WASHINGTON, D.C. — The chances of a second partial government shutdown next year is looking less likely with Thursday’s passage of a two-year budget deal.

The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved the bipartisan budget deal by a vote of 332-94 Thursday evening on Capitol Hill.

Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito was one of those voting for it and said although it’s not perfect, it’s a good start in the right direction.

“I do think it moves us forward, it prevents future shutdowns, it’s doesn’t raise taxes, it lowers the deficit and it gives us two years of certainty that I think we desperately need,” she said.

Among other things, the budget would restore around $63 million in funding that had been cut by the so-called sequester. Those increases would be offset by a variety of spending reductions and increased fees elsewhere in the budget.

Congressman David McKinley, however, voted against the budget deal citing in a release Thursday the plan reverses the progress that has been made in recent years in reducing the government’s spending.

“It increases spending for the next two years but promises to save money in the future. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office most of the savings would come seven years from now,” McKinley stated.

The deal does call for increases in the deficit, $23.2 billion in 2014 and $18.2 billion the year after that.

“While I applaud the fact that bipartisan discussions on the budget took place for the first time in five years, unfortunately the final product falls short,” McKinley continued. “America’s debt continues to grow, reaching $17.2 trillion. Just like American families, Washington must be serious about living within its means.”

Despite the opposition to the budget deal, Capito is expecting it to be passed by the Senate based upon the results of the House vote. A Senate vote will likely not come until next week.

Capito said the creation and passage of this deal was necessary to regain some confidence from the public.

“People have to be refreshed and relieved that in Washington we’ve laid down our partisanship and we’ve worked together for the greater good,” she said.

Lawmakers have until Jan. 15 to approve a spending plan or otherwise trigger another partial government shutdown.

bubble graphic

24

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Matt

    I'm pleased that McKinley voted against this bill because the Bipartisan Budget Act breaks faith with all present and future military retirees under age 62.

    There is a provision in the act that reduces the annual cost of living allowance (COLA) by 1% until age 62. COLA is a very important part of the military pension. Whittling it away 1% each year will lead to a gradual but significant aggregate loss of purchasing power over a period of years, potentially exceeding 20%.

    Many military retirees such as me experienced the 1990s when annual military pay raises were capped at 0.5% below civilian market wage inflation, which gradually eroded the value of military salaries. It resulted in a significant pay gap that took over a decade to reduce to near-parity with the civilian market.

    A military pension is considered deferred compensation, and is a very valuable tool for retaining career servicemembers in the all-volunteer Armed Forces.

    I believe that I and my fellow military retirees have already endured hardship and sacrifice in service to our country. We should not be saddled with also sacrificing the value of our pension (which is deferred compensation for service already rendered.)

    In passing this act Congress is breaking a bond of trust with all present and future military retirees.

  • Aaron

    I like how they keep saying that spending is set at 1.whatever trillion dollars. That may very well be what discretionary spending is set at but that is not what spending is set at.

    The federal government is set to spend somewhere around 3.8 trillion dollars this year, while revenues will be somewhere around 2.8 trillion meaning we as a nation are ADDING 1,000,000,000,000.00 (a trillion or a million times a million) to our national deficit.

    In 2001, when spending fell 18,000,000,000.00 (that's billion) short of revenue (the last year of the alleged surplus) the government took in about 1.9 trillion and spent about 1.9 trillion.

    That means that in the last 13 years, our government has increased revenues by about 50%, which one would think is adequate to cover our needs. After all, how many households see their income rise by 50% in such a short time?

    Our problem is, during that same period, spending has increased by 100%, doubling with no end in site. By 2023, spending is projected to be 5.5 trillion dollars.

    We're either going to have to see a massive increase in our taxes or we can't survive. We'll be forced to borrow so much that the interest payments required will exceed revenues.

    They can talk about compromise all they want but the simple truth is, all they're agreeing on is the demise of our children and grandchildren s future.

    It's time to reign in spending now.

    • Hop'sHip

      May I assume that you were worried about this "debt crisis" that will result in "the demise of our children and grandchildren's future" prior to 2008 when the Great Recession took hold with its predictable impact on revenues and expenses, and thus deficits? Can you answer yes to the following questions and thus certify yourself as a sincere debt fighter?

      I was against the tax cuts at the beginning of the century at a time when everyone knew that baby boomers would soon be retiring and putting pressure on entitlements.

      I was against the unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit that many saw as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical lobby.

      I was against the unfunded wars of choice waged throughout the first decade of this century.

      • Aaron

        Yes, I opposed the war in Iraq as it was unnecessary. I was outraged when Democrats and Republicans took us to war when we did not need to be.

        I supported limited engagements in Afghanistan and once the mission was accomplished, we should have left.

        Once we went to war though, I believed we should have paid for those wars.

        Of course, I also believed that pay as you go laws signed by George Bush should have been permanent and not expired in 2002.

