• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House defeats Republican spending plan

Frolicking Dinosaurs

Frolicking Dinosaurs

200M yrs of experience
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Southeastern USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
House defeats Republican spending plan - CNN.com

The vote was 195-230, with 48 Republicans joining all but a handful of minority Democrats in opposing the short-term spending plan ....
Click to expand...
Could it be that some members of the GOP have realized that voting with the Tea Party members in the House is endangering their party?
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
House defeats Republican spending plan - CNN.com

Could it be that some members of the GOP have realized that voting with the Tea Party members in the House is endangering their party?
Click to expand...
OHMIGOSH!!!! Tea Party Republicans didnt mindlessly vote with their party? Thats TERRIBLE! Can you IMAGINE what would happen if EVERY congressman actually voted based on their core values and for their constituency instead of blindly voting along party lines? Tragic!!!
 
VanceMack said:
OHMIGOSH!!!! Tea Party Republicans didnt mindlessly vote with their party? Thats TERRIBLE! Can you IMAGINE what would happen if EVERY congressman actually voted based on their core values and for their constituency instead of blindly voting along party lines? Tragic!!!
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the implication wasn't that some tea party republicans voted against a republican bill, but that some republicans voted against a tea party republican bill. But your point is good, none the less.
 
This is a deficit producing bill. No more deficit spending.
 
Okay, here's what's at issue:

At issue was a short-term bill to fund government agencies through November 18 that would allocate fewer resources to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers for disaster response than the Democratic-led Senate approved last week.

Additional funds are needed because of recent major floods from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee along the East Coast, and wildfires in Texas that required emergency responses exceeding the amount the agencies have left in their coffers to support recovery and rebuilding efforts.

The House measure included a total of $3.6 billion in disaster relief money -- $1 billion in emergency funds available when the bill is enacted and another $2.6 billion to be budgeted for those federal response agencies for the 2012 fiscal year that begins October 1.

In addition, House Republican leaders are insisting that the $1 billion in immediate disaster funding be offset with $1.5 billion in cuts to a loan program that helps automakers retool their operations to make more fuel-efficient cars.

Democrats objected to cutting spending for disaster funding, calling it unprecedented and politicizing emergency relief for Americans. Conservative Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, argued that the nation's expanding deficits require as much spending restraint as possible.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama asked Congress for a total of $5.1 billion in additional disaster aid --- $500 million of which was for immediate relief.
Click to expand...

Now, per this article from Political.com:

At issue this time is disaster aid. Reid announced Tuesday that the Senate will attach $6.9 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the stopgap spending measure, or continuing resolution.
Click to expand...

House Republicans only want $3.65 billion to go toward disaster relief while Sen. Reid and Senate Democrats want as much as 6.9 billion. The question Congress should be asking is "does the requested additional spending for disaster relief follow the guidelines as setforth in section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as amended by section 101 of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which reads:

Disaster Funding
Section 251(b)(2)(D)

Subparagraph (i):

If, for fiscal years 2012 through 2011, appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that Congress designates as being for disaster relief in statute, the adjustment for a fiscal year shall be the total of such appropriations for the fiscal year in discretionary accounts designated as being for disaster relief, but not to exceed the total of:

(I) the average funding provided for disaster relief over the previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest years; and,

(II) the amount, for years when the enacted new discretionary budget authority designated as being for disaster relief for the preceeding fiscal year was less than the average as calculated in subclause (I) for that fiscal year, that is the difference between the enacted amount and the allowable adjustment as calculated in such subclause for that fiscal year.

Subpagraph (iv):

Appropriations considered disaster relief under this subparagraph in a fiscal year shall not be eligible for adjustments under subparagraph (A) for the fiscal year.
Click to expand...

So, what does subparagraph (A) say:

Emergency Appropriations; Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism

(Note: The following text will only addresses emergency appropriations since this is the topic of discussion.)

If, for any fiscal year, appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that:

(i) the Congress designates as emergency requirements in statute on an account-by-account basis and the President subsequently so designates...

the adjustment shall be the total of such appropriations in discretionary accounts designed as emergency requirements..., as applicable.
Click to expand...

(Note: Disasters must meet the definition as determined by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.)

So, the question should be "Does the $6.9 billion in disaster relief Sen. Reid requested meet the 10-year average under the law or did it exceed it?"

According to this article from theHill.com:

The vote failed, 195-230, after Democrats pulled their support for the bill and Republican leaders were forced to scramble for enough votes entirely within their own ranks. Four dozen conservatives voted against the bill because it left spending levels for 2012 higher than the cap set in the House GOP budget.

The defeat hands leverage to congressional Democrats in a dispute over federal disaster funding. Democratic leaders objected to a GOP provision cutting funding from a Department of Energy manufacturing loan program to offset additional money for disaster relief.

The House and Senate must pass a spending bill by Sept. 30 to keep the government running into the next fiscal year. Both chambers are scheduled to be out on recess next week.
Click to expand...

But here's the real kicker...

The defeat was a stinging loss for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who pitched the measure to his conference as the lowest spending number they could get.
Click to expand...

Decissions, decissions...

I'd hate to be Speaker Boehner right now. Seems his relationship with Rep. Cantor isn't as close as has been reported.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was a win for those who realize that we must address our growing debt and not simply continue to deficit spend. Yes, it's going to hurt but we have no other options.
 
Fiddytree said:
Or being in the same bed with the Democrats makes the Tea Party unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Why does voting your belief with regard to fiscal constraint have to be considered being 'in bed' with anyone? Its a pretty sad state of affairs that the only acceptable norm is voting for or against a party. Why bother having a congress at all? Just let party headquarters make decisions and whover gets the most votes in elections gets to make the decisions for the next two years. Then, instead of wasting all that time messing with yucky debates and policies and votes, etc they could spend full time dedicated to running for reelection.
 
Fiddytree said:
Or being in the same bed with the Democrats makes the Tea Party unrealistic.
Click to expand...
It was the Tea Party Representatives that both sponsored and voted for the failed resolution - it was the more moderate GOPs that joined the Dems in opposing it. In case you've missed it, the Tea Party approval ratings are now below approval for atheist and Muslims among US voters - have been since they took us right to the wire on the debt crisis. My guess is the Tea Party candidates are going to be some one term and gone Representatives and Senators. I just hope the GOP has enough fiscal conservatives with common sense left to fill those spots.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
It was the Tea Party Representatives that both sponsored and voted for the failed resolution - it was the more moderate GOPs that joined the Dems in opposing it. In case you've missed it, the Tea Party approval ratings are now below approval for atheist and Muslims among US voters - have been since they took us right to the wire on the debt crisis. My guess is the Tea Party candidates are going to be some one term and gone Representatives and Senators. I just hope the GOP has enough fiscal conservatives with common sense left to fill those spots.
Click to expand...

So, on record, you agree with those voting against the bill?
 
1Perry said:
So, on record, you agree with those voting against the bill?
Click to expand...
I haven't read the bill yet so I can't say for sure. From the synopsis it seems the spending was proposed to give aid to those who suffered losses during the tornadoes last April and Hurricane Irene and the Tea Party used this bill to try to cut the amount Dems requested in half and insist that the money come from cuts elsewhere. If that is indeed the case, then I'm siding with Dems on this one. The tornadoes and Irene were extraordinarily damaging and one of the things I pay taxes to support is help for my fellow Americans when something like this happens.
 
The House-ruld GOP voted down a GOP-sponsored budget?

wow, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Obama should totally include this as part of his campaign message.
 
Thunder said:
The House-ruld GOP voted down a GOP-sponsored budget?

wow, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Obama should totally include this as part of his campaign message.
Click to expand...
He cant...the Congressional Black Congress has already declared the Tea Party republicans as a bunch of hate filled racists that want to see black people hanging from trees. Kinda tough to spin that beeeeyotch into a positive now, aint it.
 
VanceMack said:
He cant...the Congressional Black Congress has already declared the Tea Party republicans as a bunch of hate filled racists that want to see black people hanging from trees. Kinda tough to spin that beeeeyotch into a positive now, aint it.
Click to expand...

correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it only ONE member of the CBC who said this, and this person isn't even the chairman of the caucus?
 
