Skip to comments.House Republicans gauging support for budget amendments
Posted on 01/01/2013 4:06:45 PM PST by bimboeruption
House Republican leaders will assess support within their conference for two options on the Senate's "fiscal cliff" compromise before deciding whether to try to amend the legislation and send it back to the upper chamber, lawmakers and aides said.
The two choices: amend the bill with spending cuts - likely killing it for the 112th Congress - or voting to adopt the Senate measure and sending it to President Obama for his signature.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told his conference he was flatly opposed to the Senate bill without more spending cuts, members said as they emerged from a nearly two-hour Republican meeting in the Capitol Tuesday afternoon.
According to sources in the room, Cantor said that he did not "support" the Senate-backed bill but stopped short of saying he would vote against it if the House took it up on the floor.
The sizeable objections among House Republicans to the Senate approach risked scuttling the deal worked out by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Vice President Biden on Monday. That deal passed early Tuesday in the Senate 89-8.
During an eventing vote series, members are being whipped on various amendment options. If there is more than a 217-vote majority within the Republican conference for the amended bill, it will be brought to the floor. If a majority cannot be found, the Senate deal will get an up-or-down vote, members said Tuesday evening.
"I am looking forward to getting some spending cuts in this deal," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said.
Members said that one option would replace a year of sequestration cuts with cuts to mandatory programs approved by the House in the spring. Those cuts were decried by Democrats as slashing entitlement spending.
Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) said the GOP amendment would cut $328 billion and mirrors the defense sequester measure that has already passed the House.
LaTourette predicted that a vote on the Senate bill would not attract a majority of the majority. He said it would probably get 150 Democratic votes and the support of only 70 Republicans.
"We are asking members about what options they want and then we will know how to move forward," incoming Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said. He said final votes could come later in the evening.
The developments followed signs earlier Tuesday that the Senates New Years Eve compromise on the "fiscal cliff" had hit major turbulence in the House.
These power hungry, corrupt traitors are never going to get it because they don't want to get it. They want to be able to continue buying votes with OUR money.
Pray for Godly Patriots to run for office.
I forgot to check the excerpt box. There’s more at the site.
My prediction: they won’t get the votes to add the spending cuts. They’ll vote up or down on the Senate version. The Senate version will pass with lots of Dems with lots of GOP members voting against it.
The soup Republicans eat to vomit out bills that have destroyed our liberty and freedom.
Tonight is no exception.
Our laws are supposed to flow upward from the people, not down from a despot to be rubber stamped in the dead of night without hearings or deliberation.
We must instruct our Congressmen to vote “no” on every ultimatum from Chairman Obama.
To a point. The progressives have chipped away at the Constitution and other protections to allow "mob on demand" flows to override things. The poison Mr. Jefferson mistakenly introduced into the "party of the people" may kill slowly, but it kills nonetheless.
Which way gets me the most votes for re-Election?
To Hell with the Constitution, or any Conservatives because the other side of the Issues has the support of the parasites who live off others, Unions, Government workers, felons, Illegals, and inner-city tribal parasites.
There's no way any handouts will be cut off to balance the Budget (when they ever pass one), and when our Credit goes to zero, the only vote you will ever need is in your ammo boxes.
What poison are you referring to ?
“the support of only 70 Republicans. “
If anywhere near that many vote for it Boehner has to go.
There are only about 20 RINOs who would vote for this in their own interests.
Any more voting for it are doing it because of Boehner.
>We must instruct our Congressmen to vote no on every ultimatum from Chairman Obama.<
We can instruct most of them until we’re blue in the face. In fact that’s how Conservative/Tea Partiers recognize one another.
Congress, as a whole, does not care. We need to do the bus trip to Washington thing again. They’ve forgotten what it’s like to be chased down those white marble halls.
Cuts? This bill the senate over does not contain any cuts. In addition, it
has 330 billion in new spending. Lindsey Graham was out today saying
cuts must be made. Yet, last night in the senate, he voted for this bill
that has 330 billion in new spending.
They think we’re pretty stupid, don’t they?
The mainstreaming of Jacobin tendencies into American politics.
Now I see that Democrats are mulling over ways to gouge more tax money from workers to pay for ObamaCare.