        Otherwise, yes, taxes should have been cut so long as revenues covered spending as they did in 2001. As a fellow conservative said, "A rising tide lifts all ships."

        Yes, I opposed the Prescription drug plan. I believe it along with Medicare should face greater scrutiny with all fraud and waste should be eliminated.

        I am curious though, do you not oppose the insurance giveaway cleverly disguised as the Affordable Care Act, which will add trillions to our debt? How about Obama's escalation of war in Afghanistan, which has resulted in higher cost in both dollars and lives lost then under President Bush's?

        How about Obama's drone wars in over 20 countries? Do you oppose those? How about his wars in Libya, Pakistan or Yemen?

        Do you oppose the money spent on those wars or do you only oppose wars began by a Republican warmonger but excuse those started by a Democratic warmonger?

        How about the waste from the stimulus bill that did little to reduce unemployment but added trillions to our national debt while paying back Obama supporters who aided in purchasing the White House for him...twice?

        Do you hold both parties responsible for our debt or are you like most other sheep and excuse your guy while placing all the blame on the other guy?

        What say you?

        • Word Police

          Sorry, but you are over your limit for the amount of words allowed. Ah heck, use as many as want, I don't have to read it.

        • Aaron

          I should clarify that my last question Hop was Rhetorical as I've learned that those of you who still blame Boosh and think Obama walks on water cannot respond to relevant questions. Your arguments are deflection meant to blame your guys failures on someone else and when that doesn't work, you disappear.

  • CaptainQ

    Looks like the House Republicans are doing the smart thing, for a change.

    Now the Senate is on the spot. Since the House budget passed with much Democrat support, if the Senate refuses to pass it, then the blame for any government shutdown will fall squarely on the Democrats' shoulders.

    Brilliant move by the GOP! The budget itself might be subject for debate, but at least there's no more threat of a government shutdown. Obama and the Democrats can ill afford anymore bad publicity after all of the 'admitted' miscues of the ObamaCare rollout. You know you have a problem when the even Obama's allies in the Main Stream Media don't 'have his back' on the ObamaCare train wreck (website, millions getting cancellation letters, smokers paying more, etc). Even the President had to do some damage control and apologize (sort of) for the problems.

    Bottom line, it's rare when the GOP does anything correct these days, so this is a very rare moment indeed. Well played, House Republicans. Now the next move is up to Obama and his party.

    • Hop'sHip

      Well Q. Maybe if they fail to get enough young, healthy people to participate your wish for a Obamacare train wreck will come true. Then Republicans will take control of the Senate. And then they will be forced to have to govern rather than just oppose. And I bet their solution will look a lot like Obamacare complete with exchanges and subsidies for those with chronic illnesses. The only difference will be to placate their Tea Party base, they will be willing to deny access to low wage people - the takers. If you don't think that is true, go look at Ryan's plan for Medicare "reform". It looks an awful lot like Obamacare. And of course it excludes today's geezers, who are their main supporters.

      • The bookman

        HH: maybe a better plan would have been to think this Obamacare thing through a little bit before rolling it out to the masses and having fall flat...for example, if a prerequisite to success was having a certain number of healthy young enrollees to balance out the older insured they could have opened enrollment to only the young and healthy...once reaching the threshold of balance, then open enrollment to other demographics...but to be fair to this administration, they didn't have time to think it through, as they had to rush it through Congress while they still had a majority in the House without even reading the bill...not their fault I guess...it's only impacting 1/6 of the largest economy in the world, right?

      • CaptainQ

        Believe it or not, Hop'ship, I really wish ObamaCare would work as Pelosi, Reid and Obama advertised it back in 2009. However, the facts remain the facts. Fact, the ObamaCare website had a myriad of problems from the beginning. Even the President admitted this (and the Main Stream Media covered this, so it MUST be TRUE!). Fact, the 'promise' that 'if you like your current health insurance plan, you can keep it' WAS broken. Millions of working Americans received cancellation notices in the mail. Even the Main Stream Media covered this aspect of the story quite thoroughly. Fact, there was the 'promise' that our health insurance premiums would be decreasing because of ObamaCare. C'mon Hop'ship, has that really happened? You know the answer to that question. Do I need to go on and on?

        So Hop'ship, are you going to deny all of these things? Ask me to produce 'links' to prove them? Or are you willing to admit that ObamaCare is NOT going to work as it was advertised? You even said in your reply part of the reason why it isn't working: younger, healthier Americans are not buying into the concept. Even with the 'legal mandate' that all Americans must have health insurance (or a national 'tax' as the SCOTUS puts it) many are choosing to disobey and not purchase health insurance. By your own observation, by implication this is throwing the proverbial 'monkey wrench' into the machinery of ObamaCare, are you willing to even admit that?

