// a href = ./ //

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A familiar budget plan to sharply cut safety-net programs for the poor and clamp down on domestic agencies performing the nuts-and-bolts programs of the government is cruising to passage in the tea party-flavored House.

The Republican measure is advancing to the finish line in the House as the Senate starts a lengthy slog toward passage of a rival budget measure. It takes a sharply different view, restoring automatic cuts to agency budgets and increasing taxes by $1 trillion over the coming decade.

The dueling budget plans are anchored on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum in Washington, appealing to core partisans in the warring parties gridlocked over persistent budget deficits. President Barack Obama is exploring the chances of forging a middle path that blends new taxes and modest curbs to government benefits programs.

The sharp contrast over the 2014 budget and beyond came as the House is positioned to clear unfinished budget business - a sweeping, government-wide funding bill to keep Cabinet agencies running through the 2013 budget year, which ends Sept. 30.

The Senate passed the bipartisan 2013 measure by a sweeping 73-26 vote Wednesday after easing cuts that threatened intermittent closures of meat packing plants starting this summer and reviving college tuition grants for active-duty members of the military. The cuts were mandated by automatic spending cuts that took effect at the beginning of the month.

Looking to the future, Democrats and Republicans staked out divergent positions over what to do about spiraling federal health care costs and whether to raise taxes to rein in still-steep government deficits.

The long-term GOP budget plan, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., offers slashing cuts to domestic agencies, the Medicaid health care plan for the poor and "Obamacare" subsidies while exempting the Pentagon and Social Security beneficiaries. The measure proposes shifting programs like Medicaid to the states but is sometimes scant on details about the very cuts it promises.

The Ryan measure revives a controversial plan to turn the Medicare programs for the elderly into a voucher-like system - for future beneficiaries born in 1959 or later - into a program in which the government subsidizes the purchase of health insurance instead of directly paying hospital and doctor bills. Critics say the idea would mean ever-spiraling out-of-pocket costs for care, but Ryan insists the plan would inject competition into a broken system.

The cuts to domestic agencies like the FBI, Border Patrol and National Institutes of Health could approach 20 percent when compared with levels agreed to as part of a hard-fought budget deal from the summer of 2011. That could run the already troubled appropriations process - it features 12 spending bills that are supposed to be passed by Congress each year - into the ground.

Fresh from passing the 2013 wrap-up measure, the Senate was turning to a plan by new Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., that would add nearly $1 trillion in new taxes over the coming decade in an attempt to stabilize the $16 trillion-plus national debt. But Murray's plan would actually increase government spending after the $1.2 trillion cost of repealing the automatic cuts, called a sequester in Washington-speak. That means the net cuts to the deficit would amount to just a few hundred billion dollars in a federal budget estimated at $46 trillion or so over the coming decade.

"We need to tackle our deficit and debt fairly and responsibly," Murray said. "We need to keep the promises we've made as a nation to our seniors, our families and our communities."

At issue is the arcane process by which Congress approves a budget. It involves special legislation, called a budget resolution, that sets nonbinding targets for taxes and spending but relies on follow-up legislation to go into effect.

© 2013 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED. Learn more about our PRIVACY POLICY and TERMS OF USE.

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — President Barack Obama urged Israelis and Palestinians on Thursday to get back to peace talks but offered no new ideas on how they might do so, essentially abandoning his previous support of the Palestinian demand for Israel to halt settlement activity before negotiations resume.

In remarks likely to disappoint, if not infuriate, the Palestinians, Obama said the United States continues to oppose the construction of Jewish housing on land claimed by the Palestinians but stressed that issues of disagreement between the two sides should not be used as an "excuse" to do nothing.

"If the expectation is that we can only have direct negotiations when everything is settled ahead of time, then there is no point for negotiations, so I think it is important to work through this process even if there are irritants on both sides," Obama told reporters at a joint news conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

"My argument is that even though both sides may have areas of strong disagreement, maybe engaging in activities that the other side considers to be a breach of good faith, we have to push through those things to try to get to an agreement," he said. "I think we can keep pushing through some of these problems and make sure that we don't use them as an excuse not to do anything."

