House Republicans, particularly freshman and conservative members, appear to be digging in for a bitter battle with Senate Democrats on spending.
“I think this is the moment to pick a fight with liberals in the senate,” Rep. Mike Pence (R., Ind.) told reporters on Monday. “We’re not going to change the direction of spending in Washington D.C. without a fight.”
Members will meet in conference tomorrow morning before voting on a short-term continuing resolution that would keep the government running through April 8, cutting spending by $6 billion in the process. It is the second short-term spending bill proposed by the 112th Congress, and for some Republican members, that is at least one too many.
When the three-week resolution was unveiled on Friday, it was viewed by many with a sigh of relief, knowing that a government shutdown would once again be averted, however temporarily. But then a number of prominent conservative groups issued statements in opposition to the bill, urging Republicans to vote no.
Chris Chocola, president of Club for Growth, warned that conservatives were “walking into a spending trap” by continuing to enact short-term spending resolutions, and be demanding much more from Democrats in terms of significant, structural spending reforms. Michael Needham, CEO of Heritage Action, concurred. “If we blink now and allow the proponents of big government to drag out negotiations,” he said, “it will undercut our ability to fight for conservative policies and result in fewer reforms and less cuts.”
Other groups like the Family Research Council and Susan B. Anthony List objected on the ground that the short-term bill included funding for Planned Parenthood, something that the GOP’s long-term spending bill, H.R. 1, would have eliminated.
When members returned to Capitol Hill on Monday, it was clear that some had gotten the message. Several Republicans came forward to announce they would be voting against the short-term CR, most notably Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, who has considerable influence among freshman and conservative members, as well as Rep. Tom Graves (R., Ga.), a ’freshman in spirit’ and member of the GOP Whip team.
Many of those who spoke out were actual freshmen, including Reps. Tim Huelskamp (R., Kan.), Jeff Duncan (R., S.C.), Allen West (R., Fla.) and John Fleming (R., La.). “We were elected to make bold changes to federal spending and to reverse our unsustainable deficits,” Huelskamp, the first to declare his opposition, said in statement. “By allowing President Obama and Senator Reid to stall a budget they should have completed 6 months ago, we are being distracted from even bigger tasks: tackling the $1.1 trillion deficit in the President’s reckless 2012 budget and negotiating real budget reform, such as a balanced budget amendment, within a debt ceiling debate.”
For their part, GOP leaders acknowledged the frustration among House Republicans at the lack of results on a longer-term spending solution for the seven months remaining in the fiscal year, but played down suggestions of a rift within the party. At a joint press availability Monday afternoon, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) told reporters that all Republicans were fed up with Senate Democrats’ refusal to engage seriously in negotiations (Democrats accuse Republicans of a similar charge) and said they “hoped and intended” that there would be no more short-term resolutions after this one. “[Jim Jordan's] problem with the bill is, he wants to finish it,” McCarthy said. “That’s Jim’s frustration, that’s Eric’s frustration, it’s Kevin’s frustration.”
“Obviously there are a lot of other issues that we’d like to see dealt with in any kind of longer term solution,” Cantor said. “But right now we are trying to position ourselves so that we can insure no government shutdown, continue to cut spending and to reach a result that I think a majority of members can go along with.”
Rep. Graves said he decided to vote no after hearing from constituents over the weekend, and that he didn’t view opposition to the short-term bill as a vote against party leadership, but rather a message to Senate Democrats to get their act together.
“There are a lot of members voting yes, and several voting no for various reasons,” Graves, who was instrumental in leading the freshman “revolt” over the $100 billion cuts, told National Review Online. “The overarching message is: It’s time to move on. We need to get this done now so that we can get on to talking about 2012.”
“Leadership is doing everything they can to provide solutions to keep the government operating,” he added. “It’s time for the Senate get involved. We’ve passed the full 2011 CR [H.R. 1], they have a bill over there which they can work with.”
Pence wouldn’t say how he would vote on Tuesday, but said he had been speaking with his colleagues and giving them the following message: “There’s no point putting it off, let’s have the fight right now… House Republicans should say ‘this far and no further.’”
“I’ve been here in Washington for 10 years, and I’ve learned that more often than not things don’t change until they have to, until you reach an impasse then real negotiations begin,” he said. “I want to have that negotiation.”
A source close to the situation tells NRO that opposition to the bill was “definitely gaining momentum” and that more ‘no’ votes would be announced Tuesday morning. That said, the short-term resolution is still expected to pass the House, not least because a large number of Democrats will likely support it. The previous short-term resolution passed 335 to 91, with the help of 104 Democrats. It will then go to the senate, where freshman Republicans like Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), Mike Lee (R., Utah) and presumably several others, will vote in opposition, though Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said the spending bill would, and should, pass the upper chamber.
Republicans aren’t the only ones clamoring for a long-term resolution. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) said he’d vote for one more short-term bill and that’s it. At this point, the only thing the two sides can agree on is that the other side is to blame for the stalled negotiations. Neither side says they want to see the government shut down, but no one seems willing to budge any time soon. Even top White House officials are suggesting that a shutdown could be necessary to inspire real negotiations (as Pence suggested).
Hold on to your hats.
COMMENTS 11
COLLAPSE 
Doctor Robert 03/15/11 20:53 | Steve Koch has it right. Every vote in Congress should involve a cut of something, somewhere. Take away $5 billion a week and pretty soon one is saving some real money. |
03/15/11 17:32 | "Hold on to your hats, the Republicans are serious about cutting spending! Boehner got the CR passed and he really means business! In three weeks!" Never mind. (Tip of the hat to Gilda Radner/Emily Latilda...) |
michaelb60 03/15/11 16:28 | I am getting so tired of gutless republicans like John Boehner and Eric Cantor. If these guys don't have the guts to fight Obama, Reid and the rest of the lowlife democrats who are seeking to destroy our country and take over the health care system, they should resign from their leadership positions and allow others to lead. What a disgrace these 2 men are. Shut the government down until no more money goes to fund obamacare. Is that to difficult to understand? Cut spending back to pre Obama levels from 2 years ago or SHUT IT DOWN!! And by the way, if people were ever stupid enough to listen to George Will, Ronald Reagan would have never been president!! |
03/15/11 13:01 | Why not continue passing CRs, gradually ratcheting up the cuts? Let the Dems be the ones to shut down government over very minor issues. The advantage of the CRs is that they are so short term, that the difference between a $100 billion/year cut rate and $200 billion/year cut rate is only $4 billion in that particular two week CR. It will be extremely difficult for the Dems to get the public outraged by a single cut of $4 billion. When you try to negotiate a year long agreement, everything gets much more complex, the numbers get a couple of orders of magnitude larger, many more programs are cut, the negatives of cutting budgets get way more obvious. Much better to keep doing these very short duration CRs and gradually increase the cutting on each CR. Short term CRs also keep the budget crisis in the news and gradually increase voter awareness of how serious the deficit problem is. It would be nice if NR quoted some poll results to let us know how the public feels about cutting the spending, especially which programs can be cut with the least public resistance. Short term CRs are in the best interests of Republicans. As far as cutting Planned parenthood goes, why start out with a controversial cut that will mobilize the Dems and split the Republican base (it isn't clear to me that Libertarians even want to cut Planned Parenthood)? Why not start out with cuts that minimize controversy and stress the good government aspect of reducing the deficit? This will create momentum for spending cuts. The last time Republicans shut down the government, it was a disaster for the Republicans. McConnell and Boehner have learned from Republican mistakes in the past and have a strategy that minimizes our exposure to Dem media pressure while still providing a mechanism for cutting spending. Before blowing up this strategy, let's make sure the new strategy is better. The people who want to blow up the short CR approach need to explain precisely what they plan to do and how they are going to succeed. |
03/15/11 11:43 | Obviously, the Democrats (President Obama included) do not want to address this issue. The Republicans will probably have to vote for another CR, but they should make it very clear that they will NOT support a third one, and then LET the Democrats stall and shut down the government! |
03/15/11 09:24 | Calling what we are debating spending rather than borrowing is a great deal of the problem. Whether we are borrowing from China, the Fed, or future tax payers, we are not spending anything, and sooner or later - bills come due. The Dems refused to pass the 2011 budget. It seems to me we have, not only the obligation to recover their fumble on our finances, but a built in foil to deflect any of their criticisms: if Dems view funding for these Programs as being so critical for our economic recovery, why did their majorities in Congress, the same majorities that allowed them to pass the stimulus and ObamaCare, not fund them? How can BORROWING to sustain the status quo that has us financially speeding toward a wall (as opposed to a ditch, to use the Obama metaphor) be defended The 112th Congress, the House inparticular, was elected to stop and reverse the course Obama, Pelosi, and Reid set us on. I hope the GOP, or at least the TeaPartiers, remember that and remind us and the media of that when the media balks at our plan. I believe a shutdown and restructuring of our obligations (some may call it bankruptcy or defaulting) is the only way to fix the Inextricably entwined and dependent house of cards we've built. |
03/15/11 00:41 | They had better do it. This is why they were elected. The time is NOW! Obama is playing politics, hoping the Republicans will hang themselves out to dry and be the bad guys in the budget fight, and I fear all that will do is make everyone look bad, and get nothing done. I'm totally blown away by Obama's complete, and total dereliction of duty on this issue. It is the biggest failure I have seen of a president in my lifetime. To ignore the greatest threat we face as a country...completely, is mind boggling to me. I can only guess that he isn't capable of grasping the danger he's putting us all in. |
03/15/11 00:04 | Seems to me the appropriate arena for the big fight over spending is the 2012 budget. That is an elaborate process where every piece of federal spending can be reviewed (with control of the House we will actually prepare a budget and not a series of continuing resolutions), and the timing is such that it feeds directly into the 2012 election. That's the place to take a stand on a broad front. How we get to 9/30/11 is mostly a matter of setting the stage and preparing the battlefield. I'm OK with a series of CR's as long as each continues the $2B per week (or whatever) reductions. |
03/14/11 23:33 | I hope their message operations has improved considerably in the past 15 years. I mean really: Gingrich, Armey and DeLay. Could we have possibly put forth a more abrasive, curmugeonly team to sell ourselves? If we're gonna do this, please, let's put forward our most appealing faces, and let's all read from the same sheet of music. We start speaking with 242 separate voices, we're in trouble |
MikeN 03/14/11 23:12 | 6 billion per 3 weeks is 100 billion cut for the year. What is the problem with the short-term CR? Why not just make a tougher one that cuts even more? |
03/14/11 21:38 | A federal government shutdown, ooooh, you're scarin' me. SHUT IT DOWN ALREADY. |
