Political Animal
Blog
It’s been a while since Congress passed legislation of note, so it’s worth pausing to consider the flurry of activity on the Senate floor yesterday, some of which was positive and some of which pointed towards more gridlock.
First, the good news. A month after a partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration, caused by House Republican intransigence, we were on track for another, even more serious FAA shutdown this week. There was bipartisan support for a spending measure to fund both the FAA and federal highway projects, but one senator, Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn (R), stood in the way. If Coburn succeeded, up to 80,000 workers would be forced from their jobs as early as tomorrow.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.
The Senate on Thursday approved legislation that extends taxes funding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through January, and extends taxes funding federal highway spending through March.
The bill passed the House with ease on Tuesday and won Senate approval in a 92-6 vote. The bill was announced on Monday as the result of an agreement between House and Senate leaders, and was seen as high-priority because FAA funding will expire on Friday without reauthorization.
Coburn’s problem was language in the bill that requires some transportation funds to be spent on bike paths, trees along roadways, and infrastructure to direct storm runoff. The far-right Oklahoman said the funding shouldn’t carry such directives, and was willing to kill the entire bill over this. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Jim Inhofe (Okla.), the chair and ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, convinced Coburn reforms were on the way that would give states added flexibility, so Coburn backed down. Here’s the roll call on the final vote.
The bill has already passed the House and President Obama will sign it today.
The other Senate vote is a little more complicated. By a 62-to-37 margin, members agreed to direct $6.9 billion in funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for disaster relief.
Reid’s plan stands in contrast to one put forward by House Republicans, which would provide for another $1 billion in the current fiscal year, and another $2.65 billion in the next fiscal year for FEMA. But House Democrats today were already signaling disagreement with that plan, partly because they want more funding and partly because they disagree with the GOP offsets.
Senate acceptance of Reid’s amendment means the two chambers will likely have to sort out their differences on how exactly to boost FEMA funding. The House GOP proposal has not been approved yet, but is part of the continuing resolution introduced this week that would fund the federal government through Nov. 18.
Under the Senate’s approach, disaster relief is treated the way Congress has always treated it — as an emergency, without offsets. House Republicans say that’s not good enough, and insist on slashing funding for a job-creating Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program to help pay for the emergency aid.
If the House GOP ignores the Senate’s FEMA bill, and tries to short change FEMA through the House Republicans’ continuing resolution, we may be looking at another shutdown showdown.
I’d note for context that this process really shouldn’t be quite this difficult, but it’s what American voters asked for when they went to the polls in November 2010.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on September 16, 2011 8:06 AM:
Inhofe had to talk down Coburn on the FAA?
Inhofe?
"Wrong Runway" Inhofe!
INHOFE?!?!?!?!?!
What's wrong with THIS picture?
Concerning the FAA, it's like the blind AND stupid, leading the merely blind.
Extreme Moderate on September 16, 2011 8:15 AM:
The Steve Benen Quote Of The Year: it’s what American voters asked for when they went to the polls in November 2010.
We have the government we asked for. It's wrong to blame "washington". Blame people who want to "send a message to washington" by voting for Republicans who will turn around and gut all the programs that benefit them and make sense for running a nation in the 21st century..Someone please explain to me why anyone who makes less than $70k votes for these guys, who offer nothing but fear and hatred and blind rage as solutions...I just don't get it...How can the Democrats be losing to these people?
Josef K on September 16, 2011 8:27 AM:
I’d note for context that this process really shouldn’t be quite this difficult, but it’s what American voters asked for when they went to the polls in November 2010.
I thought they were asking for jobs and greater economic security (when they weren't asking for the President's birth certificate or to 'get their country back'). The fact the Republican freshmen that were elected have proven both barking mad and horrifically ignorant of their jobs is...well...
Okay, its largely the voters own fault we're at this point. A sad, sad commentary on our body politic that it allows these clowns to take office so often.
Live Free or Die on September 16, 2011 8:30 AM:
I agree with Steve. When people vote for Republicans and then complain how bad things are,that is their fault. The perfect example is FL. They knew he was a crook, but voted for him anyway. Now they complain. I have no sympathy for them.
Fever on September 16, 2011 9:02 AM:
Doesn’t the Nation’s deficit/debt concern any of you? The Republicans are simply asking that any increase in spending be matched by a decrease somewhere else. Even Obama promised “pay as you go funding” when he ran for President.
OwnedByTwoCats on September 16, 2011 9:11 AM:
It's what some voters asked for. I donated to my Democratic candidates for Senate and Governor, as well as Democratic candidates for Senate in two neighboring states. They all lost. Another donation went to a Progressive list; a few of them won. So my backing wasn't always a kiss of death...
OwnedByTwoCats on September 16, 2011 9:18 AM:
Fever -- the nations debt and ongoing deficits concerns me, but I remember who ran the deficit up (Reagan and Bush), who brought it down (Clinton), and who ran it up again (Bush).
The economy is suffering from inadequate demand. And moving spending around, as you suggest, won't do anything to help that problem. Giving tax breaks to those who will simply pocket the difference won't help the economy.
The best thing for the government to do right now is to pay people to work on repairing, maintaining, and growing the nation's infrastructure. It gets more people working, and the country gets a return on the investment. Send money to State Departments of Transportation (based on how much the state sends to the federal government) and have them start fixing bridges -- no more I-35 collapses.
Paul L> on September 16, 2011 10:40 AM:
Could someone please clarify something:? By what mechanism was Coburn going to hold up or defeat the bill? It passed 92-6, so it seems there was fairly broad support to break any kind of supposed filibuster.
zandru on September 16, 2011 10:51 AM:
What Did Coburn Get?
What concessions did the Democrats give to Sen. Coburn, in order to get him to drop his hold on the bill?
The linked article says something about "amendments", without going into any details. What EXACTLY did it take to buy off Coburn? How much have we, the American public, lost?
Fever on September 16, 2011 2:09 PM:
OwnedByTwoCats:
I find it comical that in three brief paragraphs you can blame Bush, make yet another pitch for more taxes and dodge the issue raised. Once again, I think the president should honor his campaign pledge and match spending increases to spending cuts. Where do you side on “pay as you go” spending policy?
Doug on September 16, 2011 8:08 PM:
Fever, if you refuse to recognize that a recession is NOT considered the norm for our economy and thus requires measures that would not usually be contemplated for "pay as you go" treatment, then you're either an economic illiterate or a troll.
"Where do you side on "pay as you go" spending policy?" You've cherry-picked one item out of then-Senator Obama's campaign speeches in, what seems to be, an effort at "gotcha!", but I'll answer it: Put me firmly in the "tax the rich SOBs until income meets outgo" category. You see, it's only in Republican/Teabagger fantasyland that "pay as you go" automatically excludes increased taxation.
And it's really quite simple: start with a 10% marginal rate on ALL income over $1,000,000. If that's not enough to balance the budget, increase the marginal rate until it hits 50%. Should THAT not be enough, raise the marginal rates to what they were under President Eisenhower (R): 90%.
If marginal rates, having reached their natural level; ie, 90% on any income over $1,000,000, should STILL prove not to be enough to meet our budgetary needs, we can start slashing corporate welfare.
In case you hadn't realized, I believe the second of the two options in my first paragraph to be the correct one...