More

Cut, Cap And Balance Act: Tea Party Debt Ceiling Plan Faces House Vote

DAVID ESPO   07/19/11 11:00 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Defying a veto threat, the Republican-controlled House voted Tuesday night to slice federal spending by $6 trillion and require a constitutional balanced budget amendment to be sent to the states in exchange for averting a threatened Aug. 2 government default.

The 234-190 vote marked the power of deeply conservative first-term Republicans, and it stood in contrast to calls at the White House and in the Senate for a late stab at bipartisanship to solve the nation's looming debt crisis.

President Barack Obama and a startling number of Republican senators lauded a deficit-reduction plan put forward earlier in the day by a bipartisan "Gang of Six" lawmakers that calls for $1 trillion in what sponsors delicately called "additional revenue" and some critics swiftly labeled as higher taxes.

The president said he hoped congressional leaders would "start talking turkey" on a deal to reduce deficits and raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit as soon as Wednesday, using that plan as a roadmap.

Wall Street cheered the news of possible compromise as well. The Dow Jones industrials average soared 202 points, the biggest one-day leap this year.

Treasury officials say that without an increase in U.S. borrowing authority by Aug. 2, the government will not be able to pay all its bills, and default could result in severe consequences for the economy.

Yet a few hours after Obama spoke at the White House, supporters of the newly passed House measure breathed defiance.

"Let me be clear. This is the compromise. This is the best plan out there," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, head of a conservative group inside the House known as the Republican Study Committee.

The legislation, dubbed "Cut, Cap and Balance" by supporters and backed by tea party activists, would make an estimated $111 billion in immediate reductions and ensure that overall spending declined in the future in relation to the overall size of the economy.

It also would require both houses of Congress to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and send it to the states for ratification. The amendment itself would require a supermajority vote in both houses of Congress for any future tax raises.

With time dwindling, the day's events did little to suggest a harmonious end was imminent in a defining clash between the two political parties.

Senate Democrats have announced they will oppose the House passed-measure, although it could take two or three days to reject it.

Yet there were signs that with Tuesday night's vote behind them, House Republican leaders might pivot swiftly.

Even before the vote, Speaker John Boehner told reporters that it also was "responsible to look at what Plan B would look like."

And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor issued a statement saying of the Gang of Six proposal: "This bipartisan plan does seem to include some constructive ideas to deal with our debt.

Debate in the House was along predictable lines, and only nine Republicans opposed the bill and five Democrats supported it on final passage.

"Our bloated and obese federal budget needs a healthy and balanced diet, one that trims the fat of overspending and grows the muscle of our nation's economy," said Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin during debate on the measure.

Ribble is one of 87 first-term House Republicans determined to reduce the size of government.

Democrats said the measure, with its combination of cuts and spending limits, would inflict damage on millions who rely on Social Security, Medicare and other programs. "The Republicans are trying to repeal the second half of the 20th century," said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Michigan.

Boehner played a muted role in public during the day. He did not speak on the House floor on the legislation, but issued a statement afterward saying it "provides President Obama with the debt limit increase he's requested while making real spending cuts now and restraining future government spending and debt that are hurting job growth."

He did not discuss what alternatives he had in mind, although the Senate's top two leaders have been at work on one that would let the president raise the debt limit without prior approval by Congress.

The "Gang of Six" briefed other senators on the group's plan after a seemingly quixotic quest that took months, drew disdain at times from the leaders of both parties and appeared near failure more than once.

It calls for deficit cuts of slightly less than $4 trillion over a decade and includes steps to slow the growth of Social Security payments, cut at least $500 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs and wring billions in savings from programs across the face of government.

It envisions tax changes that would reduce existing breaks for a number of popular items while reducing the top income bracket from the current 35 percent to 29 percent or less.

The tax overhaul "must be estimated to provide $1 trillion in additional revenue to meet plan targets," according to a summary that circulated in the Capitol.

Some Republicans noted a claim contained in the summary that congressional bookkeeping rules could actually consider the plan a tax cut of $1.5 trillion. That credits sponsors for retaining income tax cuts enacted at all income levels when George W. Bush was president.

The group of six includes three Democrats, Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia and Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of the leadership.

The three Republicans, all conservatives, are Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who has a particularly close relationship with Boehner dating to their days together in the House.

In recommending higher government revenues, Republicans in the group challenged party orthodoxy that has held sway for two decades, ever since President George H.W. Bush memorably broke his "no new taxes" pledge to make a deficit reduction deal with congressional Democrats.

