House And Senate Pass Budget Resolutions

Bumped with new info on Senate passage - Todd

The president's budget resolution passed the House this evening on a 233-196 vote (roll call is here.)

From The Speaker's office:

The 2010 Budget Resolution incorporates the four key priorities of the President's budget. It makes strategic investments in education, health care reform, and energy independence that are necessary to restore our crumbling economy and put the country in a position to remain globally competitive. It also takes the needed steps to restore fiscal sustainability by cutting the deficit by nearly two-thirds by 2013.

20 Democrats voted against the budget resolution and not one Republican voted for it (once again, Cao was whipped) no doubt leading to calls by rightwing hacks that opposition to the budget was the only bi-partisan position. It should be noted that the 20 vote defection represents just 8% of the Democratic caucus. By contrast, 38 Republicans (21% of their caucus) joined all Democrats to vote against the GOP budget alternative.

Tim Kaine released the following statement on the Republican unity against this budget resolution (via e-mail):

"Unfortunately, the unanimous vote by the House Republicans against the budget does not represent the principle of loyal opposition upon which this country was founded, but opposition purely for political gain. While Republicans continue to cling to the failed policies of the past that created the current economic crisis, President Obama and Democrats have taken bold steps to restore stability and prosperity for all Americans. Today's vote affirms that the Party of No is more interested in playing politics than working with the Democrats and the President to solve our nation's problems on a bipartisan basis."

Update [2009-4-3 1:7:11 by Todd Beeton]:The Senate also passed a budget resolution tonight, 55-43, with Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) voting No.

On a long day and night, the House was first to vote, and approved its version of the budget on a 233-196 roll call that fell largely along party lines. It calls for spending of $3.6 trillion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, and includes a deficit of $1.2 trillion.

The Senate acted a few hours later, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding. The vote was 55-43 for a slightly different blueprint that calls for spending $3.5 trillion and forecasts a deficit of $1.2 trillion.

Politico calls the Senate budget resolution a "status quo document" and reports that in order to lose just 2 Democrats, "the Senate plan calls for large, unspecified cuts of $221 billion from Obama’s requests for non-defense appropriations over the next five years" and "unlike the House, no deadline is set for committee action on healthcare reform." Wow.

Tags: Budget Resolution, President Obama (all tags)



Re: President Obama's Budget Passes House 233-196

What's with Kucinich voting no?  Is this yet another symbolic vote of some sort?  I am officially beyond sick of that guy.  

More seriously, I'm sad to see Tom Perrielo and Glen Nye on the No list.  I have been hoping they might contribute more than simply holding their seats and actually vote the right way occasionally.  I know those are red districts, but I don't think a yes on the budget would hurt them.    

by HSTruman 2009-04-02 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget Passes House 233-196

I suppose this budget wasn't progressive enough for Kucinich.  What a loon.

by devilrays 2009-04-02 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget Passes House 233-196

That, or there's some local Ohio concern that wasn't sufficiently addressed.  I would love to see how Kucinich would behave if he had an actual chance at winning something beyond his district.  He's a smart guy who has some great things to say, but he has managed to get himself to a place where he can win by being an idealist/ideologue, and he takes full advantage of that.

by TexasDarling 2009-04-02 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget Passes House 233-196

He's not really all that popular in his district, actually.  It's just really hard to beat a sitting Congressman in a district like that.  I agree with you that he's not stupid, but at some point it seems like he affirmatively decided that he wasn't going to try and be an effective representative for his constituents anymore.  I think that's a shame.  The folks on the west side of Cleveland could sure use someone focused on their needs, which are substantial, instead of showboating at every opportunity.  

by HSTruman 2009-04-02 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget Passes House 233-196

Enough with the Kucinich bashing... OH-10 likes him just fine...  He got 65% of the vote against a pretty popular republican... He's a Clevelander through and through and most Cleveland democrats love him (it's even more fun 'cos repbulicans hate him sooooo much!)  BTW, OH-10 should be a blue dog district, you should thank your lucky stars that we get a liberal out of here..

Kucinich voted against the bill 'cos it had war funding in it...

