Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republican senators consider backing Reid debt plan
cBS News ^ | July 29, 2011 | Stephanie Condon

Posted on 07/29/2011 3:01:27 PM PDT by mdittmar

The House plans on voting on Speaker John Boehner's debt limit plan this evening, but with its demise imminent in the Senate, some Senate Republicans are considering getting behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's alternative plan.

"I voted for cut, cap, and balance,'" Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts said today, in reference to the House Republicans' initial debt limit plan. "I'll vote for Boehner, and I'll vote for Reid. I've already said that. We need to move our country forward. It's time."

Senate Democrats have promised to reject Boehner's plan, which would only extend the nation's borrowing authority for another six months. Democrats say it would be unwise to re-create the debate over the debt ceiling and deficit reduction again, just before Christmas.

Reid's plan would extend borrowing authority at least through 2012. Like Boehner's plan, it calls for significant spending cuts and doesn't make any tax increases. Both plans call for a bipartisan commission to come up with longer-term deficit and debt reduction plans.

Brown said his staff is working with Reid's staff to give the proposed commission more teeth, CBS News Capitol Hill Producer John Nolen reports.The moderate Republican also said he appreciated President Obama's "tone" today, when the president said from the White House that Congress must pass a bill that can get bipartisan support.

"I 'm looking forward to moving our country forward and having an opportunity to at least to vote on something," he said.Reid plans to move his bill to the Senate floor tonight, after action on Boehner's bill is completed.

Coming out of a Republican conference meeting this afternoon, GOP Sen. John Thune also suggested Reid's bill could be modified to win some Republican support.

"I think there are some things that could be done to his bill to make it better, to make it more attractive to Republicans, and if we ever get to that point maybe we'll get the chance to do that," he said.

Like Brown, Thune said that the ideas put forward by the proposed bipartisan deficit reduction committee should be binding and enforceable. Thune also reiterated the GOP complaint that Reid's plan relies on some accounting gimmicks, such as counting money saved from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as deficit reduction. He said that most Republicans want the spending cuts to match or exceed the amount that the debt ceiling is raised, and Reid's plan doesn't accomplish that yet.

In spite of the GOP concerns, Thune said Democrats and Republicans should be able to work together.

"You don't want things to drag on forever," he said. "Most of us believe you just can't kick this can down the road."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boehner; boehnerplan; debt; debtceiling; debtlimit; default; donothingsenate; partyofnoplan; reid; reidplan; traitorbrown; traitorthune
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: Girlene

The Senate voted to table it. He voted to open it up for debate. He thinks he’s being slick. He didn’t vote for the bill as what most people would define as voting for a bill, but he knows most people are too stupid to know the difference. In that case, he’s probably right.


41 posted on 07/29/2011 6:28:44 PM PDT by F1reEng1neRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: F1reEng1neRed

Thanks for the explanation.


42 posted on 07/29/2011 6:46:37 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

If Reid put it out, it must be killed.


43 posted on 07/29/2011 7:05:47 PM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Yesterday, July 28, a bill was introduced in the House by Dreier of CA that looks to be Reid’s ready-made crisis, must pass budget bill “in the wings.”

HR 2693
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2693

So, it would originate in the House......


44 posted on 07/29/2011 7:18:24 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt

Thune has been disappointing for quite a few years now. He could easily become the next Linda Graham, should JUAN ever retire and let Linda get a RINO promotion.


45 posted on 07/29/2011 7:42:24 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

What I don’t understand is why everyone is saying the Reid bill will pass.

Doesn’t the House have to vote on a compromise bill or on the Reid bill.

The House would never approve the Reid bill.


46 posted on 07/29/2011 7:59:54 PM PDT by altura ( Palin/Ryan---or Palin/Perry (for the best looking ticket ever))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

The Democrats are setting a trap for Republicans. Republicans better hold the lines. I hope they don’t fall for the crap put out by Harry Reid and Obama.
Grey Eagle


47 posted on 07/29/2011 9:25:24 PM PDT by Grey Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
"You don't want things to drag on forever," he said. "Most of us believe you just can't kick this can down the road."

It would be nice if he got his can kicked down the road. The Republican Party truly is the stupid party.

48 posted on 07/29/2011 9:28:58 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer
Just like Obama Care almost. They take the House Bill, and gut it, drop in Reid's bill, add some inducements for moderate Pubbies so they can claim its bi partisan. Then when they get 60 votes, they send it back to the house.

Thus leaving the hot potato in the pubbies lap.

49 posted on 07/29/2011 9:33:31 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GoCards

That was their plan all along. Marxism requires a one party system to “progress.”


50 posted on 07/29/2011 10:11:23 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

As long as the act of abomination stands, I reject the notion that we share any common “country” with those that support this war upon our rights.

Theses men are not our countrymen, they are our enemy’s into much that they seek to impose their repressive will upon us in dictating how we conduct our own personal business(health management or otherwise).

As for the Reid plan, I don’t understand how any republican can be fooled into playing their game. Obama has already told the bankers that he won’t neglect to pay the interest on the debt. Call his bluff, let the Federal goverment run on revenue for a while.

The American people must be exposed to the lies the democrats have been selling in-order to induce panic, and get them to accept even more thief our our children’s money.


51 posted on 07/29/2011 11:46:56 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

If the House Republicans want a constitutional amendment, there is an easy option that doesn’t require 3/4th of both houses of the corrupt Federal legislator.

Recognize some of the nearly 700 calls by 49 of the 50 States for a Constitutional convention over the last 200 years and actually carry out your supposedly “ministerial function” of calling that convention!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Attempts_to_call_another_constitutional_convention

Of course doing that would require a major leap of faith on the part of the house leadership. Giving up control of the process to our State Governments. Such a leap in doing their duty is perhaps too powerful for even the republicans engage in.


52 posted on 07/29/2011 11:52:08 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
[Art., quoting Brown] "We need to move our country forward. It's time."

Why is it "moving the country forward" if the key, the irreducible element of Harry Reid's plan is to allow Obama to skirt the issue of his sorry Cloward-Piven economic policy in 2012?

That's not going halfway, it's giving up and crossing over, if you're willing to give up something like that just to say "I voted for an agreement."

53 posted on 07/30/2011 3:12:12 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2; stevie_d_64; re_nortex; Grunthor
Thune has been disappointing for quite a few years now. He could easily become the next Linda Graham, .....

W.A.G. is that Thune has had people sidling up to him at tony DC parties thrown by the "right" hostesses and whispering in his ear how smart he is, and handsome, and electable, and how he has it all going on, and how he could advance to high office ...... if only he would begin the "glide path" to electable moderation ......

Sounds like the RiNO's/NWO-erati are cheesing up another renegade for 2016.

54 posted on 07/30/2011 3:32:49 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

You do realize that once a Constitutional Convention is called, it is not restricted to dealing with just that one amendment. They could change anything they want. There is no way we want to open up our constitution to this possibility.


55 posted on 07/30/2011 3:35:05 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: livius; x; rustbucket
They could change anything they want.

That's what the Philadelphia convention did in 1787. The people who called that convention thought they were asking for a tuneup of the Articles of Confederation -- surprise, surprise.

What they got was Alexander Hamilton, "empire without the King", and an eventual American Civil War, Gilded Age, and government by unrestrained kingpins, titans and colossi.

56 posted on 07/30/2011 3:41:33 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: livius

“You do realize that once a Constitutional Convention is called, it is not restricted to dealing with just that one amendment. They could change anything they want.”

Yes I realize that, but any changes they make would have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States, and that is just an amendment.

If they propose an entirely new Constitutions like they did last time every state would have to ratify it, or be left out of the new union.


” There is no way we want to open up our constitution to this possibility.”

What do we have to lose? As it is the Federal Constitution is meaningless. The Federal employees rewrite it at their mere whim, Congress passes any law they want, and now even the president does pretty much what ever he wants.

I don’t think its possible for our States to both come up with something that is worse and for 3/4ths of them to ratify that worse thing.

No my friend the risk and certain loss is entirely on the side of the Federal Government, and that is why they have thus far refused to carry out their ministerial duty to recognize just 38 calls out of the nearly 700 made by 49 of the 50 states.


57 posted on 07/30/2011 10:49:51 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

“”They could change anything they want.”

That’s what the Philadelphia convention did in 1787. The people who called that convention thought they were asking for a tuneup of the Articles of Confederation — surprise, surprise.

What they got was Alexander Hamilton, “empire without the King”, and an eventual American Civil War, Gilded Age, and government by unrestrained kingpins, titans and colossi.”

Exactly the anti-federalist fears have come to fruition, it can’t get any worse then it is. We already have whatever evil our federal politicians want to impose upon us.

We know about the flaws of the present federal Constitution, we Know how it has led to practically limitless power and tyranny in the Federal Government.


58 posted on 07/30/2011 10:53:22 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Sorry, but the existing Constitution is our only protection.

It has not led to tyranny. Selective interpretation and failure to abide by it have led to our present situation.


59 posted on 07/30/2011 12:49:25 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: livius

“Sorry, but the existing Constitution is our only protection.”

What protection? Our federal masters have empowered themselves to arbitrary redefine the limits of their own power.

That is called not having a Constitution.

“It has not led to tyranny. Selective interpretation and failure to abide by it have led to our present situation.”

Which I call illegitimate and boundless goverment, in a word tyranny.


60 posted on 07/30/2011 1:52:53 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson