Five Members of Congress to Watch In the Budget Showdown

By Jay Newton-Small | @JNSmall | February 28, 2011 | +

The House is expected to pass a stopgap measure on Tuesday to fund the government for the next two weeks while House and Senate negotiators work on a longer-term solution. Senate Democrats are still mulling over whether they want to pass the House bill or send it back with amendments, but it’s looking likely that something will pass both chambers and avert a government shutdown on Friday, when current funding is set to run out. Here are five people to keep an eye on this week and in the coming months as the debate over government spending plays out:

John Boehner: The Speaker of the House seems to have won this round. His two-week continuing resolution paired with $4 billion in bipartisan cuts is a crowd pleaser with his GOP freshmen as it keeps the level of cuts on par with the 2011 budget the House passed last week. Its contents are also calibrated to appeal to moderate Democrats. But this was just the first round. The Senate could amend his bill, forcing him to consider a new version. And in the long run, there are only so many bipartisan cuts to be made before the real debate about the size of the government begins. Boehner’s stopgap solution is popular and there’s a good chance Congress will need to do two or three of these before a permanent bill is passed. But Boehner’s challenge will be to press the Senate for deeper, long-term cuts or risk a rebellion from the feisty freshmen on his right flank.
Harry Reid: Whatever happens this week, the Senate Majority Leader, unlikely to accept the long-term cuts the House has put forward, is looking for a compromise that can pass the Senate. He’s considering $24.7 billion in cuts suggested by President Obama in his 2012 budget, plus retroactively yanking funding for $8.5 billion in earmarks, according to the Associated Press. That would help him reclaim the upper hand and force responsibility of any potential shutdown on the GOP, but it’s not an easy task.
Senator Claire McCaskill: The Missouri Democrat is one of 19 upper chamber Dems up for reelection this cycle. In all, Democrats hold 23 of the 33 seats being contested in 2012, many in Red States like Nebraska, North Dakota and Montana. Vulnerable Democrats, such as McCaskill, from more conservative states will be pivotal in deciding what will be slashed. If Republicans, who control 47 seats in the Senate, can swing enough moderate Democratic votes, they could force much deeper cuts than the progressive wing is comfortable with.
Rep. Dennis Ross: Politico ranked the Florida GOP freshman as the representative most in line with the freshmen class as a whole – he voted with them 98.06% of the time. Where Ross goes, so go his 79 fresh-faced colleagues. This week they’ll be warily watching what Reid sends back to the House. And in the long run, they could revolt if the Senate’s proposals aren’t austere enough. The $33.2 billion in cuts Reid is said to be considering amounts to half of the $61 billion in cuts the House passed two weeks ago. Several Republican freshmen are openly saying that if they don’t get their way, a government shutdown might actually be healthy – that threat is their greatest bargaining tool.
Rep. Mike Ross: The Arkansas Democrat is the head of the Blue Dog Coalition, or at least what’s left of them. The caucus lost more than half its members in the 2010 elections. But Blue Dogs still command more than 25 votes and those could come in handy if Boehner loses his freshmen. Many of them are expected to vote for Boehner’s stopgap measure. Whatever bill the Senate passes could also appeal to them. In a tight vote on long-term funding, these guys could make all the difference if the Republican party splits.

@TIMEPolitics

Latest on Swampland

2012 Election May 25, 2012

The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.
From our Partners
Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

The Cowardice of Colin PowellSlate
Ryan Crocker Says Cases Of Afghans Killing NATO Military Counterparts Can Be 'Personal'HuffPost Politics
Barack Obama May 25, 2012

Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know, until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, were the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, whom Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

deconstructiva

Jay, thanks for update. I would’ve normally asked for your tea leaves in what’s the most likely outcome …but you already did that: this stopgap will pass. I’ll bet on one or two bandaids to pass but a shutdown to happen this year. And the R’s will pay for it, literally (in ’12). But where / how are Paul Ryan and Rand Paul here? I would’ve guessed the Paul’s were the power brokers: Ryan for his budget chair seat and Rand for seeing if he’d stick to TP principles at all costs, even filibusters, etc. But at least Christine O’Donnell won’t be on DWTS.
http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

So what are they doing about unemployment?
.
And why aren’t you asking?
nflfoghorn

Anybody consider raising taxes on those who can afford them the most?
.
Oh, yeah….
nflfoghorn

“…Several Republican freshmen are openly saying that if they don’t get their way, a government shutdown might actually be healthy – that threat is their greatest bargaining tool”
.
And their greatest embarrassment. Don’t these guys EVER learn??
apr2563

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes
.

(Reuters) – Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.

The report did not name any companies. The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.