(rolls eyes)

Yeah, I hate when he pulls this crap, too, but it's not like he derailed the bill...

by LordMike 2009-04-02 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget Passes House 233-196

OH-10 has a PVI of D+8.  For purposes of comparison, Jared Polis and Rush Holt represent districts with similar leans.  So that's not exactly what I would consider Blue Dog territory.

It seems like Kucinich would have been pretty vulnerable in the last primary if the opposition had ever coalesced behind a single candidate, which they didn't.  But hey, if the voters of the Fightin' Tenth have no problem with a guy who swore up and down that he wouldn't run for President again, only to file papers the day after he got reelected to Congress, that's their call.

It's true, it can be kinda fun to watch someone like Kucinich get under the skin of Republicans.  But in my book, while he tends to vote pretty well, he's about as effective at pushing the envelope in a leftward direction as Michele Bachmann is at pushing it to the right.  So he really does nothing for me.

by Steve M 2009-04-02 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget Passes House 233-196

The PVI numbers mean nothing here... OH-10 is predominantly white, Catholic, and socially conservative, but economically liberal-- a classic blue dog district.  Lots and lots of union jobs here.  The PVI numbers are high 'cos Kucinich has gotten a lot of support over the years.  Let's not forget that he took the seat from a multi-term Republican.  Kucinich gets his support here for being pro union, a lifelong resident who came up from poverty, and being a son of Catholic immigrants, not for his other liberal stances.   His main primary challenger, can't remember his name right now, had blue dog written all over him...  Yet, Kucinich won decisively, despite 10,000 republicans crossing party lines to vote in the Dem primary...

by LordMike 2009-04-02 09:48PM | 0 recs
Wasn't he pro-life until he ran for President?

by DTOzone 2009-04-02 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Wasn't he pro-life until he ran for President?


Chris Matthews slammed him on that...

He really doesn't talk about abortion issues either way anymore...

I don't think he's a practicing catholic anymore, either.. He married a wiccan.

by LordMike 2009-04-02 10:38PM | 0 recs
"a wiccan"

Not just any wiccan.  If I were Dennis the K, I'd convert for that.

by TexasDarling 2009-04-03 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: "a wiccan"

And, God would understand, at least, The Catholic God.

There is religion, and then there is

"OMG What a Babe!"

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-03 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget Passes House 233-196

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but PVI measures performance against typical presidential numbers - so I'm not sure how you can say they don't matter.  Obama won this "blue dog" district by double digits.  Kucinich isn't needed to keep it in a mainstream democrat's hands.  I get that some of the folks here are culturally conservative -- although having lived in Cleveland quite recently, I can attest that number is fewer than in the past -- but they have remained reliably democratic on every level.  Ultimately, that's all that matters.  

Anyway, my primary beef with Dennis is simply that he does a lousy job, at this point, advocating for the district.  No one in DC takes him seriously, precisely because he puts so much energy into empty gestures like this budget bill.  There are plenty of very liberal members of Congress that are actually effective as well.  The speaker of the house is one of them.  It would be nice if Dennis focused more on doing his job and less on generating press for himself.    

by HSTruman 2009-04-03 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget

Didn't he drive the city of Cleveland into the ground as mayor?  The guy's a fraud and proof that demagogues can continue to get elected without accomplishing anything of import.

by rfahey22 2009-04-02 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama's Budget

Kucinich refused to sell the municipal power company to to CEI and the city went into default.  It turns out, his bold stand ended up saving the city several hundred million dollars, and the city awarded him a medal of honor ten years later.

