Melson said he wasn’t attempting to shield his agency from its share of the blame. He acknowledged an instance in which his agents failed to intercept high-powered weapons when they could have.

“The deputy attorney general’s office wasn’t very happy with us” at the ATF, Melson said, “because they thought this was an admission that there were mistakes made. Well, there were some mistakes made.”

Justice Department officials denied they were stonewalling the congressional investigation. They said they were cooperating and had been providing thousands of pages of documents and other material to investigators.

“Any notion that the department has failed to cooperate with the investigation is simply not based in fact,” said Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman. She added that the department’s inspector general’s office was reviewing the Fast and Furious operation.

“The department, like the committee, is interested in determining whether Operation Fast and Furious was appropriately handled,” Schmaler said.

The intent of Fast and Furious was to allow illegal straw purchasers to buy guns so ATF agents could follow the weapons and ferret out gun-smuggling routes into Mexico. But many of the approximately 1,700 weapons eluded tracing — some even before they were shipped over the border.

Nearly 200 of the weapons were later found at crime scenes in Mexico, and two were recovered at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent’s slaying in Arizona in December.

Melson said the Justice Department repeatedly thwarted his attempts to tell investigators about the failures of Fast and Furious, which was run out of the ATF’s Phoenix field office. When the ATF reassigned managers in Phoenix, he said, “the department resisted” his offer to tell Congress about the changes. Melson said he was told not to issue any news releases about Fast and Furious and was instructed not to brief rank-and-file ATF agents about the growing scandal.

When Grassley sought to meet with Melson this year, the Justice Department blocked that interview too, Melson said. “This is really just poking [Grassley] in the eye,” Melson said he told Justice Department officials. “He’s going to get it through the back door anyway, so why are we aggravating this situation?”

Melson said he felt “very torn” when he learned after the operation went awry that some of the Mexican drug cartel leaders targeted in the program were paid informants for the FBI.

“Let me say that I am frustrated and disappointed in the way the whole thing has been handled, unfortunately,” he said.

richard.serrano@latimes.com

Sarah Palin’s documentary was defeated this weekend — by a kid wizard in glasses.

In fairness to Palin and the hagiographical film titled “The Undefeated,” it was an uphill climb for any movie this weekend, as the final chapter of the Harry Potter saga smashed all comers on its way to a weekend box office record. (Winnie the Pooh had the honey-glazed stuffing beaten out of him, for example.)

The Palin film, which chronicles her political rise in Alaska, opened in 10 markets this weekend (including a screening in Orange County that was attended by empty seats) and took in estimates say between $65,000 and $70,000.

By contrast, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2” raked in $168.6 million, almost enough to cover the proposed increase in the federal debt ceiling.

That’s not a fair comparison, of course. Potter opened in 4,375 theaters, and according to Box Office Mojo, that amounted to more than $38,000 per theater. “The Undefeated” averaged $6,700 per cinema.

The Times’ “24 Frames” blog calls that a “small number for a limited-release movie.” The Hollywood Reporter termed the showing “so-so.”

The Atlantic, which brought in its own box office expert, labeled the film “a bust” and compared it unfavorably to other politically charged movies such as “Fahrenheit 9/11″ and “The Passion of the Christ.”

The film’s per-theater tally tracks very closely to that of “Atlas Shrugged,” an adaptation of the Ayn Rand novel that was marketed in similar conservative circles earlier this year. Does that mean that, like Palin herself, “The Undefeated” may hold strong appeal to the base, but little beyond it?

The film’s director, Stephen Bannon, called the opening a success and said the movie is relying on social media and word-of-mouth to generate buzz. He also said the movie played in small and large theaters, skewing its numbers downward.

“This is a documentary opening against ‘Harry Potter’ on the toughest weekend of the year. We had small numbers but only in small theaters. In bigger markets, like Orange County, we’ll do $12,000 per screen,” Bannon told the Hollywood Reporter.

