Frustrations Grow as House Passes Temporary Spending Bill

Bill would put off a shutdown by three more weeks, but conservatives and progressives complain about short-term measures

March 15, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (11)

The House of Representatives easily passed a stopgap spending bill Tuesday afternoon which would give the White House and Congress an extra three weeks to avoid a government shutdown. But a growing backlash against the bill—the second stopgap funding measure so far this year—shows both that liberals and conservatives are getting frustrated with such short-term solutions, and also how far apart they are in terms of reaching a longer term agreement.

[See a slide show of 10 budget and spending fights looming for Obama and the GOP.]

The bill, which contains about $6 billion in spending cuts this year, passed the House with 271 votes and is expected to pass the Senate before the current temporary funding expires on Friday. But 53 Republicans voted against the measure, and those defections, along with opposition from activist groups like the Tea Party Patriots and the Club for Growth, are threatening to crack the GOP's united front as it confronts the Obama administration over government spending. Conservative critics claim that Congress should no longer delay action to reduce long-term deficits, repeal healthcare reform, and eliminate funding for other programs which have gotten caught up in the budget battle. "We need to stop sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, and we need to defund Obamacare. And we need to start tackling next year's budget, the debt ceiling, and other challenges standing in the way of job creation," said Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, an influential conservative House caucus, and voted against the measure.

[See 10 effects of a government shutdown.]

The spending measure also drew "no" votes from 104 Democrats. Many claimed that the GOP is little by little making dangerously deep cuts in vital government programs. "We can no longer afford this death by a thousand slashes," said Connecticut Rep. John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Even Democratic leaders were divided over the measure, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi voting against it but House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer voting in favor.

Because the measure mostly eliminates earmarks and programs already targeted by Democrats and the Obama administration, it has the support of the Senate Democratic leadership, and appears likely to pass in that chamber. However conservatives there are grumbling about it as well. Some Senate Republicans have also blasted the proposal, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

If the bill becomes law, the federal government will be funded until April 8. But with conservatives grousing about the temporary deals made thus far being too incrementalist in terms of cuts while progressives complain that they have already been pushed too far on spending reductions, it leaves the Obama administration, Senate Democrats, and House Republicans little room to maneuver in finding a final deal.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Jim DeMint,
Jim Jordan,
John Larson,
Steny Hoyer,
abortion,
Congress,
Nancy Pelosi,
deficit and national debt,
healthcare reform,
Marco Rubio,
White House,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Every day we hear more about the need to cut federal spending, and every day the sacred cow in Washington, D.C., is avoided like it's the cash cow there--as in contributions from defense contractors to the political parties. We spend a trillion dollars a year on National Security, more than is spent on it by the rest of the world combined. And we're the world's biggest debtor nation while we're at it.

Don't you, too, wonder why? Don't you, too., wish there were open discussion and debate of the foreign policy decisions causing extravagance on National Security while our infrastructure needs are woefully underfunded year after year--bridges, highways, airports, sewers, water mains, etc.? Aren't you just a little suspicious that the military/industrial complex Dwight Eisenhower warned us about more than 50 years ago is today more worrisome than ever? Why is Great Britain able to spend on Intelligence such a tiny fraction of what we do? Why is China's National Defense spending just 18% of ours every year? Why is our spending on Nation Building mammoth compared with that spending anywhere else you look? How can we afford, as the world's largest debtor nation, the foreign aid we offer countries like Egypt ($90 million pledged just the other day) on a regular basis?

Yes, it's a trillion dollar a year habit avoided for discussion or debate in Washington, D.C., probably for a very good reason. It, and not Social Security, is the new third rail in politics, don't you think? Sacred cow, cash cow, third rail.

Ron W. Smith of UT 4:35PM March 17, 2011

This kind can be driven out only by prayer and fasting. This is Lent. Let us pray -- and fast.

LOUIS SANDBERG of NY 10:24AM March 17, 2011

If you want to see the absurdity of the "we can't cut spending" argument, please take a minute and a half to watch this video:

http://wimp.com/budgetcuts/

Sherlock Holmes of NH 9:11AM March 17, 2011

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos