Posted on 11/17/2005 11:57:04 PM PST by NapkinUser
Thought this was defeated.
The GOP lost its first floor vote since 1997 earlier today.
Good to see it wasn't back to back.
I will be interested to see who the 14 Republicans were who voted with the Democrats.
"Thought this was defeated."
It's called a motion to re-consider, I think. The republicans tweaked the bill just a little more, by not "cutting" food stamps as much, and it got just enough votes.
Gerlach
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Leach
McHugh
Ney
Paul
Ramstad
Shays
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Sweeney
Wilson (NM)
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=601
If Ron Paul voted against this, I find that surprising. I would have thought he would be for this.
"If Ron Paul voted against this, I find that surprising. I would have thought he would be for this."
I think he said the cuts are "too little and too late."
Instead of calling it a "deficit-reduction" plan, a more fitting title would be a "constitutional demanded reduction" plan since likely half of the spending is not authorized by the US Constitution.
Something's wrong with the math. All the Democrats and 14 Republicans adds up to 217.
Thanks!
I am relieved to see that my congresscritter, Mike "Jim Greenwood" Fitzpatrick apparently came to his senses.
Ohh, I see now. Two Democrats didn't vote. Bet Pelosi is steamed!
Now I see. What I said in #5 is wrong. What you are thinking of is this:
"About 12 hours earlier, however, 22 Republicans joined with Democrats to defeat a spending bill that would have cut $1.4 billion in health, education and labor programs this year."
Different "cut."
Current Party Divisions of the House:
231 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, 1 Vacancy
231 Republicans minus 14 = 217.
I am guessing that only 201 Democrats voted for the bill. Notice the phrasing of the story: "....with all Democrats and 14 Republicans voting against...."
It doesn't say "every Democrat". It is awkwardly (and inaccurately) written. The writer was probably trying to convey that no Democrats voted FOR the bill.
Regards,
LH
Yep, it seems that two Dems didn't vote for whatever reason.
It appears to be true. Ron Paul has an article on his House website entitled Too Little, Too Late
Doesn't Rep. Paul understand the meaning of the phrase "it's a start"?
"Congress is poised to consider a budget bill this week in a vote both parties consider critical, but in reality the bill is nothing more than a political exercise by congressional leaders designed to convince voters that something is being done about runaway federal spending. Having spent the last five years out-pandering the Democrats by spending money to buy off various voting constituencies, congressional Republicans now find themselves forced to appeal to their unhappy conservative base by applying window dressing to the bloated 2006 federal budget.- Ron Paul Too Little Too Late
Ignore the talk about Congress "slashing" vital government programs in this budget bill, which is just nonsense. This Congress couldn't slash spending if the members' lives depended on it.
...
Congress is running out of options in its game of buy now, pay later. Foreign central banks are less interested in loaning us money. Treasury printing presses are worn out from the unprecedented increase in dollars ordered by the Federal Reserve Bank over the past 15 years. Taxpayers are tapped out. Where will the money for Big Government conservatism come from?
Congressional Republicans and Democrats can posture until doomsday, but the needed course of action is clear. Declare an across-the-board ten percent cut for the federal 2006 budget, and focus spending on domestic priorities. If congressional leaders cannot take this simple step toward balancing the 2006 budget, they should at least not attempt to delude the American people that serious spending cuts are being made."
$1 billion to help low-income families pay for home heating costs this winter?
Couldn't they just give them 75% off vouchers for fleece sweaters and thermal underwear?
Ron Paul is makes the valid point that the majority in Congress, and maybe even the majority of the American public, are unrealistic about the deficit.
He is certainly right to say that we should move to balancing the budget in 2006; phasing the return of domestic policy to the states or to the people, slashing pork barrel programs and deferring other highway spending for a year, beginning to withdraw our troops from Iraq following the December election, opening up the development of resources on federal land and offshore, and perhaps even considering a one-year tax surchange. This would demonstrate real commitment and would be tremendous for our economy.
However, I disagree with him as to whether a small step in the right direction is bad. We don't have the votes to balance the budget, but we do have the votes (even without Ron Paul) to take another step to balancing the budget over a period of time.
The bill achieves its savings, mostly, by tinkering with eligibility and copayments and overhead in a variety of entitlement programs. It doesn't open up ANWR or off-shore drilling. And, it doesn't make permanent the Bush tax cuts. It's like kissing your cousin.
I'm not saying that cuts aren't justified but by cutting student loans and medicare and programs like that while at the same time leaving pork-laden bills like the Transportation Bill untouched, they're handing the Democrats a polticial issue to beat the Republicans over the head with. Cut medicate AND transportation. Cut student loans AND cut back on the Prescription drug bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.