“We are extremely pleased with the audience reaction, which has been over-the-top enthusiastic and very passionate, including standing ovations at most screenings,” said Trevor Drinkwater, the chief executive officer of ARC Entertainment, the film’s distributor, in a statement. “We expect word-of-mouth to keep ticket sales strong and we will definitely expand the film to a wider national audience. With merely three weeks of preparation and a virtually non-existent traditional advertising spend, the film did exceptionally well.”

ARC said details of a wider release would be announced soon. The initial run included cities located in states with large swaths of conservative residents such as Indianapolis, Houston, Oklahoma City, Orlando and Phoenix. But the film is likely to run up against the mystical Potter steamroller every step of the way.

Of course the real test of any movie is not its gross, but how much money its producers make. Those figures aren’t likely to be available. To that end, the movie’s backers suggest that “The Undefeated” is already a hit because of its low production cost and small marketing budget. A social media campaign saved the film’s promoters “millions” in promotion and advertising, Bannon said.

“This film will find its audience because of its appeal and our savvy distribution partners,” he said.

That could be the real box office magic.

House Democrats, a somewhat luckless bunch that rarely gets to relish the taste of victory these days, finally got to do some relishing Friday morning.  
                

• Also

• 

  Obama on debt-ceiling crisis: ‘We are running out of time’

• 

  Judge declares mistrial in Roger Clemens perjury case

• 

  Iowa Democrats trying to stay in the game

Democrats pulled off an upset win in the annual congressional baseball game on Thursday, thanks to some stellar pitching from Rep. Cedric Richmond, a rookie out of Louisiana’s 2nd District and a former player at Morehouse College.

Richmond nearly no-hit the lineup of Republicans, ultimately surrendering just two runs on a series of walks and some sloppy play in the seventh and final inning.

The annual matchup – played these days at Nationals Park – is a long-standing tradition and ostensibly an attempt to foster “friendly” competition. It’s largely a House affair, although senators are allowed to play. (Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul suited up for the GOP on Thursday.)

Since the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call started sponsoring the event 50 years ago, Republicans have dominated with a 33-16-1 record.

The GOP was favored again this year, largely because the Democratic roster was decimated in the offseason — also known as the midterm elections.

On the field, as in the House, Democrats faced a larger, younger and arguably more energized team of Republicans. (The GOP had nearly twice as many players and roughly half the gray-haired heads as Democrats. )

But numbers aren’t destiny, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) gloated at a news conference this morning.

“We think this is foreshadowing things to come,” he said, as he gleeful announced the results before launching into today’s talking point in the bitter debt-ceiling negotiations: “teamwork.”

A group of liberal voters who said they volunteered and donated to President Obama’s 2008 campaign are threatening to pull their support if he signs off on cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security during ongoing debt negotiations with Republicans.

About a dozen members from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee dropped off what they said were 200,000 petitions at Obama’s downtown Chicago reelection headquarters Friday morning urging the president to protect the entitlement programs or lose donors and door-knockers who they argued were critical to his victory.

• Also

• 

  Obama on debt-ceiling crisis: ‘We are running out of time’

• 

  Obama faces heat from the left over Social Security

• 

  Insolvency looms for federal entitlement programs, government warns

The group said the pledges represent $17 million in small donations and more than 2.6 million in volunteer hours during the 2008 campaign. Most of those who showed up at Prudential Plaza acknowledged they would still vote for Obama, but said they were hoping to send a message.

“It’s not a question of who they are going to support for president — they are going to vote for Barack Obama — it’s a question of where their time and money is going to go,” said Neil Sroka, spokesman for the group. “What this is about is about letting the president know how desperately we want to support his campaign, how much we want to be volunteering and being right in the foxhole again.”

Donna Conroy, an information technology and communications freelancer from Chicago, said she volunteered for Obama in 2008 but is now “asking serious questions about how I conduct my life and who I align with.”

“When I heard he was willing to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, he signaled to me that my future was bleak,” Conroy said.

At a White House news conference Friday morning, Obama said such items as means testing for Medicare have been among the issues he’s been considering in debt and deficit reduction talks, potentially creating higher premiums and co-payments for wealthier seniors. But he said unlike a House GOP plan to replace Medicare with a healthcare voucher for seniors, “you can save trillions of dollars” in entitlement programs “while maintaining the core integrity of the program.”

