Aug. 02–All five Iowa U.S. House members — three Democrats and two Republicans — voted against a measure to raise the nation’s debt ceiling and enact spending cuts without raising taxes.|By James Q. Lynch, The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Aug. 02–All five Iowa U.S. House members — three Democrats and two Republicans — voted against a measure to raise the nation’s debt ceiling and enact spending cuts without raising taxes.
The House voted 269-161 Aug. 1 to approve the measure to cut federal spending by at least $2.1 trillion over a decade — and possibly considerably more — and would not require tax increases.
The U.S. debt limit would rise by at least $2.1 trillion, tiding the Treasury over through the 2012 elections.
The Senate is expected to take up the legislation Tuesday. Although passage is expected, Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat, has said he will oppose it.
In remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor, Iowa’s junior senator called the agreement a “misbegotten, misguided deal.”
“To say that this is the wrong policy at the wrong time is a gross understatement,” Harkin said. The agreement “is a clear and present danger to the fragile, indeed faltering, economic recovery.”
Rep. Dave Loebsack
Second District Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack of Iowa City was a “no” vote because the measure created “a system that protects special interests, hedge fund managers and Wall Street executives at the expense of the middle class, seniors and the most vulnerable.”
“As a lifelong Iowan, I know we make good on our debts and pay our bills,” Loebsack said. “I am thankful a crisis has been averted, but the solution is almost as flawed as the leadership that has been on display. Unfortunately, due to this lack of leadership by Congress and the president, Washington has not been focusing on the number one priority of Iowans — boosting our economy and creating jobs.
Despite wearing different party labels, Iowa congressmen seemed to agree that, as Republican Rep. Tom Latham of Ames explained, it did not do enough to control future spending or guarantee true long-term changes in how Washington spends taxpayer dollars.
Rep. Tom Latham
“While no common-sense American wants our country to default on its obligations or have our credit downgraded, it is our responsibility to draw a line in the sand for fiscal sanity,” said Latham, one of 66 Republicans to oppose the measure. “This debate is an opportunity to stop giving Washington permission in the form of a blank check to continue its irresponsible spending spree well beyond its means.”
“Enough is enough,” added Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat. “The simple truth is, today’s vote is a symbol of everything that’s wrong in Washington: partisan brinksmanship, broken promises, backroom deal making, and kicking the can down the road”
Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA/1st).
Those “broken promises (and) backroom deals” once again placed the burden for the GOP-controlled House spending practices on middle class families “while demanding nothing of millionaires, billionaires and corporations making record profits,” Braley said. “My constituents don’t agree with that, and neither can I.”
Western Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, however, opposed the measure because its approval “forfeits the mandate House Republicans received last November to “hold the line’ on the nation’s debt and spending.”
He also objected to a provision that establishes a 12-member House-Senate committee that will be charged with producing up to $1.5 trillion in additional deficit cuts over a decade. If the panel succeeds, Congress will be required to vote on the recommendations without possibility of changes.
“S.365’s proposed spending cuts are far too small, and the fact that they are far into the future calls into question whether they will ever actually occur,” King said. “The bill increases the nation’s debt burden while placing the responsibility of dealing with Washington’s addiction to debt and deficit spending on yet another commission, and on future Congresses and future presidents.”
Democratic 3rd District Rep. Leonard Boswell of Des Moines also voted against the measure, citing the lack of “shared sacrifice.”
Rep. Leonard Boswell
“We are all Americans, and we should all pitch in and pay our fair share,” Boswell said. “The deal brought forth today unfortunately continues to pass the buck on making the difficult and balanced decisions needed to restore some sense of fiscal sanity to Washington.” Instead, he said, it sets up Medicare for future cuts “and continues to hold middle-class Americans hostage for the sake of preserving tax cuts for Big Oil and hedge fund managers that pay lower taxes than their secretaries.”
Like Loebsack, Harkin was critical of President Obama’s leadership on the issue. Instead of accepting the compromise, Harkin said, Obama “had an alternative to capitulating to the Republicans’ hostage-taking and blackmail.”
Harkin called it “deeply regrettable that President Obama preemptively took this option off the table,” referring to his suggestion to use the 14th Amendment to the Constitutions to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.
óóó