In the years since, refusal to raise taxes has become a virtually inviolable article of faith among Republicans, and used by them and their allies in countless political campaigns against Democrats.

Recently, Republicans who voted to repeal a tax subsidy for ethanol production drew criticism from Grover Norquist, a prominent anti-tax activist, for not applying the savings to deficit reduction.

Even so, in the hours after the Gang of Six briefed other lawmakers on their plan, at least one member of the Republican Senate leadership, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, signed on as a supporter. So, too, did Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

"We have an opportunity to act like statesmen and avoid a debacle on Aug. 2, and it seems to me that all of our efforts should be focused on that," added Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss. He and others said the plan was well-received at a weekly closed-door meeting of GOP senators.

Obama stopped well short of endorsing the plan, saying administration officials were analyzing it and not all details were known.

But he said it included "a revenue component" along with savings in Medicare and Social Security, making it the sort of balanced approach he has long advocated.

He also noted that the Senate's two top leaders have been cooperating on a measure that would allow him to raise the debt limit without a prior vote of Congress while also setting up a special committee to recommend cuts from federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare.

"That continues to be a necessary approach to put forward. In the event that we don't get an agreement, at minimum, we've got to raise the debt ceiling," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Jim Abrams, Erica Werner, Stephen Ohlemacher, Darlene Superville and Andrew Taylor contributed to this story.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Defying a veto threat, the Republican-controlled House voted Tuesday night to slice federal spending by $6 trillion and require a constitutional balanced budget amendment to be sent...
WASHINGTON — Defying a veto threat, the Republican-controlled House voted Tuesday night to slice federal spending by $6 trillion and require a constitutional balanced budget amendment to be sent...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,810
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (52 total)
  1 of 7  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Bumpkins 11:49 AM on 07/19/2011
The author of the article does a pretty good job in explaining the situation that will occur in Congress. I know the vote will be on the Ryan Budge, all spending cuts and no revenue. I would like to know who wrote that budget, surely it was not written by members of Congress. The President is very clear.....spending cut and an increase in revenue. Now that is a balance, not a one-sided .....hurt one group  Read More...
12:30 AM on 08/09/2011
Funny how all the conversation focus on SS and debt ceiling and who's to blame. What ever happen to the discussions about all the money that we can save if we didn't pay oil subsides or taxing the upper 2 percent of income. If you're not part of that 2 percent, what is in it for you to protect them? Most of those in Congress protecting them are "part" of that 2 percent. No one leaves Congress poor.
12:17 AM on 08/09/2011
The debt ceiling has never been an issue in the past politically but since the introduction of the tea party and the buckling of the GOP to the new members, they have decided to play Russian roulette with American lives. I call that terrorism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
06:41 AM on 07/28/2011
Rand Paul says he will vote against the Boehner bill if it should ever come to a Senate vote.
05:45 PM on 07/26/2011
Would it be such a bad thing if programs like social security went away? Before you jump on me for saying such a thing think about this. It would be one less payment we all would have to make, and we would have the freedom to chose how to use our money that would have been spent on SS, and not feed that money into a program that is showing signs of failing, proving that it is not a sure thing. For all those that have paid into it, they should definitely get their money back somehow, but it seems Obama would sooner threaten to cut Social Security before ever thinking about cutting back on other government expenses such as more limousines, more vacations, more benefits for government workers, etc. , etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Angie Sullivan
Students are my special interest.
02:36 PM on 07/20/2011
These tea people planned a half million dollar party in Vegas - cancelled, and did NOT pay their bill. YEP. . . that is what the Tea Party Nation is all about. When it comes to money - it's all about getting someone else to fork it out . . .

http://thenevadaview.com/?p=1578&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
12:36 PM on 07/20/2011
Thanks Rick Perry for doing this at Texas A&M and Health Center! We need cuts. We, taxpayers, must not pay for unproductive faculty's salaries.

http://www.theeagle.com/am/Texas-A-amp-amp-M-s-budget-forecast-spot-on
10:33 AM on 07/20/2011
If the republican plan is so favored why are 67% of the public against it? I hope the President hangs in there and vetos this insanity. He can raise the debt limit with an executive order if he wants to.
When congress adopts all the laws that the rest of us have to follow it will a good day
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
A Dub
Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy
09:02 AM on 07/20/2011
Ronald Reagan's entire presidency would've been unconstitutional under CC&B. Same for George W. Bush's. Paul Ryan's budget wouldn't pass muster.

37 House Republicans and 12 Senate Republicans have pledged not to support a debt ceiling increase unless the CC&B Constitutional Amendment passes. Mitt Romney has signed this insane pledge.

the most remarkable thing about the CC&B amendment is the casual way in which it attempts to enshrine specific spending levels and to freeze current taxes into the Constitution. There it is!! Freeze taxes for the rich while they are at the lowest in 60 years. Not going to work this time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wesley Holbrook
Retired-Marine
03:46 AM on 07/20/2011
No, we are not going to allow Big Business a free ride, and millionaires either. Shut up, take your medicine, and pay your fair share of taxes...and politicians beware; your jobs are on the line...down with incumbency, you are there to serve all Americans, not just a few select ones who bribe you with blood money. Anyone who defends the wealthy, are slaves of the wealthy, and are pretty much, morally corrupt (their love of money), which is the root of all evil. Yeah, there will be some wealthy in the Kingdom of Heaven, but for the most part, most will not be there...so says the Man, Jesus (the SON of GOD). And stop running all over the U.S. Constitution. There are those of us, who will defend it to our deaths, if need be...Are you prepared to die??? Enough making a mockery of it through the ungodly use of buying people off to look the other way. The absolute corruption within the ranks of Government are at an all-time high. It's time to clean our OUR GOVERNMENT out and restore it back to WE THE PEOPLE, not we the corporations, and we the false religions, who treat their fellow man like crap...So, a word to the wise, if you have ears to hear, and eyes to see with, becareful in how you treat people, we have watchers out there too...
02:36 AM on 07/20/2011
I think we should make all the wonderful people that are elected into these offices pay back or withhold their paychecks till they get the situation in order, CA did it why cant we as the people do the same! Anyone else that goes to work and doesn't complete their job gets in trouble for it, especially if they walk out while working because they don't like how something is being done... yet they get away with it all the time... lets make them responsible like we have to be... its a job like everyone else has... but they get away with murder! Lets make them live up to their jobs or loose them like anyone else can! otherwise what makes them deserve the "elected" part of it...
12:26 AM on 07/20/2011
OMG!!! The Republicans actually have as plan to save the economy!!! What horrible people.

LOL
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
serialcoma
Friends don't let friends watch Fox
09:28 AM on 07/20/2011
The Republican­s actually have a plan to destroy the economy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramon Noches
Retired Air Force
11:18 PM on 07/19/2011
Tea Party is out of contact with reality. An undefined "Take Back America" provides a broad landscape of possible definitions. Whatever their charter, it is clear they masked their primary objective of no taxes for top two percent of America's most wealthy who make more than the bottom fifty percent of Americans. The tragic decline of our middle class seems of no interest or concern for Republicans. By placing this nation on the feathered edge of a financial catastrophe through a historically unsupported plan of cutting taxes and decreased spending, should be an obvious indication of what they represent. First goal, no new taxes, and second goal do whatever possible to make our President appear unworthy of the office. While we must endure the childish political machinations now going on, future historians will have a variable feast on political gridlock that almost took America down in 2011.
photo
NOV 2012
One and Done 2012
10:28 PM on 07/19/2011
Why was it ok for Obama to vote against raising the debt ceiling back in 2006? The consequences of default were as drastic back then as now. O is a hypocrite.
03:49 PM on 07/20/2011
This is VERY naive thinking and doesn't take into consideration the FACTS.
1. Obama later said it was a mistake. And... more importantly...
2. There was NO QUESTION that the debt ceiling would have been raised with or without Obamas vote. NONE. MANY more could have voted against it as well and it would have still passed.
So yes.... the consequences of it NOT passing would have been bad - then again - we were NOT in a recession with millions of jobs lost and the economy on weak footing.
How many here THINK before they post?
photo
NOV 2012
One and Done 2012
10:24 PM on 07/19/2011
Why are liberals so afraid of a balanced budget?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
weathergirl
loved politics as a little girl!
11:53 PM on 07/19/2011
Because to require a 2/3rds majority does not work at the state level (see California) and it will not work at the Federal level! The Balanced Budget Amendment will be as useful as was Prohibition!!
09:53 PM on 07/19/2011
The lesson learned here folks is....

..."It's easy to pick on the powerless!"

Like Ron Paul said, the teapublicans were pure cowards when it came to military spending and I'm also sure, since a lot of teapublicans get money from it, they also did very little to farm subsidies or other corporate subsidies.

Again, it's easy to pick on the powerless.