Get all the facts before you accuse...

by LordMike 2009-04-02 09:40PM | 0 recs
So how long

before Chris Bowers and David Sirota begin fishing for primary challengers for Perriello?

by DTOzone 2009-04-02 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: So how long

I'm certainly not calling for any primaries at this point, I hope he doesn't turn into an ultraconservative democrat.  Obama won 48% of the vote in that district running on the exact same agenda that he's trying to enact right now.  Congressional democrats in purple districts need to realize that the best thing they can do to ensure reelection is to support policies that will get the economy back on track and address people's growing anxiety about things like healthcare.  

by HSTruman 2009-04-02 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: So how long

I don't know this person, but I do know that Bowers and others are talking about accountability. This does not mean every Democrat. Just those who do not represent the people of their districts. I am perfectly fine with that because keeping the Congress more conservative than what is the state of views of the American people is a problem. For example, the vast bulk of Americans support a government healthcare plan (such as the public option), and yet you have people voted against the interest of their voters in favor of lobbist who support their campaign. Voters need to become a ware of this.  If for no other reason than it places pressure on this group of Representatives and/or Senators to not vote against the interest of their constituency. This does not mean going after conservative democrats in conservative areas, but to reflect the real make up of the country rather than those of special lobbying interests.

by bruh3 2009-04-02 09:23PM | 0 recs
Yes that's why

Bowers trashed Eric Massa for voting against the housing bill because he felt it didn't do enough for his district.

by DTOzone 2009-04-02 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes that's why

You specifically discussed people they were referring to regarding the accountability in terms of primarying, did you not? Is this a person, again, he has said they were referring to? And, at any rate, it's not up to Chris bowers. It's up to a group of people- some of whom love Obama, etc. It's about whether or not again they represent their districts or are they the type to say one thing in theri district and vote against their districts interest once they are in DC. If you are going to now including anyone or anything with whom bowers disagree without regard to how that applies to the specific issue of primarying, it's not a real discussion anymore because you are not applying the standard that the group such as Greenwald and others are trying to form. At least, again, that's my understanding. I am not an expert, but I find the hyperbole to be a total distortion of what they mean by primarying people.

by bruh3 2009-04-02 11:16PM | 0 recs

Republicans never learn.  In their doomed alternative budget they introduced the bombshell of a massive change to the Medicare system, actually calling for privatization of it, and with it effectively removing it out of government's hands.  Yeah, THAT really warms the heart of the average American and makes them want to support them.   To their credit three dozen Republicans voted against that shameful disgrace of a budget.  

As if a winning argument for Republicans moving forward could ever be:  Privatize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, so they can become for-profit operations rather than government services we all paid into the system all our lives for.  They could not have been any loonier here, losing even more of that virtually non-existing credibility of theirs in the process.

by devilrays 2009-04-02 06:50PM | 0 recs

"the Senate plan calls for large, unspecified cuts of $221 billion from Obama's requests for non-defense appropriations over the next five years"

I think this would be the money he wanted set aside for the banks, no?

At any rate, #221 billion isn't much.

by DTOzone 2009-04-02 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Cuts

Disagree. That's a lot considering where they want the money to come from. Remember where the bull of the budget really goes.

by bruh3 2009-04-02 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Cuts

As the economy improves, it will be easier to make up that shortfall with increased tax revenue...

Also, a lot of the TARP money will be returned, so that helps, too...

The white house doesn't seem concerned about it, so I'm not...

by LordMike 2009-04-02 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Cuts

I am concerned. I am pretty moderated on spending. I am just coming from it from a different perspective- ie,  invest now so that we do not have to continue to spend more and more. But to get to that point you got to get things like healthcare cost and energy under control. These so-called moderates aren't trying to get us to a better place of reducing costs or controlling spending. They are performing  a show, and protecting corporate interests. Neither of which are my concern.

by bruh3 2009-04-02 11:21PM | 0 recs
If it's important they'll get the money in

elsewhere.  There's more than one path to success.

by GFORD 2009-04-03 01:42AM | 0 recs
Re: If it's important they'll get the money in

Thats not how it works. They want to look serious rather than worry about being responsible for creating a budget that int he short term that may be high, but long term is actually good for the country. Like I said, I come at the word moderate from a different dierection than politicians do. To me, it means you actually are worried about effective rather than idealogical issues.

by bruh3 2009-04-03 04:53AM | 0 recs
I love how so-called moderates

Never want to cut wasteful defense spending--only non-defense discretionary spending.

by desmoinesdem 2009-04-03 01:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I love how so-called moderates

Especially since that defense spending is mostly wasted rather than put into things like energy independence.

by bruh3 2009-04-03 04:55AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads