House defeats Republican spending plan

Objective Voice said:

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.

Click to expand...

So they liked that? That out of the way, yes, that is what I said, there was not enough deficit spending.

Objective Voice said:

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.

Click to expand...

If the legislation is coming up for a 'vote' then it probably is more fluid than the law states. Surely you cant be suggesting that everyone that voted against it violates the law? Why then put it up for vote? Why not just have an executive order and adopt by immediate acclamation?

I dont mind disaster relief spending provided that it is 1-what is required and 2-paid for.

so.... what i'm seeing here is... Democrats are willing to cut emergency relief spending if it means saving crony capitalism for the green industry?


got it.

cpwill said:

so.... what i'm seeing here is... Democrats are willing to cut emergency relief spending if it means saving crony capitalism for the green industry?


got it.

Click to expand...

Rather, I think they feel it sets bad precedent to tie emergency funding to spending cuts. It's not so important what specific spending cuts are involved. Imagine if after 9/11 we had demanded spending cuts equal to the money spent on the wars...

1Perry said:

So they liked that? That out of the way, yes, that is what I said, there was not enough deficit spending.

Click to expand...

That's correct, there is not anywhere NEAR enough deficit spending to haul our asses out of this economic malaise. Worrying about short-term spending now is like fretting about drought when you're trying to put out a forest fire.

vvx said:

Rather, I think they feel it sets bad precedent to tie emergency funding to spending cuts.

Click to expand...

actually this is fantastic precedence. otherwise everything simply has the word "emergency" attached to it, and any pretence at fiscal sanity once again is out the window.

It's not so important what specific spending cuts are involved. Imagine if after 9/11 we had demanded spending cuts equal to the money spent on the wars...

Click to expand...

that would have been fantastic - and I am among those who criticize the Bush Administration for not doing so.

cpwill said:

actually this is fantastic precedence. otherwise everything simply has the word "emergency" attached to it, and any pretence at fiscal sanity once again is out the window.



that would have been fantastic - and I am among those who criticize the Bush Administration for not doing so.

Click to expand...

I suppose another way to look at it, since spending cuts aren't the only way to achieve this, what if after 9/11 Bush had demanded tax increases equal to the money spent on the wars?

So the House passed the bill, and now Reid will block it apparently.

1Perry said:

So they liked that? That out of the way, yes, that is what I said, there was not enough deficit spending.

Click to expand...

Allow me to clarify...

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.

Click to expand...

The program in question is the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan program. I'm sure Demacrats liked the overall structure of the CR as approved by the House; they just don't like that Republicans are trying to fund disaster relief by making cuts to a program that has consistently come under attack at their hands.

According to congressional Democrats, they claim that the ATVM program* has created jobs AND has helped to slow the nation's dependency on oil - foreign or domestic.

*(Clink on the link "See history of LPO" under "HISTORY" content or click on the interactive map for details on how LPO projects are progressing in your state.)

A little perspective...

Fuel efficiency ratings on new cars are the highest they've been in years and under new fuel mileage standards recently enacted by President Obama, the fuel efficient of passenger cars will increase still further by 2016. If the U.S. auto industry makes the shift in improved fuel efficiency standards, U.S. cars will achieve the best fuel mileage standards they've been since...the Carter Administration? That's a long time to wait for fuel efficient car that gets over 20-25 mpg highway or city. And with gas prices currently at averaging $3.54/gal nationally and reportedly as high as $4.99/gal in some parts of CA, I'd think that Congress as a whole would be more supportive of the positive impact the ATVM is having on the overall quality of our cars. Remember: It was just 3 short years ago that two of our American automakers had filed for bankruptcy and the American auto industry was being severely dominated by foreign automakers. That's not necessarily the case now according to this 2011 survey. Toyoda and Honda still lead the pack, but their margin is decreasing.

But ATVM's mission isn't just to push domestic passenger car fuel efficiency. It's also to advocate the use of new technology in our automobiles so that our cars become far more competitive against foreign automakers. Again, I'd think people would support that. I certainly do.

I recently purchased a 2009 Chevy Malibu SL (reluctantly; my older van finally broke down and it was the only running vehicle I had. So, I had no choice). Not exactly a brand new model, but it performs far better than I expected. It gets nearly 25 mpg city and I'm spending the same $40/wk on a full tank of gas that use to only fill my van's tank half-way. And both me and my wife drive this car daily as oppose to it being just me driving my old van over the same 5-day work week, and we only fill the tank once a week. Mind you, I didn't want another car note, but the fuel efficiency alone will save me a ton! But I digress...

If this wasn't about politics as Rep. Cantor states...

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...

...why then would he and his fellow Republicans insist on offsetting funding from only this Dept of Energy program and not try to find cost savings anywhere else? Is it just because Sen. Reid is piggy-backing the increase to FEMA funding onto the Senate energy bill? If so, I suppose I could see the logic. However, as I mentioned in post #6, since both the President and Congress have declared certain areas across the country as emergency disaster areas, no emergency disaster relief funding need-be offset. Moreover, it's never been done before when our nation has been faced with natural disasters. And considering that diaster relief efforts under FEMA have been better compared to how things were in the wake of Hurrican Katrina, one has to ask why the political gamesmenship?

Again, is it a matter of "we just don't have the money to pay for it?" or is it "We (Reps) are going to force you (Dems) to choose between voting for legislation that provides emergency disaster relief at the level we want versus voting disaster relief funding down to protect one of your sacrad federal agencies - DoE funding - an agency we (Reps) have been targetting for years".

But no one's playing politics...

Right...:roll:

Objective Voice said:

Allow me to clarify...

Click to expand...

I don't care where they find the money to offset it. It must be offset. If it was me, I'd say "O.K. so what are we going to take this money from". To me, the idea what the discussion is 1 in additional spending = 1.5 dollars less somwhere else is more important than what is being cut. If you want to argue that there are better things to cut, O.K. there might be but I'm happy that we are at least having the correct discussion.

If this wasn't about politics as Rep. Cantor states...

Click to expand...

Everything involves politics as to what will or won't be cut but the idea that we have to stop the deficit spending is not politics. It's reality.

...why then would he and his fellow Republicans insist on offsetting funding from only this Dept of Energy program and not try to find cost savings anywhere else? Is it just because Sen. Reid is piggy-backing the increase to FEMA funding onto the Senate energy bill? If so, I suppose I could see the logic. However, as I mentioned in post #6, since both the President and Congress have declared certain areas across the country as emergency disaster areas, no emergency disaster relief funding need-be offset. Moreover, it's never been done before when our nation has been faced with natural disasters. And considering that diaster relief efforts under FEMA have been better compared to how things were in the wake of Hurrican Katrina, one has to ask why the political gamesmenship?

Click to expand...

Cut. I do not care that it has never been done before. It has to be done now. Argue over what needs cut. That's what they are supposed to do. Just agree to the cuts before spending more money. No program is more important than the big picture of getting the debt under control.

Again, is it a matter of "we just don't have the money to pay for it?" or is it "We (Reps) are going to force you (Dems) to choose between voting for legislation that provides emergency disaster relief at the level we want versus voting disaster relief funding down to protect one of your sacrad federal agencies - DoE funding - an agency we (Reps) have been targetting for years".

Click to expand...

I don't care. If the Dems refuse to fund something that the GOP wants unless we agree to cuts in the military, I'm all for that also.

But no one's playing politics...

Right...:roll:

Click to expand...

What one wants funded or not will always be politics. I'm O.K. with that as long as the cuts are made.

Wait, the Democratic controlled Senate said “No” to the House budget. The party that never met a tax dollar it couldn’t spend, is saying no to keeping the federal govt. funded. I thought it was those dirty Republicans that was saying no. Seems the Dems didn't like the reduced spending in federal loans to startup eco companies. Like the one Obama backed that filed for bankrupcy.

Yet somehow I know on this forum someone will find a way to say its the Republicans fault.

Senate Blocks House Disaster Aid Bill - ABC News
The Democratic-led Senate blocked a House bill Friday that would provide disaster aid and keep government agencies open, escalating the parties' latest showdown over spending and highlighting the raw partisan rift that has festered all year.

1Perry said:

Cut. I do not care that it has never been done before. It has to be done now. Argue over what needs cut. That's what they are supposed to do. Just agree to the cuts before spending more money. No program is more important than the big picture of getting the debt under control.

Click to expand...

So the concern is keeping debt under control is it? Well, I guess, if you insist, we could tack a tax raise onto the bill. That'd do the trick.

vvx said:

So the concern is keeping debt under control is it? Well, I guess, if you insist, we could tack a tax raise onto the bill. That'd do the trick.

Click to expand...

No, the campaign promise they ran on and won their seat was on the arguement that there will be no tax increases without tax cuts. They did not run on the idea of the government, taking and spending more and more.

That does nothing for the deficit.

Objective Voice said:

Moreover, it's never been done before when our nation has been faced with natural disasters.

Click to expand...

Actually it turns out to have been fairly common. prior to 2002.


Remember back in the debt ceiling debate? Remember how evil government shutdowns are? Poor people starving in the streets, old people unable to get healthcare, businesses that work with the government shutting down, fire and brimstone raining from the sky etc?


yeah, that's what Democrats are apparently threatning to do in order to protect more companies like Solyndra. Good job, fools.

1Perry said:

No, the campaign promise they ran on and won their seat was on the arguement that there will be no tax increases without tax cuts. They did not run on the idea of the government, taking and spending more and more.

That does nothing for the deficit.

Click to expand...

I don't see how it does anything for the deficit either way. If the proposed spending is $100, either a cut in spending of $100 or an increase in taxes of $100 will result in $0 net change in the deficit. So what's your point, what's the deficit gotta do with the tax increase?

vvx said:

I suppose another way to look at it, since spending cuts aren't the only way to achieve this, what if after 9/11 Bush had demanded tax increases equal to the money spent on the wars?

Click to expand...

then we would be in the same boat that we are in today - as tax rate increases do not produce more revenue.


's why they call it the "Dismal Science"

vvx said:

I don't see how it does anything for the deficit either way. If the proposed spending is $100, either a cut in spending of $100 or an increase in taxes of $100 will result in $0 net change in the deficit. So what's your point, what's the deficit gotta do with the tax increase?

Click to expand...

not really. generally, a dollar cut from the budget equals minus one dollar to the deficit. a dollar added to GDP equals about 19 cents reduced to the deficit direct, with other, less calculable reductions indirect.

however, the only way to get an extra dollar in revenue, is to increase GDP by about 5 dollars.

OR

if you were just looking at straight revenue reduction, decreasing the size of government by 80 cents (back of the napkin math) would net you about a dollars' worth of deficit reduction.

cpwill said:

Actually, this is fantastic precedence. Otherwise, everything simply has the word "emergency" attached to it, and any pretence at fiscal sanity once again is out the window.

Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:

Moreover, it's never been done before when our nation has been faced with natural disasters.

Click to expand...

cpwill said:

Actually it turns out to have been fairly common. prior to 2002.

Click to expand...

I understand where Rep. Cantor's coming from. However, I also think that when the President AND Congress declares certain parts of the country as "disaster areas", Congress is then obligated to follow the law and appropriate the funding. (See President's request for additional disaster relief funding.) And the law as summarized in post #6 clearly outlines what the protocal is for appropriating funding under emergency/disaster conditions. To that, Rep. Cantor, IMO is playing politics here. But Sen. Reid didn't help matters much by attempting to lump additional disaster relief spending with other legislation, i.e., a CR, coming out of the Senate under the guise of "expediency".

This article from a local news network out of NY illustrates why the additional funding is needed not just for rebuilding damaged property and city infrastructure but there's also the issue of farmland that's also been devasted by floods not to mention forrestry consumed by Texas wildfires.

Per this article from MarketNews, it would appear that Sen. Reid will attempt to send a clean CR back to the House via the Senate requesting the initial $3.65 billion the House previously passed basically putting the ball back in Boehner and Cantor's hands. And since Dems won't allow cuts to only come from the DoE/ATVM program, this may force Republicans to seeks offsets from other areas.

Bottom Line: I think Dems could accept offsets if cuts were coming from multiple agencies, but it's very clear that Rep. Cantor and House Republicans had a specific "target" in mind when they sent their amended bill to the Senate.