House passes debt ceiling vote

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

House passes debt ceiling vote

The U.S. House has approved the compromise deal to avert a debt ceiling crisis. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted in favor.

Reps. David Wu, Greg Walden, and Kurt Schrader voted yes. Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio voted no. Here's the full roll call of the ayes and nays.

The Oregonian's politics twitter reporter (whoever it is) noted this from Peter DeFazio:

Defazio says debt deal bill cuts investments in transportation and education. "It won't put a single person to work."

In a surprise, Rep. Gabby Giffords returned to cast a vote in favor of the deal. Here's her tweet:

The #Capitol looks beautiful and I am honored to be at work tonight.

Senator Harry Reid has announced that the Senate vote will happen at 9 a.m. PST on Tuesday.

No word yet on when Rep. David Wu will make his resignation official.

Stay tuned as this post is updated.

  • (Show?)

    I noted that Rep. Wu (and Rep. Schrader) also voted on Saturday against the Senate plan- they voted with the GOP that day, too.

    I wonder if these votes represented Wu flipping the bird at Nancy Pelosi, in wake of recent events?

  • (Show?)

    Kari, I'm delighted that my rep, Blumenauer, voted no, and I plan to congratulate him. To me that means he intends to honor his oath to represent me in the House, and not hand over his constitutional responsibilities on fiscal matters to what seems to be called a "supercommittee" of only 12 appointed reps. I can't imagine why the constituents of any "yes" voter would be interested in having that rep continue to try to represent their interests.

    • (Show?)

      I'm glad that Blumenauer voted no; he's my representative too.

      I was puzzled however at why so many Democrats voted yes late, after the issue was decided. Any insight, anyone?

      Certainly with 95 Democrats voting for it, people won't be able to characterize this bill as an expression of Tea Party evil. These Democrats voting yes late also made it possible for the Tea Party to vote no and have the bill still pass.


    • (Show?)

      While I like Earl who is my rep as well on many issues, his no vote doesn't represent anything to me, and I think given the circumstances, a yes vote would be a better one.

      Why? As a letter sent to Josh Marshall over at TPM noted, The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012 but I am supposed to be pissed at Schrader, Wu and Pelosi for voting yes? What exactly is wrong with this deal?

      The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games. These comparisons obscure more than they reveal.

      The GOP came out of this looking unreasonable--I've been getting E-mail messages from friends saying they are back with the Democrats because the Tea Party is "destroying this country." Nate Silver tweeted last week that local conservative talk radio in Kansas was filled with callers attacking the Tea Party! The Wall Street Journal ran two editorials which called the GOP delusional and "childish." The vaunted GOP message discipline broke down--I read stories all over the "inside baseball" papers here in DC where GOP House members went on the record after the Friday vote wondering out loud if the party had been damaged! I don't know if you noticed, but John Boehner spent last week negotiating with himself. No new proposals came out from the Dem side, but he produced two proposals, one of which he had to pull after he didn't have votes. A congressional Dem staffer told me his dad, an urban Catholic who voted for Nixon over Kennedy and has always voted Republican suddenly thinks the GOP is out to lunch and supports the President.

      While I can see why and accept why Earl may be a no, this purity test you seem to suggest we hold Yes votes on this within the Democratic caucus is myopic at best.

      • (Show?)

        I could not agree with you more. I hate to let the cat out of the bag too much, because part of Obama's three dimensional political chess is to make it seem as if the GOP has won and he has lost (seriously, the Teabaggers would never have voted for anything they didn't think was rubbing his nose in crap). He's more than happy to seem like the moderate centrist who has pissed off all his liberal base, because they'll grudgingly vote for him anyway.

        So shhhhh.... don't look at the actual bill if you want to remain mad. There are only $400 billion dollars in cuts - NONE - of which target programs to help the poor, or Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid. There is $350 billion dollars in additional BASE cuts to the military, which has never been done in my lifetime, and the rest is savings in interest on the debt.

        Now in addition to this, there is supposed to be 1.5 Trillion dollars in cuts decided upon by a super-committee, and if this committee can't decide, then more automatic cuts kick in. Except what will be automatically cut? Defense spending and Homeland security take half. The other half will be domestic spending that EXCLUDES Social Security, Medicaid, low-income assistance programs and Medicare benefits (Medicare providers may have their reimbursements altered, but Congress changes that constantly anyway).

        In short, this bill saves money by slashing welfare. Specifically, corporate welfare. (My God, how will the multinationals ever survive?) It will put a serious crimp in the budgets of major defense contractors. Banks will get less in interest. And big pharma might have to sell pills for a lot less as well.

        So man the barricades! This is an outrage! B.P. and General Electric need that sweet government cash. And Obama is a traitor for not giving it to them!

        • (Show?)

          It isn't a secret among conservatives that this "compromise" bill is actually a complete capitulation to Obama and the Democrats. More Obama than the Congressional Democrats. Obama wanted to push this out past the elections and he got that. He would have sold all of you up the river for that.

      • (Show?)

        Mitchell, I disagree with this in various ways, all connected to the continuing focus on deficit reduction as the central goal of policy, but it's a great comment that's well worth thinking about, & I hope it gets raised up to the front level as a "notable comment."

      • (Show?)

        The GOP came out of this looking unreasonable, but that's exactly how they looked going into it. And its important to note that of all the interest groups participating here, it was only the Tea Party that got what it wanted. In the end it doesn't matter how silly they looked because they won a huge victory and nothing succeeds like success. The lesson learned here today is that the winning strategy is to stand firm to your principles, no matter how ridiculous or maladaptive, and the Democrats will always come to your side in the end.

        Authentic constructive compromise is no more likely later than it is today and so the next "round" in this spiralling farce will inevitably end up in the lap of the other dismal work product from this catastrophe, our spanking new Polit Buro (aka "Super Congress") who will, I predict, proceed with no debate to break everything else that wasn't broken today when they finally get their paws on the budget. Why? Because that's what they want to do and, as was shown unambiguously today, nobody will stand in their way when they do it.

        The fact of the matter is that if Congress was serious about lowering the debt all they needed to do was refrain from allocating expenditures above revenue. They have that power. They had that opportunity. That was their moral obligation.

        But they're too craven for that simple, responsible and direct solution, or anything else that requires courage or principles. Instead they engineer a fake crises to whip everyone into a hebephrenic panic where the weak ones sign away their power and our sovereignty for a pocket full of magic beans.

        That's what has me riled. It isn't about "purity," its about looking down the road, past these present frolics and capers and into the future, and seeing clearly where this penny wise and pound foolish capitulationism is ultimately leading us.

  • (Show?)

    This is a schoolhouse rock type question, but why is the bill title on the NY Times and the House site "To make a technical amendment to the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002"?

    • (Show?)

      If I'm not mistaken, because that is the House bill that got hollowed out from the Senate side so it could be a "House originated" bill.

  • (Show?)

    This was not a tight vote, so Representatives, both left and right, were somewhat free to protest a "compromise." Would Blumenauer (or DeFazio) have voted "no" if passage, or defeat, depended on his vote? I hope not.

  • (Show?)

    @Dan Meek: I'll concede the point on the latest vote, but not on Saturday's vote, as only 11 Dems voted with the GOP on Saturday (two of 11 from Oregon).

connect with blueoregon