March 9, 2011 4:40 PM

Senate rejects Democratic, Republican spending plans

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
Congress
government spending, money, debt, deficit, budget

Updated at 5:10 p.m. ET

The Senate today rejected two federal budget proposals, sending sending a message to Congress' more ideological members that they will have to broker a compromise plan to keep the government funded for the rest of the fiscal year.

First, the Senate by a vote of 44 to 56 rejected a bill passed in the GOP-led House that would fund the government for the next seven months but slash $61 billion. Democrats complained the cuts to federal agencies -- hitting everything from border security to cancer research and food safety inspectors -- were too draconian.

While the bill made historic cuts that illustrated the influence of the Tea Party, the three Republicans who voted against the bill were some of the Senate's most conservative: Tea Party freshmen Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with Jim DeMint of South Carolina. All Democrats and independents also voted against it.

DeMint said he opposed the bill because cutting this year's budget by $61 billion would only reduce this year's deficit by 4 percent, CBS News producer John Nolen reports. Paul said the same.

"If we were to adopt the president's approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt the House approach, we're going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year," Paul said in a statement. "I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that's coming."

Following that vote, the Senate rejected an alternate Democratic plan that would cut about $5 billion. Republicans, from the moment the White House put forward the plan, called it unacceptable.

That plan was voted down by a vote of 42 to 58.

"We can't keep delaying, we can't keep promising to do something tomorrow. We have a vote today. We need to act today," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said on the Senate floor today. "A vote for the Democratic proposal is a vote to do nothing. It's a vote to stay in denial. It's a vote that says deficits don't matter."

Several Democrats -- mostly moderates -- broke from their party to join Republicans against the Democratic measure. They included Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Mark Udall of Colorado, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Jim Webb of Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Bill Nelson of Florida. Independent socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with Democrats, also voted against it.

Today's votes presented a quandary for the Senate's moderates who wanted to prove their interest in deficit reduction without going too far.

McCaskill, who is up for re-election next, year, said today that the cuts in the Democratic plan were "not substantial enough," the Hill reports.

"They represent another $6.5 on top of the $4 billion we've already cut, and I think we need to do more than the Democratic proposal falls short," she said

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine released a long statement today explaining that she strongly opposed some of the cuts in the Republican bill, particularly the "deep and immediate cuts to critical low-income heating assistance, weatherization, and Head Start programs."

"I am left with a choice between a proposal that doesn't go nearly far enough and one that makes many wrong choices," she said.

Sanders told CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes on CBSNews.com's Washington Unplugged that he'd rather see a deficit reduction plan that includes some spending cuts, a surtax on incomes over a $1 million and the elimination of corporate tax loopholes.

"I think it is unfair to move toward a balanced budget on the backs of the middle class and working families or the most vulnerable people in society, especially when my Republican friends are fighting for tax breaks for billionaires," he said.

With both proposals rejected, Congress has little more than a week to come up with a new plan before the federal government shuts down on March 18. House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy said this week that Republicans are already preparing a new funding bill to keep operations open for two to three more weeks with cuts of about $2 billion per week.

After that, however, the White House is interested in seeing a budget pass for the rest of the year, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson reported yesterday. The administration recognizes that if Congress continues to pass short-term spending measures on Republican terms, it could add up to significant budget cuts.

At a speech at the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress this morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained how two failed votes could be seen as a "breakthrough."

"Once it is plain that both party's opening bids in this budget debate are non-starters, we can finally get serious about sitting down and narrowing the huge gap that exists between the two sides," he said.


Add a Comment See all 18 Comments
by JEngdahlJ March 10, 2011 9:10 PM EST
With reform in place, what are the primary Part D considerations for employers? http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=3175
Reply to this comment
by msimamaji March 9, 2011 9:06 PM EST
The GOP wants the working public to give up their social security and Medicare. They are making all sorts of cuts that the working class needs. They expect the working people of this country to make all the sacrifice. But the rich? No, they get to keep all their tax cuts. They will continue to get subsidies to off-shore American jobs.
The GOP and the Tea Party are funded by wealthy interest groups. They want socialism for the rich, but poverty and misery for everyone else.
American got conned.
Reply to this comment
by RobAla March 9, 2011 11:15 PM EST
I want the federal government to make a sacrifice and stop feeding on the public so much. I don't think anyone wants anyone in poverty, and I certainly don't want socialism for any American. As for tax cuts for the rich, the poor don't pay many taxes - so how could you give the poor a tax cut? Here is the deal with the tax cuts. Additional taxes taken from Americans (no matter the income) redistributes money from the private sector economy (jobs) and into a bloated wasteful government. We need more jobs and less government. Nobody is trying to put the poor down, except maybe the political groups who gain power from having the poor around. Think about that. What political group wants the poor to be dependent on them - forever?
by retiredgustav March 10, 2011 12:39 AM EST
We have a $700 Billion miltary budget. We can cut $100 billion from that and nobody would even notice. We are not theworlds policeman.
by meboard March 9, 2011 8:25 PM EST
Well what did you expect? "NO" works both ways now! I'm all for cutting spending in areas that deserve to be cut, but I don't think the President and Congress have done a real deep review of what can and should not be cut in the BEST interest of the country. And that will be a difficult task with a "Speaker" who has no interest in compromising on anything!
Reply to this comment
by RobAla March 10, 2011 7:06 AM EST
$61 billion in cuts amounts to less than 2% of the outrageous spending. We are projected to add another $1.65 TRILLION in deficit spending alone this year. Even with a pitiful $61 billion effort to cut, we would still be going in the hole an additional $1.6 trillion. How long does anyone think we can keep doing this?
by jimbom121 March 10, 2011 9:19 AM EST
How long does anyone think we can keep doing this?
--------------------------------