An administration official said Obama was signaling only his “openness, as part of a potential big deal, to asking Medicare recipients over those high-income thresholds to pay modestly higher premiums.”

“At no point did the administration express openness to raising premiums on Medicare beneficiaries below those income levels,” the official said.

The PCCC delivered the petitions to Ann Marie Habershaw, chief operating officer of Obama’s campaign.

“Americans elected the president in 2008 to take on the big challenges facing our country, and he’s engaged in an effort to do just that, promoting a balanced approach to reduce the deficit and promote economic growth that protects the middle class and seniors,” a campaign spokesman said in a statement.

Michael A. Memoli of the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

In raising a staggering $86 million in the last three months, President Obama’s reelection campaign got a substantial boost from a network of well-connected friends.

The campaign revealed at least 240 “volunteer fundraisers” — more commonly known as “bundlers,” well-connected surrogates who collect funds on behalf of a candidate — in a list posted Friday on the campaign’s website.

• Also

• 

  Obama tally raises the bar for presidential fundraising

• 

  RNC chairman says Obama is a great fundraiser, bad president

• 

  Obama campaign team courts wealthy donors

Of those, 27 bundlers have each raised at least $500,000. The top fundraisers include Vogue editor Anna Wintour, Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and Jon Corzine, former New Jersey governor.

Also on the list: Hollywood power agent Ari Emanuel (brother of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) raised between $50,000 and $100,000, and Penny Pritzker, finance chair of Obama’s 2008 campaign, pulled in between $100,000 and $200,000.

Bundlers played a crucial role in the last presidential cycle. According to the Center of Responsive Politics, 560 bundlers raised at least $76,500,000 for the Obama campaign.

This cycle, elite fundraisers will likely take on additional responsibilities. iWatch News reports that at least two of the top bundlers — Katzenberg and New Jersey financier Orin Kramer –are also working to raise money for Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, two outside groups founded by former White House aides that can solicit unlimited donations.

Taking a page from President Obama’s political playbook, Michele Bachmann has formally left a church in Minnesota accused of holding anti-Catholic views.

According to CNN, the church that Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus had attended for more than a decade, Salem Lutheran in Stillwater, Minn., granted the couple’s request to be released from their membership last month, a week after Bachmann told a national audience that she would run for the Republican presidential nomination.

• Also

• 

  Opponents of raising debt ceiling risk government breakdown, study says

• 

  While Palin and Perry fiddle, it’s Bachmann who’s on fire

• 

  Michele Bachmann under fire for ‘gay therapy,’ police reports, IRS work

The Bachmanns had approached their pastor and verbally made the request “a few weeks before the church council granted the request,” said Joel Hochmuth, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the governing body for the church.

Bachmann had apparently been distancing herself from the church for some time. Hochmuth said the couple had not been worshiping with the congregation in more than two years.

Earlier this week, the Atlantic reported that that the synod’s website contains a statement that equates the pope with the antichrist. The writer, Joshua Green, also spoke with Hochmuth, who explained the statement thusly:

“Some people have this vision of a little devil running around with horns and red pointy ears. (Martin) Luther was clear that by ‘antichrist’ [he meant] anybody who puts himself up in place of Christ. Luther never bought the idea of the Pope being God’s voice in today’s world. He believed Scripture is God’s word.”

The matter has been tailing Bachmann for much of her political career. She was asked about the church’s statement in 2006, when she was running for Congress.

“It’s abhorrent, it’s religious bigotry,” Bachmann said then. “I love Catholics, I’m a Christian, and my church does not believe that the pope is the antichrist, that’s absolutely false.”

Green asked Bill Donahue, the fiery president of the Catholic League, about the synod’s assertion. “Clearly, that is anti-Catholic,” he said.

