Tea Party, some Republicans unhappy with short-term spending vote
Updated at 1:40 p.m. ET with quotes from Rep. Mike Pence, House Speaker John Boehner and the Tea Party Patriots
The House today will vote on another short-term spending bill that would keep the federal government operating for another three weeks -- while cutting $6 billion along the way -- but some Republicans associated with the Tea Party are signaling they will no longer support Congress' short-term budget solutions.
While the measure is expected to pass, and thus stave off a government shutdown, the dissent among conservatives serves to highlight the divide between Tea Party Republicans and the rest of their party, as well as their willingness to buck party leadership.
"I will not vote for the short-term continuing resolution that is coming to the floor of the House today to make [a] statement," prominent conservative Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said on the House floor today. "Things don't change in Washington until they have to. It's time to pick a fight."
House Tea Party Caucus Chair Michele Bachmann released a statement today saying she is also voting against the measure, referred to as a Continuing Resolution (CR), because it does not repeal funding for President Obama's health care reforms.
"We must defund ObamaCare now, and this CR makes no such attempt," she said.
Tea Party-backed Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, both said on Monday they are opposing the measure.
"While attempts at new spending reductions are commendable, we simply can no longer afford to nickel-and-dime our way out of the dangerous debt America has amassed," Rubio wrote in an op-ed at Redstate.com.
Similarly, Jordan said in a statement, "With the federal government facing record deficits and a mammoth debt hanging over our economy and our future, we must do more than cut spending in bite-sized pieces."
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) defended the measure today, pointing out that once this bill passes, House Republicans will have already managed to cut $10 billion from this year's budget through short-term spending measures. "It's a small down payment on our commitment to the American people that we have real fiscal responsibility," he said.
The growing resistance on Capitol Hill to these short-term spending measures follows complaints from groups representing the conservative base. Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips wrote an op-ed today entitled, "Boehner, Cantor and the House GOP leadership still don't get it," declaring that his organization will not support any short-term bill that does not defund Planned Parenthood or the health care reforms. Phillips acknowledged this bill is likely to pass, but he said the next one must not.
"The next continuing resolution is where the Tea Party movement needs to make its stand," he wrote. "Either we see hundreds of billions in cuts or we shut the government down. It has come to that."
Congressional leaders have said this should be the last short-term bill before a spending measure for the rest of the fiscal year has passed. "We are trying to position ourselves so that we can ensure no government shutdown but continue cutting spending and reach a result that I think we can get a majority of members to go along with," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said yesterday.
The Tea Party Patriots also announced their opposition to the short-term bill today. "As we suspected this Congress is not serious about cutting spending and presenting a realistic budget," TPP national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin said in a statement.
Other groups that announced their opposition to the spending measure this week include the anti-abortion rights group the Susan B. Anthony List and the National Taxpayers Union. On Friday, the the Family Research Council, Club for Growth and Heritage Action released a joint statement opposing the measure.
A new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News highlights the divide in thinking between conservative and moderate Republicans: Among self-identified Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who describe themselves as "very conservative," 61 percent said a government shutdown would be a positive development. By comparison, 58 percent of those who are less conservative or moderate said the opposite.
Earlier this month, when the House passed the last short-term spending measure, just six Republicans opposed it. In the Senate, five Republicans voted against it. More and more Republicans are opposing this measure, however.
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York released a statement yesterday warning that the Tea Party opposition to the short-term measure "is a bad omen that shows how difficult it will be for Speaker Boehner to bring the Tea Party along for any long-term compromise... In order to avert a shutdown, Speaker Boehner should consider leaving the Tea Party behind and instead seek a consensus in the House among moderate Republicans and a group of Democrats."
Popular in Politics
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 170 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 346 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 327 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 262 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 243 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 416 Comments
its time to learn that not all things are taken away as easy as a dictator wants. and your one of 100 people not the king of the hill as a freshman in congress. First and often second term elected are needing schooling more than the kids that cant count change now days.
With the mess ups that republicans are doing to the middle class they likely will be a short lived freshman class come next election.
Boehner, please tell us, were you showing "real fiscal responsibility" a couple of weeks ago when you and your fellow republicans voted UNANIMOUSLY against a Democrat proposal to end over $40 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies to five of the largest oil companies?? Big Oil does not need subsidizing. You and yours are simply protecting your generous campaign contributions from Big Oil...just like you do with Big Pharma and Big Insurance. Hypocrites!
Of course, the liberals have taught you to hate Oil and corporations.....however we laugh, when we see you at the pump, adding oil to your engine and tank, while at the same time crying about subsidizing a necessary resource.
They may provide vital services, but given their profit margin, do they need tax payer subsidies.
by IL-Independent March 15, 2011 2:56 PM EDT
Every time I listen to the Tea Party representatives, I wonder what the heck they are talking about. They are so mixed up in their understanding of so many things, but the one thing that irks me the most is their obvious lack of integrity. This is why they fit with Republicans, since their hyprocritical nature makes them great bed partners. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess.