The study showed about 28 percent of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $372 billion in gross receipts, the senators said. About 25 percent of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales that year, they said.
apr2563

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/moodys-gop-budget-would-cost-700000-jobs.php?ref=fpb
.
Moody’s: GOP Budget Would Cost 700,000 Jobs
.
“..the Moody’s report is the second outside report in recent days to find that the Republican’s slash-and-burn spending strategy (necessitated in part by pressure from the GOP’s tea party wing) will slow the economy dramatically while it’s still struggling to recover from the 2008 financial crisis.”
apr2563

Where’s Woody when we need him?
.

.
My favorite. Roll on Columbia. My dad worked on Coulee Dam thanks to the WPA. Here is a little history of an important government function.
.
gysgt213

These budgets cuts will hurt our economy and cost jobs. So says the liberals at Goldman Sachs and Moody’s.
.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/goldman-sachs-house-spending-cuts-will-hurt-economic-growth.html
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html
Matt

It is eminently depressing that the politicians elected to responsibly govern this nation are “cheering” for a job-killing government shutdown that will lead our fragile economy into another depression. So much for leadership…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

Why do I have to go to a “Liberal” source to get this pertinent piece of information?
.
THE SMALLEST TAX BURDEN IN GENERATIONS
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027883.php.
.
And again. What are we doing about unemployment?
paulejb

Paul Dirks@2,
.
The Republicans are attempting to get government out of the way of job creators. That is the most effective way to produce jobs.
.
Reagan had it right; “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
paulejb

nflfoghorn@3,
.
The government accepts donations from generous citizens. Just make your check out to the US Treasury. We’ll all be grateful.
freeinpa

No According to Mr. Dirks the only employment is through payout of government monies. He gives no regard to how many jobs will be killed or not created as the debt and deficit grows further out of control.
paulejb

nflfoghorn@4,
.
What if the government suffered a shutdown and nobody noticed?
freeinpa

“about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.”
.
There are at least 50% of individuals that have zero tax liability as well and that probably extend for every year between 1998 and 2005. Instead of the stretch to make the number appear higher by including “at least one year”.
.
paulejb

Paul Dirks@9,
.
And just think, a few million more unemployed and the government take will be even less. Are you seriously touting this as some form of liberal talking point? It seems more like schadenfreude.
freeinpa

The second report yes. The results? Moody’s 700,000 and Goldman Sach 1.5-2 mil. About 150% difference. The answer—They don’t know! Just like the nonsense to sell the original stimulus where unemployment would not go above 8%
freeinpa

Yes we can have the state and federal government spend more money so that more people will be unemployed then tax receipts may fall to 10% of GDP so the eft can have an even more idiotic reason to raise taxes. Make those that are working pay even more for public employees not to be laid off and to collect huge benefits.
.
paulejb

freeinpa@2.2,
.
China’s holding of US debt reached $1.16 trillion in December. That’s $270 billion more than previously projected. Still Democrats quibble over minuscule cuts in spending. They obviously believe that denial is a river in Egypt.
paulejb

freeinpa@9.2,
.
Exactly when was it determined that any cut in government spending would instantly result in the apocalypse?
freeinpa

You may need to ask Mr. Dirks that. Every cut is draconian if you believe him regardless of how much is wasted.
http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

Except here’s the deal. Taxes are as low as they’ve been in generations. Corporate profits are quite healthy. Yet no one is hiring. Your theories about job creation would be wonderful except for the fact that they don’t actually seem to work. We can agree that government needs to stop borrowing but the time to implement it is NOT smack in the middle of a record-breaking recession.
newfreedomblog

“So says the liberals at Goldman Sachs and Moody’s”

.
Yes, “so says the liberals”, which pretty much sums it all up.
.
There were four times in our recent history when spending was cut and the result was a booming economy. Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton. Of those 4 times when there was major cutting of government spending, the result was an economy which boomed. Taxes where also increased to help pay off the national debt. But, those tax increases only resulted AFTER the cut in spending to spur on a robust economy.
.
Simply put, you can’t raise taxes on the mega rich and keep spending at current levels. This has also been tried in the past with complete failure. Look at Roosevelt’s attempt at raising taxes and spending at the same time. Nothing happened until World War II was declared against Germany and Japan, this is what pulled us out of the Great Depression, not the big spending programs early on in the Roosevelt Administration.
.

