King only Iowan against short-term budget deal

At literally the eleventh hour Friday night, President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders struck a deal to keep the federal government running through the end of the 2011 fiscal year. The deal cuts a further $38 billion in spending, bringing total spending to a figure $78 billion below Obama’s original 2011 budget request. (That request was never enacted; the federal government has been running on a series of continuing resolutions since October 1.) The Hill reported last night,

Because it will take several days to translate the agreement into a legislative draft, both chambers passed a stopgap to keep the government funded until the middle of next week. The short-term measure would cut $2 billion from the budget […]

The deal cuts a total of $37.7 billion from current spending levels over the next six months. Of that total, $17.8 billion came from mandatory spending programs, including $2.5 billion in House transportation spending, according to a senior Democratic aide familiar with the deal.

Democrats knocked off most of the controversial policy riders that House Republicans had included in H.R. 1, the package of spending cuts that passed in February.

Republicans, however, won the inclusion of a rider to expand the District of Columbia’s school voucher program and to authorize a Government Accountability Office study of a financial oversight board established by the Wall Street reform bill.

Most significantly, Democrats won the disagreement over funding that included Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion services.

The Senate approved the short-term spending bill on a voice vote last night. I posted a statement issued by Senator Tom Harkin after the jump.

The House approved the bill a few minutes after midnight on a 348 to 70 vote (roll call). Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted yes. Steve King (IA-05) was among 28 Republicans to vote no. I’ve posted Loebsack’s statement after the jump and will add comments from other Iowans in the House when I see them.

Although most of the House Democratic caucus voted to keep the government running, this deal is a huge victory for House Republicans, especially Speaker John Boehner. He gave up the Planned Parenthood and EPA riders, but only after getting much deeper spending cuts, almost all from non-defense domestic programs. Reuters listed the cuts in the short-term spending bill. Most of the money comes out of high-speed rail, which is an idiotic program to cut from a job creation perspective. The deal covering the remainder of the fiscal year includes only about $3 billion in defense spending cuts, compared to $17.8 billion from benefit programs.

Obama bragged in his weekly radio address today, “Cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history.” Yet again, he’s validating Republican ideology, rhetoric and tactics on the budget. Look for House Republicans to insist on even deeper cuts in domestic spending as a condition for raising the debt ceiling. I dread thinking about what will be in the 2012 budget bills. Republicans will make sure all the “shared sacrifice” comes from people who depend on government benefits.

Share any thoughts about the federal budget in this thread. I enjoyed Philip Rucker’s feature on the top negotiators for Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Statement from Tom Harkin, April 8:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement as budget negotiators reached an agreement to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, averting a government shutdown.  Earlier today, Senator Harkin’s office released a timeline of activities leading up to this debate.

“Tonight, at the eleventh hour, House Republican leadership backed off of their threats to shut down the government over a policy that had nothing to do with budgeting – cancer screenings and other preventative health care for women.    

“Now that this debate is over, Congress can refocus on the budget for the next fiscal year and the long term.  It remains my hope that the next proposal will include spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while making room for critical investments in education, job training, infrastructure, and research – things that are essential for jobs now and for economic expansion and job creation in the years ahead.”

Statement from Dave Loebsack, April 9:

“It’s unfortunate that politicians in Washington let their political game of chicken get to this point. I am relieved that this temporary agreement was reached, and I am eager to review what I hope is a reasonable final compromise.  Iowa families, businesses, and our troops shouldn’t have been caught in the middle of Washington’s political games, and I will continue to work to ensure that a budget is passed so that we can move on to the issues my constituents tell me are important to them: job creation and economic development.”

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • Nice write up

    Keynesian economic theory just isn’t in vogue right now.  I have heard people who haven’t paid income tax in a number of years for a variety of reasons complain about Obama “spending too much on this and that.” It’s useless to try and reason with many of these folks and I don’t think we will ever have a serious discussion about spending and proper investment for a very, very long time.

    Democrats left Obama no options by not showing up to the polls in 2010.  I guess it was mainly due to the lack of a “public option.” I guess the exchanges, elimination of lifetime spending caps and the rest wasn’t enough.  If people wanted single payer and someone who would aggressively go after “dirty” energy companies, you vote for Kucinich in your primary or caucus in 2008 period.  

    • no options?

      He has the veto pen. He could have stopped the extension of the Bush tax cuts, or he could have drawn different lines in the sand during the latest budget negotiations.

  • You're correct with one point

    I know he had the veto pen, but I also think that the election of this Tea Party crowd signified that the voters still wanted the Bush tax cuts.  They want their cake (the tax cuts) and eating it to while trimming the deficit.  Any person who looks at the fact knows that both cannot be achieved.

    I will say however that although opinion polls may have shown opposition to the Bush tax cuts, the only poll that matters is the one on election day.  

    The bailouts also played a role in the level of frustration at the polls, it was mainly about a fear of higher taxation in the long run however.  Frankly, if the Tea Party freshmen in the House had their way we would be looking at an even more regressive tax system.  

    Obama gave the people their tax cuts and he has increased the budget for many different programs (as he should when needed.)  He is playing the necessary balancing act, triangulation if you will instead of just acting like an immature individual such as Steve King in order to govern.  

Comments