Thunder said:
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it only ONE member of the CBC who said this, and this person isn't even the chairman of the caucus?
Click to expand...
One said that, another said they could all go to hell, several others continue to make derogatry comments about them...and hey...when you want to tout their merits because of a fiscally conservative vote, and members of your party are suggesting they are nothing more than a lynch mob...BECAUSE of their fiscally conservative votes that wont allow you to spend money like crack whores...well...maybe you ought to just let this one go...

And if Im not mistaken...several liberal minded folks here made derogatory comments about the Tea PArty folks holding the country hostage...BECAUSE of their fiscally conservative votes that you now are whoot whoot in about...

Like I said man...just walk away...
 
Last edited:
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
I haven't read the bill yet so I can't say for sure. From the synopsis it seems the spending was proposed to give aid to those who suffered losses during the tornadoes last April and Hurricane Irene and the Tea Party used this bill to try to cut the amount Dems requested in half and insist that the money come from cuts elsewhere. If that is indeed the case, then I'm siding with Dems on this one. The tornadoes and Irene were extraordinarily damaging and one of the things I pay taxes to support is help for my fellow Americans when something like this happens.
Click to expand...

The conservatives are who voted against this bill. Not for the reasons you would likely support but it was they they killed it. Because of their promise to not pass anything not paid for.
 
Thunder said:
ah, so you admit the CBC didn't officially say that, and the comments don't even represent the views of the chairman?

I congratulate you for your honesty.
Click to expand...
Ive never suggested it was. Nor are the hate filled comments limited by members of the CBC.
 
VanceMack said:
Ive never suggested it was. Nor are the hate filled comments limited by members of the CBC.
Click to expand...

you clearly implied it.

the Congressional Black Congress has already declared the Tea Party republicans as a bunch of hate filled racists that want to see black people hanging from trees
 
Thunder said:
you clearly implied it.

the Congressional Black Congress has already declared the Tea Party republicans as a bunch of hate filled racists that want to see black people hanging from trees
Click to expand...
lets have MORE fun with semantics!

or not. It does bore me so.

The simple fact is it wont work for Obama to tout this sudden spirit of cooperation when it is the democrats that joined the Tea Party vote against the spending bill. The Tea Party republicans have maintained a consistent position on fiscal accountability, both during the spending cap debate and during this spending legislation. In this instance it is the democrats playing politics.
 
VanceMack said:
lets have MORE fun with semantics!

or not. It does bore me so.

The simple fact is it wont work for Obama to tout this sudden spirit of cooperation when it is the democrats that joined the Tea Party vote against the spending bill. The Tea Party republicans have maintained a consistent position on fiscal accountability, both during the spending cap debate and during this spending legislation. In this instance it is the democrats playing politics.
Click to expand...

Not only that, they joined them for different reasons. Not enough deficit spending.
 
VanceMack said:
Why does voting your belief with regard to fiscal constraint have to be considered being 'in bed' with anyone? Its a pretty sad state of affairs that the only acceptable norm is voting for or against a party. Why bother having a congress at all? Just let party headquarters make decisions and whover gets the most votes in elections gets to make the decisions for the next two years. Then, instead of wasting all that time messing with yucky debates and policies and votes, etc they could spend full time dedicated to running for reelection.
Click to expand...

I know your commentary wasn't addressed to me, but I'll like to reply anyway.

At odds here where disaster relief spending is concerned is: 1) spending under the GOP House budget versus what the law dictates (see my post #6 for precise details), and 2) politics as usual.

Rep. Cantor said the following in the Politico.com article I linked to above (post #6):

No one wants to stand in the way of disaster money. There is nothing else besides politics that is going on with that move.
Click to expand...

By "that move," Cantor is referring to Sen. Reid attaching the increase in disaster spending to the Continuing Resolution (CR) bill. But not only has Cantor repeated his stance that disaster relief spending must be off-set by spending cuts, he's also stated that the defeat of the CR is a function of changing the culture in DC.

From this Politico.com article:

We are focused on trying to change the way business is done in Washington. Change like this is hard. We'll find a way forward so that we can reflect the expectations the taxpayers have that we're going to begin to start spending their money more prudently.
Click to expand...