“Harding appointed Charlie Dawes, known for being an effective financier, as the first director of the Bureau of the Budget. Dawes reduced government spending by $1.5 billion his first year as director, a 25% reduction, along with another 25% reduction the following year. In effect, the Government budget was cut in half in just 2 years.[111] Harding believed the federal government should be fiscally managed similar to the private sector having campaigned “Less government in business and more business in government.”[112]

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding#Bureau_of_the_Budget
.
http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

state and federal government spend more money so that more people will be unemployed
.
I’d be delighted for you to explain how paying workers to work causes unemployment,
freeinpa

By law states can not run deficits. Contrary to the beliefs of the left higher taxes will not fix it and states must cut further resulting in more lay-offs. In addition to the fact that for every dollar spent by governments, there is three dollars not spent by private sector which leads to come on say with it with me –more layoffs. And these are the actually tax- paying taxpayers and not those returning a portion of taxpayer funds they receive is what the public employees collect
billiecat

PD et al.: Don’t you understand, if facts and logic contradict your ideology, you ignore them rather than compromise your principles? And if it leads to a new Depression, well, it’s the liberals fault for not clapping hard enough. Or something.
billiecat

So, Freep, you’re in favor of raising taxes on poor people, but not on corporations? Don’t bother to reply – the answer’s obvious.
http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

In addition to the fact that for every dollar spent by governments, there is three dollars not spent by private sector which leads to come on say with it with me –more layoffs.

Which is why the Bush tax cuts resulted in a massive surge in employment……oh wait…….

We both know that the object of the game for employers is to be as efficient as possible. More efficient=fewer workers and/or lower pay for the ones you have. The jobs that have gone overseas are gone for good. We do need to adapt to this reality but the solution does NOT include deliberately bumping unemployment up just to prove a point.
http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

“In addition to the fact that for every dollar spent by governments, there is three dollars not spent by private sector which leads to come on say with it with me –more layoffs.”

Which is why the Bush tax cuts resulted in a massive surge in employment……oh wait…….

We both know that the object of the game for employers is to be as efficient as possible. More efficient=fewer workers and/or lower pay for the ones you have. The jobs that have gone overseas are gone for good. We do need to adapt to this reality but the solution does NOT include deliberately bumping unemployment up just to prove a point.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/28/five-figures-to-watch-in-the-budget-showdown/#ixzz1FME4GZDn
freeinpa

Yes spending money that is not yours or your don’t have is great logic if the end game is bankruptcy
gysgt213

“Anybody consider raising taxes on those who can afford them the most?”
.
This might raise revenue. Cannot do it.
.
billiecat

Acting like the national economy is the same thing as a household budget is even better logic if you’re a three-year old.
freeinpa

“Which is why the Bush tax cuts resulted in a massive surge in employment……oh wait…..”
.
Let me quote the Obama administration. Look how much worse it would have been without them. What is never mentioned by the left is that Bush was handed a recession from Clinton (Oh yes when taxes receipts hit the decade high of 20.6% of GDP) and then 9/11.
.
“the solution does NOT include deliberately bumping unemployment up just to prove a point.”
.
Explain how the solution is spending taxpayer money to pay for folks that do nothing but spend more taxpayer money in the hope that something or someone bails us out just so members of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic party doe snot have to suffer the hardships the taxpayer does.
http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

folks that do nothing
.
Yes. Everyone knows that Air Traffic Controllers and FBI agents and FDA food inspectors and the USCG and the guys out there paving the interstate are all “doing nothing”
.
Freep said it. It must be true…….
freeinpa

Convenient how you never mention the buildings full of useless bureaucrats that line the streets of DC and most state capitals.
.
“reports from lawyers inside DOJ, [] tell of Voting Section attorneys so bored that many spend the day playing computer Solitaire, watching videos, and venting at the lack of activity.”
.
And Holder has asked for an increase in his budget. The problem with folks on the left is they never see any waste or fraud in taypayer money. All are vital , yet when called to called to task fall back on the same groups of police and teachers etc etc.

The GAO will issue a report today that shows the silliness of your position when it outlines the multiple offices doing the same work. BTW there are 15 separate offices that deal with food safety– all absolutely vital and not duplicative I am sure!
http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

If the GAO fids a bunch of wasteful postions more power to them. (Who funds the GAO?) I’ve never said that government spending is sacrosanct or is the solution to all our problems. I’m just pointing out that going in wioth a chainsaw is going to make the recession worse and the people who are doing it know that and are doing it anyway.
freeinpa

“I’ve never said that government spending is sacrosanct”
.
You absolutely have! You equate with spending cuts to more unemployment and that is not a soluition. Now when you see exactly what conservatives have been saying for years about government spending — it’s ok well “its not sacrosanct”. FOr weeks you and others have castigated Republicans for $61 billion in cuts on a $3+trillion budget as draconian. GAO show just in duplicative services there is over $200 billion in spending. Making your $60 billion cut argument even sillier!
paulejb

Paul Dirks@12.2,
.
You would think that you could find some cuts in a proposed $3.73 trillion budget that would not mean the end of civilization as we know it.
apr2563

Yes freeper. Can you give me a rational reason why you are comparing the working poor with the entitled corporations?