  • The bookman

    More spending while pushing any deficit reduction 7 years down the road...I give them credit for finding a way to agree on something, especially a bill that each dislike! But I think it also highlights the position we are in with this current divided Congress...

    We have two camps...the Camp who thinks our spending needs to be reigned in, and the camp who can't stomach the thought of having to cut a program...

    Until one side gains a decided advantage, the status quo, which is what this bill represents, is what we'll have...

    • liberty4all

      Agree but would add that anytime you push spending cuts "down the road" they rarely, if ever, materialize. That was the beauty of the sequester spending cuts. While arguably too inflexible, they did force Washington to cut spending.

      • The bookman

        The sequester was the lazy man's approach to deficit reduction and was effective in that blame could be placed across the board to both parties...but at least the savings were realized...most of the cuts in this budget bill will most likely, as you point out, be funded when it comes time to cut in the same way they have reversed the sequester, using delayed spending reductions...just like a smoke and mirrors shell game on a fold out table along a seedy NYC street!

        • Aaron

          Actually, the savings were from spending increases from continual spending bill that allowed the government to function during all of 2012, a huge mistake on Republicans part.

          They agreed to allow spending increases during the election year with cuts coming in 13 of an equal amount.

          The only thing it did was cost Republicans an election.

          • The bookman

            Not sure what that means, but at least it resulted in actual spending cuts...not cuts in programs 7 years from now...I was no fan of the sequester. But it did reduce federal spending across the the board save a few of the untouchable entitlement programs...I disagree that the sequester cost the Republicans the election, however. Romney was just too weak of a candidate to overcome a seriously wounded Obama, which really reveals the utter failure of top end leadership in the Republican Party.

          • Aaron

            Go back and study the sequester. After President Obama was locked out of spending cap increases in 2011 by McConnell, Reid, Boehner, and Pelosi, he threatened to veto their compromise unless they utilized the sequester which allowed spending to be increased in 2011 and 2012 but had to be reduced by the same amount in 2013, to be determined by a joint committee.

            As a means of guaranteeing the cuts would take place, the automatic, across the board cuts would become automatic if the committee couldn't agree.

            So there is actually no real savings. The sequester was a means of taking spending out of the conversation during 2012. If that didn't aid Obama, I don't know what did.

          • The bookman

            Aaron:

            I do recall the events that brought us sequestration, and that they stemmed from the debt ceiling debate after the super committee failed to come to a compromise...the agreement left spending levels in place pursuant to the CR, and as always with government, an attached rate of growth in spending. All spending cuts reduce current spending levels when they actually occur. And that was the point regarding the sequester...they actually cut $85 billion from current spending levels that were in the here and now, not on paper 7 years down the road that we both know never really happen...the sequester, in all it's pomp and circumstance, was eye opening for most Americans as well in that with the exception of the furloughed government worker no one really was negatively impacted...so it was pretty much a non event, which is why I don't think it would have had any impact on the election had it occurred prior to the election...it should also be held up high that we can cut 85 billion from annual spending pretty indiscriminately and no one will really notice. Imagine what waste could be culled from annual expenditures if we really were deliberate! Instead we have back pedaled to 23 billion over 10 years, down from 1.1 trillion with the sequester, the bulk of which occurs in years 7-10. So from 1.1 trillion to 110 billion in spending reduction, and some are still saying that is Draconian! Amazing ineptitude!

          • Aaron

            I agree with most of what you say bookman. Where I disagree is the conversation of spending.

            believe that if spending had not been removed from the public conversation in 2012 as it was because of the budget deal setting politicians had been forced to discuss spending throughout the election year, outcomes would have been different.

          • The bookman

            Aaron:

            We are both too hard headed...I will yield if you will use the word could instead of would!! Still think Romney $&@##% as a candidate and that the republicans suffer a serious void at the top of the ticket!

          • Aaron

            While Romney was flawed, of the Republican candidates who ran, he had the best chance against Obama. The rest of the field was weak.

            Saying that, I'm not so sure that even if Boehner and McConnell hadn't take spending out of the election cycle, Obama would have been defeated.

            I do believe that it would have a difference in some of the Senate races. Think how different the Senate would have been had Republicans not lost two seats to Democrats and what effect that would have had on the outcome of national legislation from the 111th Congress.

          • The bookman

            I still think that is enormous amount of conjecture and relies on an electorate that for the most part does not pay too much attention. The ones who do pay attention, I don't think it changes their vote...

          • Aaron

            The voting public pays attention to what is in the headlines. Massive spending and our national deficit were not in the headlines.

          • The bookman

            The voting public pays attention to "Dancing with the Stars" and the latest attire miscue of Miley Cyrus...it is a sad reality, but one that I have come to accept!

  • RogerD

    With all due respect, Capito is a liar that is undeserving of her current office and is in no way fit for the senate. No, I'm not supporting Tenant. There is another choice though that beats these two put together.