House rejects extra $22 billion in cuts that divided Republicans

[WestVirginiaRebel]

The Hill:

The House rejected a measure cutting an additional $22 billion from the Republican spending bill, as conservatives ran into a wall of opposition from the GOP establishment over the depth of reductions to federal funding.

The amendment backed by the conservative Republican Study Committee failed, 147-281, but not before putting the GOP spending divide under a spotlight on the House floor. Authored by RSC chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the proposal would have dramatically reshaped an appropriations bill that already slashes federal spending by $61 billion over the next seven months.

More than half of the Republican conference backed the measure in opposition to two party chiefs, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who voted with every Democrat against it. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) did not vote, as is traditional for Speakers.

The party’s fourth-ranking member, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), supported the measure, as did dozens of Republican freshman. Yet there was division even among the first-term, Tea Party-backed lawmakers. Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), an elected freshman representative on the leadership team, opposed the bill, while Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), the freshman class president, supported it.
________

Eric Cantor? Say what?

[Rheo]

I'm assuming this may be a factor??

 

Republican opponents of the proposal cited the across-the-board nature of the cuts, saying they dodge difficult choices and would allow the Obama administration to decide where to implement them.

[pollyannaish]

I like it that the GOP is having these arguments within the party. This is very healthy.

 

Because Dems don't think its a big deal to have deficits (it is my opinion they only care about them when it cuts their way publicly) they tend to spend more time arguing against cuts as a concept...rather than WHAT should be cut.

 

Here, we're to the point of actually making progress on developing priorities, having an transparent and honest (and yes, divisive) discussion and coming to some sort of consensus.

 

I'm ok with that.

 

Now. Find that 22 billion somewhere else if this wasn't the right way to do it.

[Casino67]

I'm assuming this may be a factor??

 

Republican opponents of the proposal cited the across-the-board nature of the cuts, saying they dodge difficult choices and would allow the Obama administration to decide where to implement them.

 

Could this be a factor too?

 

"What a day! We have had over 80 Hrs of Debate so far. We have over 100 amdmts to go. And another 18 hrs re: Cont Resolution #migop #jobs about 1 hour ago via web" Rep Huizenga

 

Maybe they just wanted to reach their goal with on fell swoop and go home rather than debate another 100 amendments. Would imagine they would like to go home.

[Rheo]

I think it is less to do with the depth of the spending, but more on how it was written vaguely.

[Rheo]

 

Maybe they just wanted to reach their goal with on fell swoop and go home rather than debate another 100 amendments. Would imagine they would like to go home.

Yes, and our military men and women would like to go home, too, but the job isn't done yet. Suck it up!