Obama's comments echoed those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly called for the Palestinians to drop their preconditions for re-launching the stalled peace talks. The U.S. president's remarks are sure to reinforce deep skepticism among Palestinians about whether Obama is willing or able to use U.S. influence to press Israel into making concessions on a matter Palestinians have identified as a top priority.

Abbas and other Palestinian officials said they would not drop the demand, noting that much of the world considers the settlements to be outright illegal and not merely an impediment to peace talks.

"We require the Israeli government to stop settlements in order to discuss all our issues and their concerns," Abbas told the news conference, a marquee event during Obama's brief visit to the West Bank on the second day of his Mideast visit. "It's the duty of the Israeli government to stop the settlement activities to enable us to talk about the issues in the negotiations."

During his first four years in office, Obama had sided with the Palestinians on the issue. He and his surrogates repeatedly demanded that all settlement activity cease. However, when Israel reluctantly declared a 10-month moratorium on construction, the Palestinians balked at returning to the table until shortly before it expired and talks foundered shortly thereafter.

The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem — territories Israel captured in the 1967 war — but are ready for minor adjustments to accommodate some settlements closest to Israel. Since 1967, Israel has built dozens of settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem that are now home to 560,000 Israelis — an increase of 60,000 since Obama became president four years ago.

Obama said the U.S. remains opposed to settlements because "we do not consider continued settlement activity to be constructive, to be appropriate, to be something that can advance the cause of peace." Still, he added that internal Israeli politics "are complex and I recognize that is not an issue that's going to be solved immediately. It's not going to be solved overnight."

He did say that Palestinians deserve an independent and sovereign state and an end to occupation by Israel. He said the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state of Israel continues to exist if negotiations would restart.

"I absolutely believe that it is still possible, but I think it is very difficult," Obama said.

Even before Obama spoke with Abbas, several dozen Palestinians in downtown Ramallah protested against perceived strong U.S. bias in favor of Israel.

Obama "should take immediate action to stop settlement activity because the passivity of his position toward settlements is happening while the very last option of a two-state solution is being killed by Israeli settlements," said Mustafa Barghouti, a leading Palestinian activist.

A day earlier, Obama reaffirmed the unwavering U.S. commitment to Israel's security and noted there had been no fatal attacks on Israelis last year from the West Bank, which is controlled by Abbas.

That calm has not extended to Gaza, which is run by the militant Islamic Hamas movement, and Obama said it would be helpful if rockets weren't still being launched into Israel. As Obama began his program Thursday, Israeli police said militants in Gaza had fired two rockets at southern Israel, causing property damage but no injuries.

One of the rockets exploded in the courtyard of a house in the town of Sderot early in the morning, said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. The other landed in an open field. Sirens wailed in Sderot shortly after the 7 a.m. rocket attack, forcing residents on their way to work or school to run to bomb shelters.

Obama condemned the action during his news conference with Abbas. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama visited the border town, which is frequently targeted by rocket attacks from the nearby Gaza Strip. No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attack.

Over the past decade, Gaza militants have fired thousands of rockets and mortar shells at Israel, prompting Israel, with considerable U.S. assistance, to develop its Iron Dome missile defense system, which it credits with intercepting hundreds of rockets.

Immediately after his arrival in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu toured an Iron Dome battery at Ben Gurion International Airport in a vivid display of U.S. security assistance to Israel.

In Jerusalem earlier Thursday, while examining the Dead Sea Scrolls and during a tour of a high tech exhibit, Obama and Netanyahu continued the easy banter that the two leaders displayed on Wednesday. As Netanyahu read a facsimile of a scroll, Obama marveled that the Hebrew language had not changed much over the centuries.

___ Lee reported from Jerusalem. Associated Press writers Karin Laub in Ramallah and Ian Deitch and Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — An assault weapons ban won't be in the gun-control legislation that Democrats bring to the Senate floor next month, a decision that means the ban's chances of survival now are all but hopeless.

The ban is the most controversial firearms restriction that President Barack Obama and other Democrats have pressed for since an assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. Rejection by Congress would be a major victory for the National Rifle Association and its supporters and a setback for Obama and the provision's sponsor, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

In a tactical decision, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., concluded that including the prohibition in the gun bill would jeopardize the chances for passage of any firearms legislation at all, taking away votes that would be needed to overcome Republican attempts to block the Senate from even taking up the issue.

"I very much regret it," Feinstein said Tuesday of the choice that Reid told her he had made. "I tried my best. But my best, I guess, wasn't good enough."

Feinstein's proposal to prohibit military-style weapons will still get a vote as an amendment to the gun legislation that Democrats debate. But she is all but certain to need 60 votes from the 100-member Senate to prevail, and she faces solid Republican opposition as well as likely defections from some Democrats.

Reid told reporters that "using the most optimistic numbers," there were less than 40 votes for Feinstein's ban. That is far less than the 60 votes needed to move contested legislation in the chamber, which has 53 Democrats plus two independents who usually back them.

"I'm not going to try to put something on the floor that won't succeed. I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there," Reid said.

Because of the opposition the ban has prompted, its exclusion from the initial package the Senate considers had been expected as a way for Democrats to amass the strongest possible vote for the overall legislation. Having a separate vote on assault weapons might free moderate Democratic senators facing re-election in Republican-leaning states next year to vote against the assault weapons measure, but then support the remaining overall package of gun curbs.

Gun-control supporters also consider a strong Senate vote on an overall bill important because it could put pressure on the Republican-run House, whose leaders have shown little enthusiasm for most of Obama's proposals.

Foes of Feinstein's proposal call it a gun grab to take firearms from law-abiding citizens with minimal impact on gun violence. Feinstein and other supporters say limits are needed on the firepower available to people who might make attacks such as the Newtown shootings, which police say involved an assault-type weapon.

Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son Daniel was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, said he hoped an assault weapons ban would pass eventually.

"We're still very happy with the progress that's been made," he said. "Hopefully what is stripped away will return as an amendment."

Two new state laws to limit ammunition magazines and expand required background checks are to be signed Wednesday by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper in Colorado, site of another mass shooting last year at a movie theater in Aurora.

Gun-control advocates expressed little surprise over the decision to keep assault weapons out of the initial federal bill.

"If their view is that the assault weapons ban is tougher sledding, we respect that," said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which represents hundreds of U.S. mayors seeking gun curbs. He said his group wants Reid's bill to be focused on expanding required background checks for gun buyers, a provision that he called "the biggest policy fix" that could be made.

The NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said in a written statement, "History has proven that a senseless ban of firearms based on cosmetic features will not make our communities safer. Congress should reject this so-called 'assault weapons ban' whether it is offered as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment."

Cox reiterated his organization's preference to focus on school safety, mental health and better enforcement of existing laws.

Said Feinstein: "That's the problem with this place. The gun lobby is inordinately powerful." She was an author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that Congress failed to renew after a decade.

Her provision would ban semi-automatic weapons — guns that fire one round and automatically reload — that can take a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature such as a pistol grip. It would specifically prohibit 157 weapons.

It also would ban ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds — another factor in some of the nation's recent mass killings.

It would exempt any weapons that were legally owned whenever the bill was enacted. Also exempted would be 2,258 rifles and shotguns that are frequently used by hunters.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved four gun-control measures this month, including Feinstein's. The others would expand required federal background checks for firearms buyers, increase federal penalties for illegal gun trafficking and boost school safety money.

Reid said he has not decided which measures would be included in the base bill he brings to the Senate floor. Democratic aides and lobbyists say the trafficking and school safety measures are likely candidates because each passed the Judiciary panel with some bipartisan support.

It is unclear how Reid will handle the background check measure.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., chief author of that provision, is trying to find a Republican willing to reach compromise on his plan. The version that passed the Judiciary Committee had no GOP support and would allow almost no exceptions to gun sales for which background checks would be needed. They are currently required only for sales by federally licensed gun dealers.

Feinstein said Reid told her there would be separate votes on two measures. One would be on her bill, including the bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the second just on prohibiting the magazines. Many Democrats think the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes than the assault weapons ban.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said Obama is not giving up on the assault weapons ban being added as an amendment.

"We're going to work on this," McDonough said in an appearance on CNN. "We're going to find the votes. It deserves a vote."

___ Associated Press writers Richard Lardner and Nedra Pickler in Washington and Mike Melia in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.