We can't. It does not matter what what each party cuts...unless companies start signifcantly start hiring again, we as a society need to address what our goverment can and can not do. It needs to be done atr all levels, which neither party is willing to do.
by RobAla March 9, 2011 7:11 PM EST
This nation is drowning in red ink, with more than $14 trillion as a national debt - and we are projected to go in the hole another $1.65 trillion this year. How long do irresponsible members of the House and Senate think this can do on????? The wimpy Republicans presented a budget with a lame $61 billion in spending cuts (the federal government spends this in a week), and THE INSANE AND DESTRUCTIVE DEMOCRATS COULD NOT EVEN TOLERATE THIS PITIFUL EXCUSE FOR CUTS!!!!! $61 billion amounts to about 2% of the total spending.

Fine. This is what I say. The Democrats hid $105 billion in the corrupt and disastrous health care law (they even hid from the CBO). This is not current spending for current programs (which we can not afford to pay for as it is), this is $105 BILLION IN NEW SPENDING FOR A NEW PROGRAM WHICH THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT WANT AND WILL BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME COURT AT SOME TIME - DON'T FUND THIS CRAP!!!!!!! Dropping the funding for this awful law will not cost jobs because no one is yet working this - it is new spending. We are going to have to make hard decisions in cutting existing entitlements, don't start a new massive entitlement - when we do not have the money to pay for the ones we have. IF THE DEMOCRATS CAN NOT GO ALONG WITH THIS RATIONAL MOVE, THEN I TOTALLY GIVE UP ON THEM TO ACT RESPONSIBLY. I WILL BE DONE WITH THEM.

This $105 billion for health care is to be spent EACH YEAR. If this is stopped now, this means there is $105 billion less in real cuts that we have to make each year to reach a balanced budget. Responsible legislators must put a plan in place to reduce the federal government each year until we reach a balanced budget in 10 years. This first step would help ease the pain.

ARE THERE ANY SANE POLITICIANS LEFT IN WASHINGTON DC? If so, please begin to act responsibly, and begin serious moves to reduce the size and scope of the federal government to a level that the Americans people can afford - and avoid a total economic collapse of nation by being totally buried in debt. We were once a great country - it is not too late to save it for future generations. But we must act soon.
Reply to this comment
by WeHappyFew March 9, 2011 6:51 PM EST
Explain to me, why do oil companies need subsidies?
Reply to this comment
by san850 March 10, 2011 7:17 AM EST
...answer...so they can keep buying politicians.
by noloyalisti March 9, 2011 5:45 PM EST
The Republicans want to do exactly the opposite of what they say. They want to run up spending so they can redistribute it to their corporate masters. In fact the last 10 years has seen the larges redistribution of wealth to the rich in the history of America.

The Republican Corporation wants to cut our way out of the Depression they caused. And all it is going to do is further enrich their filthy rich masters. That is their goal and their vision for America. And the heck with workers, women and children, they can all starve.
Reply to this comment
by olebasiclady March 9, 2011 6:22 PM EST
That's not very logical, No. If they want to run up spending, why not go agead and pass the highest of the budget proposals ( the least spending cuts)?
by WeHappyFew March 9, 2011 6:54 PM EST
Do the republicans have senate majority olebasic?
by san850 March 9, 2011 5:01 PM EST
Here's an idea: Last week the Republicans unanimously voted against a Democrat proposal to eliminate over $40 billion in taxpayer funded subsidies to five of the largest oil companies...companies who do not need subsidizing. The Repubs did this solely to protect their generous campaign contributions from big oil. Repubs, you need a "do-over" and get it right this time, if you are serious about reducing the budget, whether it hurts your campaign coffers or not. Do what is right for the American people, not for your lousy pockets.
Reply to this comment
by Birdman04 March 9, 2011 5:36 PM EST
Works for me.
by jimbom121 March 10, 2011 9:25 AM EST
by ttaoin2010 March 9, 2011 5:11 PM EST
The Republicans want to slash govt spending. I think everyone should take a hit.....
----------------------------------------------------

But they only want to cut certain spending...the spending that helps the middle and working class.
See all 18 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...