Obama left his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, in May 2008 after incendiary sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright surfaced in the heat of his bitter presidential fight with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign raised $4.3 million and spent nearly $2.5 million in the second quarter of the year, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

More than $2 million of the former Minnesota governor’s haul came from three states: $1.06 million from Minnesota, $669,400 from California and $418,340 from Texas.  

• Also

• 

  Obama campaign discloses bundlers who helped fuel massive haul

• 

  Rick Santorum raises just $582,000 for presidential campaign

• 

  Pawlenty punts, Romney rips Iowa marriage pledge

Last month, the Washington Post reported that senior advisors to the campaign were going without pay, suggesting that Pawlenty was struggling on the fundraising front. The campaign spent nearly $600,000, however, on payroll expenses to employ about three dozen staff members, and added staff throughout the quarter.  

The detailed expense records provide a window into the habits of each campaign – favored restaurants, hotels, airlines and banks.  

Food-wise, the Palwenty campaign appears to prefer McDonald’s, Quiznos and Starbucks. Delta is the favored airline; Hilton the preferred hotel.  

The campaign also spent $7 at a Godfather’s Pizza shop in Winterset, Iowa. The pizza chain was once run by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.  

Pawlenty raised an additional $116,000 in the days before the start of the second quarter.

President Obama’s ability to collect campaign money both through small contributions and hefty donations was underscored Friday by the details in his reelection campaign’s first report to the Federal Election Commission.

Of the $33.2 million raised directly by the campaign, 65% of the contributions — totaling $21.7 million — came in increments less than $200.

• Also

• 

  Obama campaign discloses bundlers who helped fuel massive haul

• 

  Obama tally raises the bar for presidential fundraising

• 

  Mitt Romney raises $18 million for presidential campaign, setting pace for GOP

That’s a lot of campaign T shirts.

Obama also fared well on the other end of the spectrum. More than 240 people signed on to be major fundraisers for the campaign, including a top tier of around two dozen bundlers who directed at least $13.5 million into the coffers of the reelection campaign and Democratic National Committee in the last quarter.

The campaign itself was greatly bolstered by the efforts of the Obama Victory Fund, a joint committee that disburses money both to the campaign and the DNC that hosted pricey fundraisers for him around the country.

More than a quarter of the reelection committee’s $46 million total haul came as a transfer from the fund.

Newt Gingrich raised about $2.1 million for his presidential campaign this quarter and spent nearly $1.8 million, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. He ended the period with slightly more than $300,000 cash on hand.

Among the disbursements: $8,400 to Gingrich Productions, a Washington, D.C.-based company that lists Callista Gingrich, the candidate’s wife, as president. Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said the campaign paid Gingrich Productions for use of the domain name Newt.org.  The Federal Election Commission requires that campaigns apply fair market value to such transactions.

Gingrich’s campaign has been hampered in the last few weeks.  Revelations that the former House speaker had two six-figure credit lines to the jewelry store Tiffany’s caused embarrassment.  Much of his campaign staff quit en masse in early June.

The campaign registered more than $1 million in debts — nearly half (about $450,000) owed to a single travel company, Moby Dick Airways.

• Also

• 

  Gingrich to report weak second-quarter fundraising haul

• 

  Newt Gingrich offers bleak view of campaign finances

• 

  Newt Gingrich’s top aides resign en masse

Hammond attributed the debt to mismanagement by the campaign consultants who quit.

“This is something…in our rear view mirror,” Hammond said.

Gingrich also owes himself about $47,000, including $44,000 for the use of Gingrich’s personal email list, again valued according to FEC rules. The remaining $3,000 represents unreimbursed travel expenses, Hammond said.

The candidate himself acknowledged his financial report would disappoint.

“The fact is a month of media barrage is painful, and it slowed a lot of things down,” he told The Times this month. “Our numbers will not be as good as we would like, and candidly, the consultants left us in debt. But every single week since they left we’ve been cutting down the debt, and we raise more than we spend in a week.”

Gingrich will spend 16 of the 45 days since July 4th in Iowa, Hammond said.  He attended an Iowa Cubs baseball game Friday night, where he threw out the first pitch.

