« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

House votes against raising debt ceiling, 318-97.

The technical term for this is 'rout.'

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  May 31st, 2011 at 08:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Which is a surprise, given that I didn’t think that there were 318 Republicans in the House… no, wait, there aren’t.  82 Democrats voted against raising the debt limit without accompanying spending cuts; which is highly entertaining, given that 114 House Democrats signed Rep. Peter Welch’s letter requesting… precisely this vote.  Do compare the signatories to said letter with the no votes on HR 1954: you will notice an entertaining amount of overlap, there.

The hysterical bit?  The Democrats are complaining that they didn’t get to add amendments to the bill, which is fairly straightforward:

SECTION 1. FINDING.
The Congress finds that the President’s budget proposal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, necessitates an increase in the statutory debt limit of $2,406,000,000,000.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof `$16,700,000,000,000′.

…which sounds exactly like the quote-unquote ‘clean extension’ that Welch and his colleagues called for, but did not reliably[*] vote for.  Which tells you everything that you need to know about Democratic legislative courage… or, more accurately, the utter lack of same.  That’s the moral of the story: when when it comes to screwing one’s courage to the sticking point on fiscal discipline, the Democrats in Congress will cave*.  Good to know, yes?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Someone has told the Democratic members of Congress that they’re expected to work on creating a budget every year, yes?  I ask merely because a dispassionate reading of recent legislative history does not support the assumption that anyone has told them.

[*75 of 114 is not in fact reliable.  It is in fact a very poor showing.]

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • acat

    Pleasant surprise.

    Mew

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    Democrats are covering their you-know-what.

  • swvapatriot

    this is the first skirmish that is won in the long battle to return us to Constitutional government.

  • Locke
  • lakesuperiorguy

    The pessimist in me thinks that after Geithner says that the country will implode if the debt limit isn’t raised and gets a bunch of country club and Wall Street “Republicans” to say the same thing, enough on our side will cave and just give Geithner what he wants just like our side gave Paulson last time. Hopefully this time it’ll be different.

  • toothpick

    …is seeing the phrase “House Minority Leader” in front of Nancy Pelosi’s name. That alone made it worth my while to read the article on the Hill.

  • msctex

    Oddly, I don’t see him as one of the Evil ones. He seems one of the ones irreparably damaged by what he thought was an education.

    Just an impression: that he is a potentially decent human being, horribly wrong and surrounded by genuine malevolence.

    And I know: at this point, it really doesn’t matter.

  • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

    I believe that the only states where the entire congressional delegation voted yes are Vermont and Hawaii. This is not quite the clean sweep like we have with the 0-97 vote against the Obama 2012 budget in the Senate, but it is very close to that.

  • phenry

    The triumph of the Tea Party.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    since we know for certain he is a tax cheat and a liar.

  • sowa1

    As long as the American people don’t lose their minds and vote Dems back into the House, otherwise she will be back. Need to keep her out and vote Obama out. He would have a chance to put a couple more Supreme Court Justices in. Then we would have Obamacare for sure.

  • popster

    and pass the ammunition. They finally got the news flash, you can’t spend what you don’t have.

  • heroone1

    Well we have to wait again, this is no victroy, just a start. So many of us think every thing is a victroy, every time some thing little like this happens. Remember health care, we thought many a time we had it stroped, an we called those victroys. This is the first shot at killing this thought of spending to much. This beast will take a lot of shots to kill remember it has more than 70 years of growing to become the beast it is.

  • djvu

    Agree 100%
    Robert Palmer Smith

  • ihateliberals

    my dislike of John Boehner. Calling this Vote as the Democrats requested and then having 82 of them for against it was a brilliant move. I hope an pray that I have been wrong about Boehner. These 82 Democrats must be seen as a signal to the American people that the Debt Ceiling can not be raised as long as the spending is not under control. John, make me eat crow, please. I don’ t always have to be right. Being proven wrong about the Speaker of the House makes me feel just as good as winning.

  • melbedewy

    Wait till the Massive Cave on the debt limit before you pat Boehner on the back.

  • YnotNOW

    When the entire reason for a “symbolic” vote is to send a message. In this case, the message that any increase in the debt limit MUST be accompanied by substantial spending cuts, was sent loud and clear.

    Even the MSM should get the message on this one.

  • YnotNOW

    When the entire reason for a “symbolic” vote is to send a message. In this case, the message that any increase in the debt limit MUST be accompanied by substantial spending cuts, was sent loud and clear.

    Even the MSM should get the message on this one.

  • YnotNOW

    As this was an easy, pain-free win. And therefore does not give a good predictor for the harder fights yet to come. My fear continues to be that we end up with a “symbolic” “show-vote” sham of minor spending cuts attached to the debt limit increase, and then “promises” of future cuts and caps to come.

    Spending cuts must be difficult, immediate, and substantial, in order to make it worth increasing the debt limit. Like full repeal of Obamacare and spending cuts outlined by the RSC.

    Still not holding my breath…

  • YnotNOW

    As this was an easy, pain-free win. And therefore does not give a good predictor for the harder fights yet to come. My fear continues to be that we end up with a “symbolic” “show-vote” sham of minor spending cuts attached to the debt limit increase, and then “promises” of future cuts and caps to come.

    Spending cuts must be difficult, immediate, and substantial, in order to make it worth increasing the debt limit. Like full repeal of Obamacare and spending cuts outlined by the RSC.

    Still not holding my breath…

  • gekster

    Saying we won’t raise the debt ceiling unless we have the spending cuts.
    If we get the spending cuts, why do we have to raise the debt ceiling.
    Wouldn’r cuting the spending negate the need for the raise.

  • YnotNOW

    Even “drastic” cuts in spending will still run a deficit of some size for 2012. Not to mention the spending over the debt limit already done over the past two weeks and for the rest of 2011 (which is being covered up by smoke-and-mirrors accounting).

    If we manage to cut $700 Billion from CURRENT spending levels (which is $750B from projected spending levels), we will still need to borrow an additional $1 Trillion just to cover our oblications through the end of FY 2012.

    That is the size of the hole we are in. It will take some time to dig ourselves out. Which is all the more reason to take steps now. Big and Quick.

  • dajeeps

    I found their argument that “If we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we can’t pay our bills” very insulting. Just how stupid do they really think we are?

    Nearly everyone knows that once one has a situation where one has to make the payments on one credit account with another it’s a personal debt spiral that generally ends with bankruptcy unless a winfall materializes at just the right moment. And really, I have sincere doubts that $14T might just appear out of nowehere, unless they plan on trying to hit up Ben Bernanke for it which, of course carries its own set of consequences.

  • msctex

    And one I admit could well be wrong. But what we are talking about transcends even being a tax cheat and a liar. We have reached the point where the central question of our existence as a nation is whether or not our “leaders” are consciously making an effort to destroy this country, or whether their actions are the inadvertent malevolence of a fundamentally flawed philosophy. If I had to guess, I’d say Geithner falls into the latter group, while Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Frank all fit squarely among the former.

  • momofthecastle

    I read Sen. Johnson’s post yesterday, and it makes sense to me.

  • YnotNOW

    Even the budget plan put out by the Republican Study Committee, which is the most conservative plan out there right now, requires increasing the debt limit. They crow that their plan is the only one that cuts the 2012 budget deficit in half (meaning $650 Billion deficit).

    The Ryan plan is more timid. The Heritage Foundation plan actually increases the 2012 deficit in order to start structural reforms that reduce the deficit in the longer range.

    There is no realistic plan to balance the budget in 2012. Plus, we still have to pay for the deficit caused by the rest of FY 2011. That is just reality.

  • YnotNOW

    Even the budget plan put out by the Republican Study Committee, which is the most conservative plan out there right now, requires increasing the debt limit. They crow that their plan is the only one that cuts the 2012 budget deficit in half (meaning $650 Billion deficit).

    The Ryan plan is more timid. The Heritage Foundation plan actually increases the 2012 deficit in order to start structural reforms that reduce the deficit in the longer range.

    There is no realistic plan to balance the budget in 2012. Plus, we still have to pay for the deficit caused by the rest of FY 2011. That is just reality.

  • YnotNOW

    http://www.redstate.com/senatorronjohnson/2011/05/30/washington-is-broken-and-needs-leadership-where-is-president-obama/

    He is not calling to NOT raise the debt limit, just calling the administration’s bluff on the urgency – so that we can leverage the vote for better spending reductions in return for the vote to raise the debt ceiling.

    That is an entirely realistic (as well as principled) position.