I have the perfect solution: Look at the voter registration and assess every Democrat, liberal or otherwise, $1,000 regardless of that persons work ethic.
Democrats are the ones who want this monstrosity, so they should be the ones to pay for it. If this is not enough for complete coverage, then the balance should be acquired from the overpaid worthless senators and representatives who are figuring where to get more tax money.
Simple solutions for major problems are always the best.
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
Are you calling Jefferson a progressive, or ultimately responsible for progressivism? No. Or is it just that the Democrat Party was founded by Jeffersonians? No again. It dates from Jackson, technically (and actually was formed by Jackson’s little helper, Van Buren). Jeffersonians are different enough from Jacksonians, let alone today’s Democrats. Hell, today’s Democrats don’t even resemble New Deal Democrats.
It has always irked me that just because the parties have kept the same names since Jackson and Lincoln respectively we must pretend as if they’re the same parties. Lincolnians might as well have been Whigs, for all the difference it makes to contemporary Pubs. We have fun rubbing the KKK in Dems’ faces, but is there any essential connection between fictitious Confederate ghosts and today’s Dems? Hell no. They’d be union men, not secessionists. Unless it was the central government who owned slaves instead of private individuals, and instead of seceding they were kicking out the red states so as to have no more tubes in the way of socialization.
I can see calling Jefferson a leftist, but not so much a Jacobin. Yes, he supported the French revolution at first. But he was a revolution kinda guy, though certainly not a reign of terror guy. He did seemingly drop all his libertarian principles upon descending to the presidency, but didn’t rule like Robespierre. Not even like Lincoln or FDR, and certainly not like later leftist revolutionaries.
You may argue leftism is all of a kind, and the license part inevitably leads to the despotism part. I think that’s relying far too much on terminology to do your thinking for you. Also, though I say I can see calling him a leftist, actually I think he was a liberal. That makes for more of a drawn out argument, given how many types have been labelled liberal since Jefferson.
Leave it as if Jefferson is a leftist, he is not of the kind which leads to death camps. He is of the liberal kind. If there is no such kind, then he is not a leftist and is closest to libertarians.
By the way, do today’s liberals, i.e. socialists, even bother claiming Jefferson? Or if they do, do they do so convincingly? I ask because I know libertarians do. They can’t shut up about them. And however many differences there are between conservatives and libertarians one thing we know is they hate socialists and socialists hate them almost more than us conservatives, except when it comes to war, sex, and drugs, broadly speaking.
Well, you mean besides Robert KKK Byrd, George Wallace, Fritz Hollings, Lester Maddox etc? Union thugs' actions aren't too far removed from Klan behavior.
Then there's the bomb building Occupackers, just busted over the weekend.
Don't forget the National Socialist types that infest the DHHS, disciples of Mr Janet Reno.
How about the environmental terrorists who burn down buildings and spike trees?
Well the RATs have Jefferson/Jackson dinners every year as a fund raiser...much like the GOPs have a Lincoln Day dinner.
You either drastically cut spending or vote no. What’s the problem with these idiots? There’s no debate - cut spending. CUT THE EFFIN’ SPENDING, MORONS!
Robert Byrd types, yes, that’s just the point. He was like 100 when he left politics, and not representative of the party since the civil rights movement and the New Left. Check out what happened to the Southern vote between ‘65 and now. They are hardly the same parties.
Every year the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner press releases bring out the sarcastic jerk in me, as I know damned well that they'd actually be aghast at being connected with the freakshow that makes up today's Democrat Party... and vice-versa. Having said that, I suspect they'd both be envious of the capability of the current "machine."
They’ll say things like that, because, hey, Jeffersonians became Jacksonians, and both were fir agrarians and against Yankee mercantilists, and so on. But it’s false history. Jacksonian democracy was not Jeffersonian. Read “The Era of Good Feelings” by George Dangerfield, for reference. Jackson is the real foundation of the Democrat Party.
Republicans might as well claim Whigism as its true foundation, and that would be more ideologically accurate. But they don’t, and just as well. Because Republicans weren’t Whigs even if Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican, for instance. There are reasons the former party failed and the latter dominated Washington from Lincoln to Wilson.