Senate Rejects Government Funding Bill With $60 Billion In Cuts

WASHINGTON -- As expected, the Senate rejected on Wednesday two budget proposals that would have exacted cuts in federal spending in exchange for funding the government for the next seven months.

Senate Democrats voted down a House Republican bill that would have cut $57 billion from current funding levels. The bill failed, 56 to 44, confirming warnings by Senate leaders that the House bill was too extreme to make it through the upper chamber.

The other proposal on the floor, a Senate Democratic plan to cut about $6.5 billion from the budget, also fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage. That bill received even fewer votes than the House GOP plan, with 58 senators voting against. Eleven "no" votes came from Democrats, including Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall of Colorado, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Neither bill won even a majority of votes, with 14 senators opposing both. With the bills' failure assured in advance, going through the motions of the votes served to illustrate the ongoing Capitol Hill wheel-spinning in the debate over budget cuts.

Republicans are looking to retain as many of the House-passed cuts as possible, while Democrats have summarily rejected the lower chamber's proposal. Neither side currently has a bill that can pass a 50-vote threshold in the Senate, much less the 60 votes needed to prevent filibuster.

The House GOP bill was long considered dead on arrival because of its deep cuts and riders to defund health care reform and cripple environmental and financial regulations. The White House reestablished its threat to veto the bill on Wednesday, issuing a statement that President Barack Obama would reject the House Republican budget bill if it made it to his desk.

The three Republicans who opposed the House-passed bill on Wednesday -- all founding members of the Tea Party caucus -- said the nearly $60 billion in cuts did not go far enough. Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) joined Democrats to vote against the bill.

Paul has called the House GOP cuts "not even close" to enough to turn around the deficit.

"I can't support spending at this level when we're faced with a $1.5 trillion deficit," he said in a statement after the vote. "I've consistently opposed adding to the deficit and will continue my opposition with my vote today."

By holding the test votes on Wednesday, Senate Democratic leadership sought to reframe the debate over funding the government, which must be done before March 18 to prevent government shutdown. House Republicans have so far held most of the cards, and succeeded in passing a two-week stopgap funding bill last week that cut government funding by $4 billion.

House GOP leaders have said they will support future short-term bills, but only if they continue to trim $2 billion per week from the budget. The White House floated the idea of about $6 billion more in cuts, which could indicate a three-week funding bill as the House and Senate work out a compromise on a longer-term solution.

Senate Democrats say they hope to gain leverage in the next round of negotiations now that they've voted down the House proposal. Leadership met with Obama at the White House on Wednesday before the vote to discuss the budget stalemate.

One proposal, unveiled on Wednesday morning by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), would broaden the budget debate to bring in more revenue instead of only making cuts to discretionary spending. Schumer said he and other members of his caucus want to see an end to tax loopholes and wasteful subsidies, in addition to Medicare reform and defense cuts, to prevent dismantling of programs that help low-income people and families.

He said the failure of the two bills in the Senate could be a chance to reset the debate over the budget.

"We need to stop measuring fiscal responsibility in the frame of willingness to make cuts to government," he said at an event at the Obama administration-allied Center for American Progress. "For the good of the economy, we need to get off this playing field -- it is quicksand."

Comments

[Twiggy 500]

02:54 PM on 03/24/2011

Fair Tax.org would settle all this mess

[Reversecigol]

07:38 AM on 03/12/2011

Interesting to see the counter-proposal. Deficit reduction is needed, but
A) The Tea Party is too extreme and unrealistic
B) The GOP is sacrificing willing to sacrifice domestic jobs and consumer dollars (which help local businesses by saving a buck and
C) By allowing angry people shout louder, the Democrats have effectively been silent

Two things need to happen: One is slight reductions. Extensive reductions will lead to a reduction in the quality of services provided to the public. The second is a slight increase in taxes. The GOP never talks about it, but much of this mess stems from a mess THEY created during the Bush-era. Reduced taxes+war-time spending. "Oops, our bad" doesn't cover it. China won't foot the bill, and cutting costs (jobs) hurts EVERYONE. (Reduced funding=reduction in workforce=Reduction in consumer dollars=More people living at home with parents, tightening the belt=Businesses struggling.)

The GOP either does not see this, or it does not care. That's a very limited scope of vision. The Tea Party simply doesn't get it. They place too much faith in the private sector, where maximizing profit means sending jobs and production overseas so executives can increase their take home (and pay off the GOP so they don't have to pay heavy taxes).

[OFA2012]

01:01 AM on 03/12/2011

Our political process was set up as a conversation between different points of view. I believe this process is largely the reason for the success of our democracy. If we (and they) can step outside of our economic and political self-interests and concerns, and focus on the job before them and what is best for our country and future, I am hopeful they will reach a reasonable compromise. At the same time, I feel sure it will involve sacrifices by all of us. Our individual responsibilities and sacrifices will be part of the road to a better future, and we should not moralize or politicize our own self-interests. If we compete regarding who is to blame, who must pay for the solution, and who is sacrificing the most, this reveals more about ourselves than it does about others.

It is difficult to dialogue in the face of differences, but important for all relationships if we want to grow together. This quality has been a source of strength for President Obama, who actively seeks out different points of view and even has selected staff who can provide alternative points of view. He knows that learning and better solutions come from opening ourselves to new perspectives of the world. I'm hopeful the political process is moving in a more positive direction as the Senate too is actively working to build relationships and dialogue with those who have different perspectives.

[nyrhe]

10:04 PM on 03/11/2011

Republicans campaigned on jobs, but since they took over the House, they have either ignored the issue and focused on abortion and gay marriage or now they are actively trying to destroy jobs and add to unemployment. And their budget doesn't have anything to do with the deficit--it has to do with ideology. If Republicans really cared about the deficit, they would not have pushed for the tax breaks for the Richest 2% and they wouldn't be dead set against taking back billions of dollars of tax subsidies for oil companies and hedge fund managers.

[SisterAnn]

07:21 AM on 03/11/2011

So what if shale oil will cause the US to become the top producer of oil?

So what if we have enough usable coal to last several hundred years?

So what if an ear of corn or a pound of beef or pork will eventually be exported at tremendous prices?

When all these things go up, it will go up for us too. No taxes will be collected to pay back what the government owes Social Security. No taxes will be collected to pay for the upkeep of this country.

If new jobs are required they will insource or outsource.

And how do you think they will get huge prices from people overseas with low wages?

Huge profits are being made now and our big companies are sitting on a trillion dollars of profits.

Other countries will perfect wind and solar power.

[treadway123]

09:08 PM on 03/10/2011

Finally some guts is showen, an some middle class protection has come an none to soon either! So maybe they heard the Roar of the People in wisconsin an figured out Governor Walker gave away their secrets of just what their Agenda is! Perhaps the People have Roared loud enough that they finally heard it in D.C, an heard we plan to Recall every Republican who thinks they can Sale us out to Billionairs like the Koch Brothers! Today Wisconsin Fireman closed the doors of the bank that backed Walker by with drawing their own person/pension fund to the tune of $198,000. in Ten minutes time! Were takeing our Country back in peaceful ways, an useing legal avenues to do it! They have ask wisconsinites to follow their lead an citizens headed to the bank! recalls are on the way! The people are riseing up!

[cam1002]

09:52 PM on 03/10/2011

It's a good start, we need a lot more of it.

[centsable]

07:20 PM on 03/10/2011

Schumer is correct, close those tax loopholes, starting with big oil. Stop subsidizing these billion dollar corporations that are gouching the american people at the cash register.

[cam1002]

09:56 PM on 03/10/2011

I have repeated this on so many threads I hope you are not tired of hearing it. Last week the Dems sponsored a bill in the House to cut the subsidies for the gas and oil corps. The republicans voted it down. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED NO EVERY SINGLE ONE - I don't think we can say this and about any other votes like it enough. We need to keep remembering it until the election of 2012 and beyond.

[seeksthetruth]

04:29 PM on 03/21/2011

That would have saved billions immediately, not to mention all the future wars for oil. Instead, they're focusing on defunding Planned Parenthood. When will their followers figure out they are just tools for Big Business and Billionaires? Apparently, not until they lose everything.

[crystalveg]

01:23 PM on 03/10/2011

With Rev Jesse Jackson back in Wi the big question is ....Will he sing yet again "we shall over-come"
God please!!!!

[George Hanshaw]

12:02 PM on 03/10/2011

cam1002

“No, I was right, shame on you. The only solution you have offered to solve this terrible situation is to cut spending"

Perhaps that's because IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNION WE HAVE NEVER HAD GOVERNMENT REVENUES EQUAL AS MUCH AS 21% OF THE GDP and that given THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF US DOING SO IN THE FUTURE that makes it MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTINUE HAVE THE GOVERNMENT SPEND 26% of the GDP.

I did not create this situation. I did not even create the math that demonstrates it, but since the reality appears to be that the only solution THERE IS is to cut government spending, you sure aren't going to induce in me any feelings of shame about not offering other fantasy 'solutions' that won't work.

[George Hanshaw]

12:02 PM on 03/10/2011

It will be ugly enough if we do this PROMPTLY. Delay will only make it worse. We currently owe to bondholders one GDP - an amount of money equivalent to an entire years worth of US production of goods and services. But that's not the bad part. We owe them DEBT SERVICE on that - interest we will pay every year in perpetuity apparently, since we seem to be incapable of even balancing the budget let alone running a surplus that might be used to reduce the debt. Even today those bondholders could demand 10% of the value of every good and service in the US to refinance that debt, and we'd have no choice but to pay. What happens when the debt gets bigger? Because it IS growing far faster than the economy.

This isn't about wishing on a star. It's not a problem that can be solved with pixie dust or believing in fairies. The SHAME would be to delay until the needed changes for the economy to survive are even more painful - or worse, until total meltdown occurred.

[cam1002]

07:17 PM on 03/10/2011

so you propose not raising taxes just slash and burn the budget which will primarily come from social programs that will hurt the elderly, poor, children, womens health and the inform and leave the wealthy completely unscathed and their entitlements in the form of the lowest taxes ever? Shame on you again.

[cam1002]

07:18 PM on 03/10/2011

You are great with your numbers but exactly what would you do? What would you cut? Where are you going to get the money for pay off the debt?

[seeksthetruth]

04:33 PM on 03/21/2011

If you're so concerned about the deficit (and where were you when the GOP via Reagan and Bush was driving it up?), then you'll join us in calling for the Rich & Big Business to start paying their fair share in taxes. If we rolled back the Bush & Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy, we wouldn't be in this mess! Going after the poor and most vulnerable is not the answer!

[gateking]

11:30 AM on 03/10/2011

Deep down inside everyone in this country with an IQ over 70 knows the current situation is not sustainable. The lack of leadership from virtually everyone is appalling.

Just as it took a Nixon to open a relationship with China ( a dem would have been skewered), the reps should propose a massive defense cut. Why are we protecting Germany? Let them step up. We could close more than 1/2 of our bases and have minimal to no loss in US security.

Dems have never met a program they don't like. Need to get real about our ability to live within our means. In a recent editorial, the NYT declared our $1,600,000,000,000 projected budget too large, but the proposed 61,000,000,000 cuts "ruinous". Utter nonsense, a modest 3.8% budget cut isn't even a good start.

[cam1002]

09:43 PM on 03/10/2011

you're right, but they are cutting the wrong things and not raising taxes on anyone much less the top 2%. You can only get so much from social services, the well has run dry. We need to raise taxes, close loopholes, stop subsidies, change the laws so there would be no more offshoring of income to avoid taxes by corporations and individuals, stop tax breaks for companies offshoring jobs to other countries and give tax breaks for keeping jobs here. The repubs have pretty much destroyed the middle class and now they are going after the poor and weak. Something has got to give and I'm almost afraid of how violent it might be.

[actuallyreadit]

11:00 AM on 03/10/2011

You make a lot of sense Schumer. Which means no one will listen to you. I for one am all about closing tax loopholes (many of which only encourage bad behavior from those that abuse them with sometimes comic, yet damaging methods) and eliminating wasteful subsidies (again...the ones that make bad behavior easy for those that wish to abuse them). There are too many to list here, but something I enjoy conversing with friends about as they are usually as shocked as I am that some of these things actually exist.

[gateking]

11:35 AM on 03/10/2011

Agree. I think the tax code is hopelessly outdated with all kinds of incentives that make little sense and/or violate most people's sense of fairness. If I were king for a day, we'd start over and eliminate all deductions and incentives. No farming subsidies. No oil subsidies. and no home mortgage subsides, either. As soon as you allow 1 subsidy, the lobbying begins. So let's try none for a while. Lower tax rates to compensate individuals for the loss of deductions. There will be winners and loser for sure (lobbyists, accountants and tax lawyers among the losers----oh darn) but most of us would be way better off.

[cam1002]

12:22 AM on 03/11/2011

Good ideas, and a graduated tax code because 10% on someone earning $30,000/yr is a whole lot more expensive then 10% on someone earning $20,000,000/yr or more.

[Mister Moderate]

10:01 AM on 03/10/2011

It sounds like most people on here think a $1.5 trillion deficit is ok. That's scary.

[Broknrekord3]

10:05 AM on 03/10/2011

It sounds like you ignored the fact this bill had nothing to do with finances. That's scary.

[Mister Moderate]

10:12 AM on 03/10/2011

"Nothing to do with finances"??? I must have clicked on the wrong article. I thought this one was "Senate Rejects Government Funding Bill....". Please tell me what this is about.

[nakedempire]

09:35 AM on 03/10/2011

Uncle Sam to sell assets to pay debt?

http://nakedempire.wordpress.com/

[Willie12345]

09:20 AM on 03/10/2011

What's that hanging out of Reid's nose in the picture?

[MyOwnPerson172]

09:05 AM on 03/10/2011

It's time to form U.S. Uncut and tax the world-wide profits of these multi-national corporations that do business in the U.S. proportionally to that business. It's time to stop all corporate welfare, especially including the military welfare.

[BKFactor]

10:06 AM on 03/10/2011

Love ya!