Now if Tea Party members came into office and cut their salaries because it increases government spending, eliminated their health care because government shouldn't be involved with providing social care, and eliminated their lifetime retirement plan for members of Congress, for six years work, I would consider them adhering to the principles they espouse. If they did these things, they could then negotiate in good faith.
But they don't do these things. It's like when the GOP had the moral majority in their ranks, but they didn't have human compassion as one of their values. Instead, they stored up wealth, prevented others from getting humanitarian support, and sought to prevent all abortions and birth control while at the same time eliminating welfare programs that support unwed mothers and their children.
The Lord see these people for what they are, deceitful.
1. Smaller Governement:
We don't need the TSA when you have a Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, NTSB, BTAFE, Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines....
2. Lower Taxes:
50% of your wealth when you die is taken from your family's inheiretance. That's Too Much.
3. Lower Spending:
Bridges to nowhere, Electoral Matching Funds, Congressional Jets, Congressional Pensions for 2 terms?, $400.000 Presidential Pension?
What is so hard to understand?
Your good intentions are the fodder used to build the road to hell. Even the historical representation of your name doesn't reflect the reality of the situation: there are 50 states not thirteen, we have a representative federal government not a tyrant for a king, and when there is a chance to pursue the lower spending as you suggest, instead you will tread on others and take away their security.
This isn't hard to understand, it just doesn't make sense and for this I don't trust the words of tea party members.
your statement ......"it takes time and your party is not exactly easy to work with."
Funny, this is exactly what the Dems have been saying for many months when the Repubs try to deny anything considered to be a positive economic indicator showing that we are on the road to recovery.
Ah yes, the party of "NO" certainly can't claim any credit for those improvements. And you are correct...it takes time and your party is not exactly easy to work with.
Do people really think you can call the other team out for a foul that your team committed in a worse way? Idiocy not Independence.
by skyk-2009 March 15, 2011 1:06 PM EDT
This is a Republican mantra. It's also described by the saying: "The rich get richer, and the middle class get the shaft."
If the Republicans during the Bush administration had gotten hold of Social Security, that too would be gone during the economic meltdown.
Imagine that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can remove $60 billion from their investment portfolios and spend that money on social programs, that as Republicans they are representing the ability to redistribute their wealth, so long as the gift(s) provides a tax break. The rich will continue to accumulate wealth and will give back through their magnamious deep pockets--while creating legislation that prevents the Government from doing so. They are the only ones who supposedly know better (than others especially Democrats). We should all be thankful, and perhaps kiss the feet of the Republicans more often.
Why not? They seem to think they can get involved in elections and spend their money through "PAC's" and unknown source donations (thanks again SCOTUS, for a terrible and immoral ruling!) -- so let them participate in the cost of the decisions they want to have made by lawmakers.
Give to get, it is fair.
Charitable donations are tax free (or tax write offs) -- let the churches pay taxes just like every other political donor and get the break just like any other proven charitable donor gets.
Why else would the tea party conservatives be trying to raise the voting age. they know the numbers are against them.
http://newstaco.com/2011/03/08/new-hampshire-gop-college-kids-shouldnt-vote-because-theyre-idealistic/
and as republican policies continue to make people poorer, and have less of a chance at retiring, at a decent age with less health care... more and more and more voters are going to vote for socialistic answers because big business has no intention of giving a damn thing back to the workers.
What really kills me is every wealthy person corporation / conglomerate, as well as wallstreet has made their wealth on the back of American infrastructure. But now they insist on not having to pay to improve and update this infrastructure, they canceled pension plans for most, they've placed more of the burden of health care on the workers and they are essentially starving the system that provided that wealth.
the entire foundation of a capitalistic nation is the strength of the working classes. If the working classes have health care and reliable pensions and social security they can spend their money. Capitalism is dependent on consumption of goods, and we are killing capitalism via republican ideology of starving the workers. When workers pay more for health care they aren't buying goods. When workers have no pension plans and watch their 401K's get hammers by crooked bankers and wallstreet fund managers they cannot spend as much. Less spending means less tax revenue which means less chances of paying off the deficit.
Wake up righties your policies are the problem. Even a blind person can see the obviousness of this.. Why the hell the tea party is so blind to it shows how completely out of touch they are
These hypocritical liars have ruined the Republican party.
corneliusvansant March 15, 2011 12:09 PM EDT
Talk about writing in ignorance!! If this is what I would learn from going to a Tea Party meeting, no thank you.
The definition of egalitarian is that people should be treated as equals on certain dimensions such as race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, economic status, social status, and cultural heritage. In that the tea party eschews egalitarianism, then they are not living based on the concepts of the Declaration of Independence. Personally, I think the majority of tea part members are naive. Like the shot heard around the world was not in Concord, New Hampshire. It's like they are just now learning the history of America, and soon enough they may learn how to correctly interpret what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution actually represent.
The tea party is a lost generation, poorly educations, no concept of mathematics and advantes economic theories, and they are just now begining to learn what America represents to the world.
I know, I once felt that way myself. I am older and wiser now.