“We certainly weathered a tough storm in the spring,” Hammond said. “We’ve come out of it and we’re looking at clearing skies and our fundraising outlook has improved.  We’ll be the competitive campaign that no one’s going to see coming.”

melanie.mason@latimes.com

Kim Geiger in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

The debate surrounding gun control laws has reignited following the Fast and Furious investigation, and the latest volley was launched Friday.

Two House Democrats introduced a bill that would make the trafficking of firearms to known felons or someone intending to commit a felony a federal offense. The bill, put forth by Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), was drafted in response to testimony from law enforcement agents, who have said current law leaves gaps in enforcement against straw purchasers who often supply drug cartels with weapons.

• Also

• 

  Congressional Republicans step up investigation of Fast and Furious gun-tracing operation

• 

  U.S. to require more gun-buyer information in border states

• 

  More federal agencies implicated in gun-trafficking controversy

In a letter to congressional colleagues, Cummings cited a July 4 transcript in which embattled Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Chief Kenneth Melson asserts that a dedicated firearms trafficking law would be “most helpful” in imprisoning known traffickers.

Currently, say sponsors, violators can often only be charged with “paperwork violations” that carry light sentences, like lying on federal forms.

The proposed law carries a maximum sentence of 20 to 25 years in prison with stiffer penalties for so-called “kingpin” traffickers.

“This legislation gives law enforcement the tools they need to do their job,” Maloney said.

The push comes as a congressional investigation intensifies around ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed straw purchasers to transfer thousands of weapons to Mexico in hopes of tracking trafficking routes and networks. As the probe has revealed, the agency lost track of many of the weapons, one of which surfaced at the site of the shooting death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Cummings denied that the legislation was an attempt to detract from the ongoing investigation.

“I want to make it clear we are very troubled by Fast and Furious. It is our belief that we are going to have to look at this case very carefully and we must go where the evidence leads,” said Cummings, who is the ranking member on the committee investigating the matter. “But conducting oversight is pointless unless we translate what we learn into action.”

On Monday, the Obama administration announced its toughest gun control measure to date, requiring gun dealers in the Southwestern states to report more than five long gun sales in a five-day period. It was one in a series of changes ATF agents have asked for to increase their ability to corral the illegal gun trade.

The legislation has little chance of passing in a Republican-controlled House, and a powerful NRA lobby lining up to combat the latest gun control measures. Following President Obama’s announcement of the new reporting rules, the organization vowed to file lawsuits with the receipt of the first letters from ATF.

“This is a blatant effort by the Obama administration and ATF to divert the focus of Congress … from their gross incompetence in the Fast and Furious scandal,” wrote Chris Cox, the NRA’s executive director. “This scheme will unjustly burden law-abiding retailers in border states.”

But proponents argued that the NRA shouldn’t have any reason to oppose the gun trafficking statute.

“This is not a 2nd Amendment issue,” said Dennis Henigan, acting president of the Brady Campaign, an advocate for gun control laws. “There is no 2nd Amendment right to supply drug gangs with the firepower of an army.”

The NRA continued to echo previous statements that what’s needed is greater enforcement, not more laws. “The laws are already on the books,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesperson for the NRA, in an interview. “The problem is a lack of enforcement.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s $4.2 million take for the year’s second fundraising quarter was buttressed by her strength with small-dollar donors.

Bachmann raised nearly 75 percent of her money through donations of $200 or less. In comparison, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty got about ten percent of the $4.3 million he raised via small donors; six percent of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s $18.3 million came from low-dollar contributions.

“Having gotten into the race a little over a month ago, we are pleased with the progress of our fundraising numbers,” Bachmann said in a statement.

• Also

• 

  Obama campaign discloses bundlers who helped fuel massive haul

• 

  Inside the Pawlenty haul: 3 states boost GOP hopeful’s coffers

• 

  Newt Gingrich’s fundraising: As bad as advertised

“I am especially proud of our grassroots fundraising efforts which indicate we are receiving the bulk of our contributions from the average hard-working American. We are just now starting to reach out to major donors and look forward to a successful 3rd quarter fundraising effort.”

Bachmann’s campaign ends this quarter with about $3.6 million cash on hand, but also $365,000 in debts, mostly due to telemarketing and direct mail firms. 

melanie.mason@latimes.com

Mitt Romney headed into the third financial quarter of the year with $12.7 million cash on hand after raising $18.3 million in the past three months. 

Romney relied heavily on large-dollar donors: Just 6% of individual contributions came in amounts of $200 or less. About $517,000 was collected by six bundlers, the campaign revealed in a list posted to the Federal Elections Commission website. 

The former Massachusetts governor’s second-quarter haul is considerably less than the $30 to $50 million his supporters had floated as a goal earlier this year, but still many millions more than the rest of the Republican contenders.

The campaign spent $5.6 million, including about $750,000 on payroll costs and $500,000 on travel. 

Romney established himself as the fundraising frontrunner of the GOP field in mid-May, when he staged a highly choreographed telethon at the Las Vegas Convention Center. That week, the campaign spent more than $300,000 in Las Vegas on hotels, food and other event-related expenses, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission Friday afternoon. 

• Also

• 

  Obama wins with large and small donors alike

• 

  Inside the Pawlenty haul: 3 states boost GOP hopeful’s coffers

• 

  Newt Gingrich’s fundraising: As bad as advertised

About $6 million of Romney’s haul came from three states: California ($2.4 million), New York ($2.1 million) and Florida ($1.5 million). 

kim.geiger@latimes.com

The Obama administration on Friday formally recognized Libya’s leading rebel group as the country’s legitimate government, a move designed to increase pressure on Libyan leader Muammar Kadafi, while freeing up foreign-held funds for the cash-starved rebels.

Appearing at an international conference in Istanbul, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States was joining 29 other countries in granting official recognition. She said the administration now recognized the council as the “legitimate government authority for Libya,” and would treat it that way until an “interim authority” takes over.

The administration has resisted taking this formal step for months, because of concerns that the loosely organized council could include dangerous militants, and because of worries that the group didn’t meet legal definitions of a sovereign government.

• Also

• 

  Libya rebels desperately short of funds

• 

  In rebel-held Libya, men find new identities as warriors

• 

  Kadafi again threatens to attack Europe with suicide bombers

But the pressure to recognize the government has built steadily because of the council’s dwindling reserves of cash. Without formal recognition, it is difficult for foreign governments to free up Libyan assets frozen by foreign governments under United Nations authority.

The move also comes at a time when Western governments are increasingly desperate to wind down the three-month-old Libyan war and finally force Kadafi from power.

Another key topic at the meeting, diplomats said, how to negotiate a deal that would win Kadafi’s consent to give up power. Western governments originally pressed for Kadafi to go into exile abroad, but in recent days sentiment has been growing that Kadafi could be offered internal exile in Libya.

The long-shot nature of Rick Santorum’s presidential bid was underscored Friday when the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania revealed his fund-raising haul from the last quarter: a paltry $582,000.

Santorum spent $353,000, leaving him with just $229,000 on hand, according to documents his campaign filed with the Federal Election Commission.

• Also

• 

  Mitt Romney raises $18 million for presidential campaign, setting pace for GOP

• 

  Rick Santorum launches radio ad for presidential campaign

• 

  Rick Santorum: ‘I’m ready to lead’

Just under a quarter of the donations he received were in increments less than $200. Not surprisingly, the largest share of his money — $161,000 — came from Pennsylvania. He only raised $4,250 in the key nominating state of Iowa and $7,550 in New Hampshire, which holds the first contest of the presidential election season.

More than half of Santorum’s expenditures in the last quarter went to pay consulting fees — $178,739 over three months.

For the second quarter, Mitt Romney led the GOP field of presidential hopefuls with more than $18 million raised. Ron Paul, the Texas congressman, brought in $4.5 million, followed by former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty ($4.2 million) and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman ($4.1 million).

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s campaign said it was still tabulating her fund-raising totals.

President Obama’s reelection campaign announced that it had raised $86 million with the Democratic National Committee to support his candidacy.