Pay It Later


In the vote Tuesday on the Hurricane Sandy relief bill there were opportunities to demonstrate seriousness in paying for your spending. The GOP did not acquit itself well in either case.

The more publicized one was an amendment supported by Reps. Cantor and Ryan that would have paid for $17 billion of that spending by reducing discretionary spending across-the-board by an equal amount. The cut would have been 1.6%. Here’s the roll call of that vote; 71 Republican members of the House could not see clear to pay a cent and a half on a dollar of discretionary spending towards Sandy. Do one of those 71 represent you? 

A second amendment though, may be even more galling. This one stripped out $13 million of funding to “accelerate the National Weather Service ground readiness project.” According to Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) this money was for speeding up the preparation of processing data from satellites to be launched in 2-5 years. I.e., it’s not an emergency. Nevertheless, the amendment failed to pass, 208-214, with 25 Republicans voting no. Do one of those 25 represent you?

If we can’t even remove $13 million from an “emergency” bill for spending on something due in 2-5 years, how serious are we about reducing spending? It’s demagoguery that cows those weaker lights in our House. Rather than piddle away thousands of dollars on communications retreats, hire a private investigator to search for the caucus’ spine.

There are 8 comments.

  1. Inactive

    My congressman is batting .500. Not good enough.

    Great post King.

    • #1
    • January 19, 2013 at 2:19 am
    • Like
  2. Inactive

    Our guy did right. But Doug Lamborn is still a GOP party supporter. Doesn’t have the spine to qualify for the TEA Party.

    • #2
    • January 19, 2013 at 2:50 am
    • Like
  3. Member

    EmergencySmergency! All spending bills are just bills. There’s emergency stuff in there, sure. But I’m afraid in our current legislative environment, every spending bill like having a cart of money wheeled by, and only a few go “No thanks, that’s not what this bill is about.” 

    Perhaps paraphrasing Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross: “Bills are for bundlers.”

    • #3
    • January 19, 2013 at 8:07 am
    • Like
  4. Member

    The anti-Boehner clique was timid to a fault, so the Speaker who brought $330B in new, unfunded spending to the floor drawing only 1/3 of his caucus’ vote to close the 112th Congress was (surprise) seen bringing the Sandy Pork bill in for another $50B in new, unfunded spending, 90% of which was in future fiscal years rather than meeting the emergency needs of Sandy victims. Boehner brought this one to the floor drawing only 45 GOP votes. Which party holds the House?

    Expect this to be the mode for the 113th, Boehner bringing pork to the floor to be passed on Democrat votes, providing Republicans cover. Of course, the Republican caucus voted for all of it when they voted Boehner Speaker of the 113th based on his conduct in the 112th. Thinking the Tea Party and the American people would be fooled. 

    Welcome to the 2014 election cycle. 

    • #4
    • January 19, 2013 at 9:00 am
    • Like
  5. Inactive

    At least partof the problem is that spending is bundled in these large bills. Then the general public only hears about the main target of the bill, and not all the ride-ons. And of course, if there is a cumandated, no matter how small, we can count on this administration making it as painful to as many people as possible.

    • #5
    • January 19, 2013 at 9:00 am
    • Like
  6. Member

    Incidentally, the cost of that relief bill was the entirety of one year’s worth of tax hikes on the rich to pay their “fair share”:

    And putting it all into context, $60 billion just happens to be the annual benefit from the Obama tax hikes on the rich. And just like that, the entire first year’s budget benefit was spent in under 2 weeks.

    Because if you tell them there is more money, they will gladly take it…

    Aren’t we just so glad our brave President chose higher taxes as the main vehicle to reduce the deficit?

    • #6
    • January 19, 2013 at 9:18 am
    • Like
  7. Inactive

    Why after 8 yrs. of GWB would anyone still be thinking Republicans have any intention of reducing spending? Reducing spending requires putting the country before your political career. The real question is why aren’t these yahoos referred to a traitors?

    • #7
    • January 20, 2013 at 2:40 am
    • Like
  8. Member

    My Republican Congressman, Peter Robinson’s friend Chris Gibson, from NY, voted No.

    Thanks for this post, King Banian.

    • #8
    • January 20, 2013 at 6:25 am
    • Like