To that I say, it's a noble idea but where disaster relief is concerned how about spending in accordance with the law that was passed just last month? Again, see my post #6 for details.

For those who support Rep. Cantor and the Tea Party (as well as all others who voted against this measure), the question you should be asking is:

"Was voting down the spending measure and standing by their priciples the right thing to do or should they have voted in accordance with the law?"
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I know your commentary wasn't addressed to me, but I'll like to reply anyway.

At odds here where disaster relief spending is concerned is: 1) spending under the GOP House budget versus what the law dictates (see my post #6 for precise details), and 2) politics as usual.

Rep. Cantor said the following in the Politico.com article I linked to above (post #6):



By "that move," Cantor is referring to Sen. Reid attaching the increase in disaster spending to the Continuing Resolution (CR) bill. But not only has Cantor repeated his stance that disaster relief spending must be off-set by spending cuts, he's also stated that the defeat of the CR is a function of changing the culture in DC.

From this Politico.com article:



To that I say, it's a noble idea but where disaster relief is concerned how about spending in accordance with the law that was passed just last month? Again, see my post #6 for details.

The question for those who support Rep. Cantor and the Tea Party (as well as all others who voted against this measure) should be asking is:

"Was voting down the spending measure and standing by their priciples the right thing to do or should they have voted in accordance with the law?"
Click to expand...
You may NOT address those comments...mind your business!

;)

Just kidding.

I dont see Boehner as being anything more than just another partisan politician. Congress as a body is either going to have to commit to fiscal responsibility or the country will continue to spend itself into obblivion. Like the wars Bush engaged us in...you cant just ignore the cost...you have to PAY for things TODAY. The thought that both parties have, with complete disregard, saddled my grandchildren with debt they were too chicken **** to deal with flat out pisses me off. It should piss EVERYONE with children or grandchildren off. Thats not Monopoly money. Im glad the Tea PArty republicans stood their ground. I hope and pray more people on both parties end their idiotic partisan brain mapping and start doing the right things for the country. NOW.
 
1Perry said:
Not only that, they joined them for different reasons. Not enough deficit spending.
Click to expand...

House Democrats voted down the bill NOT because they didn't like it, but rather because it cut $1.5 billion in funding from the energy Department loan program to offset disaster relief aid which they say helps to create jobs.

From theHill.com:

After the House vote on Wednesday, Democrats immediately called on Republicans to scrap the cut to the energy program, which they said would cost thousands of jobs.

“This vote sent a clear message to Republicans: the American people want a bipartisan approach to running our government,” said the No. 2 House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “We should immediately pass disaster relief that meets the needs of our people and protect — not cut — programs proven to create jobs while we reduce the deficit. If Republican leaders bring a bill to the floor that honors the bipartisan agreement from August, they will find it has bipartisan support for passage.”
Click to expand...
 
VanceMack said:
You may NOT address those comments...mind your business!

;)

Just kidding.

I dont see Boehner as being anything more than just another partisan politician. Congress as a body is either going to have to commit to fiscal responsibility or the country will continue to spend itself into obblivion. Like the wars Bush engaged us in...you cant just ignore the cost...you have to PAY for things TODAY. The thought that both parties have, with complete disregard, saddled my grandchildren with debt they were too chicken **** to deal with flat out pisses me off. It should piss EVERYONE with children or grandchildren off. Thats not Monopoly money. Im glad the Tea PArty republicans stood their ground. I hope and pray more people on both parties end their idiotic partisan brain mapping and start doing the right things for the country. NOW.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but ask yourself does standing behind priciple always equate to adherring to the law?

As stated previously, Tea Party Republicans along with Rep. Cantor are merely adherring to principle here. They're trying to stand behind fiscal conservatism based not on the 2011 Budget Control Act but rather by the House budget they've defined not under the guidelines set by Congress and signed into by the President.

I'll put it this way: If as a member of Congress you claim fidelity to the Constitution, by default it means you must also follow the laws passed by Congress and enacted by the President. You don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow or create your own parameters for same.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom