GOP Grumbling on Budget
With just over a day to spare, the Congress gave final approval Thursday night to a stop gap budget bill to keep the government running into December, combined with three overdue spending bills – nine others remain unfinished, with the fiscal year already six weeks old.
The bill drew a lot of Republican opposition, as the GOP split 133-101 on the bill, while Democrats voted solidly in favor of it in the House, 165-20.
“I came to Washington to stop wasteful and excessive government spending. Today’s Continuing Resolution was another example of budgetary mismanagement," said freshman Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY).
Buerkle wasn’t alone, as a number of other newly elected lawmakers, many of whom won with Tea Party backing, bucked their leadership and refused to back the bill.
“We cannot keep spending at 2011 levels,” said another freshman, Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL).
“We owe the American people more,” said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). “Cutting federal spending less than one fifth of one percent just isn't enough.”
Over in the Senate, Republicans were also grumbling about the level of spending.
“It claims to cut spending, when in fact it doesn’t,” said a frustrated Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).
While the budget will be smaller than last year, when you add in “emergency” spending for disasters that doesn’t officially get added on to the deficit, there will be more spending by the Congress.
“We don’t eliminate the wasteful programs,” said Coburn, who noted that not one duplicative program was eliminated from the three spending bills, which cover spending for Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/State and Housing/Transportation programs.
“Well it’s no wonder you can’t spending if you don’t get rid of programs that do the same thing,” Coburn said shortly before the Senate approved the bill.
Lawmakers still have nine budget bills to finish; the new stop gap budget goes until December 16, which means not much will happen until then or maybe even the week of Christmas.
The three bills are littered with examples of where Republicans in the House approved lower levels of spending for one agency or department, while Democrats in the Senate approved a higher number – and the compromise was in between. Here are a few examples:
- "The conference agreement provides $1,321,000 for the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination instead of $1,272,000 as proposed by the House and $1,421,000 as proposed by the Senate."
- "The conference agreement provides $12,841,000 for the National Appeals Division instead of $12,091,000 as proposed by the House and $13,514,000 as proposed by the Senate."
- "The conference agreement provides $21,000,000 for the Office of Civil Rights instead of $19,288,000 as proposed by the House and $21,558,000 as proposed by the Senate."
- "The conference agreement provides $764,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration as proposed by the Senate instead of $683,000 as proposed by the House." You get the picture. For Republicans it is a big time reminder, that if they are going to get bills to the President's desk with real budget cuts, then they will have to control both the House and Senate. And even then, nothing is guaranteed, because a lot of lawmakers like to talk about budget cuts, but sometimes aren't as excited to actually vote for real cut backs. For Democrats, it is a reminder of how important it is for their party to hold on to the Senate, but also a reminder of how important it is to keep the White House. Divided government might not provide for much in the way of bipartisan compromise, but it does have a way of keeping both sides in check. And actually, that might be something many voters wouldn't mind.
