In the News: Blog

RSS Print

Apr 15 2011

The Daily Caller: Term limits for Congress?

By Caroline May

Thursday South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would apply term limits to members of Congress.

Ten Republican Senators joined DeMint in his call to limit U.S. Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms in office.

“If we’re ever going to permanently change Washington, we must change the process that encourages career politicians to amass personal power instead of making the hard decisions for the nation,” said Senator DeMint. “We need true citizen legislators who spend their time defending the constitution, not currying favor with lobbyists. We need new leaders continually coming to Congress to ensure every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely, not wasted on Washington special interests. We must end the era of permanent politicians that has led us to a $14 trillion debt and a pending fiscal crisis”

Co-sponsors to S.J. Res. 11 included New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, and Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter.

“If ever there was a time to enact such meaningful legislation, it’s now as we’re facing trillion dollar annual deficits due to the wasteful spending habits of Washington fixtures,” said Senator Vitter. “Term limits are something I successfully fought for in the Louisiana legislature – where we’ve since seen real reforms – and I will continue fighting for them in Congress.”

Amendments to the Constitution require approval by a two-thirds majority vote in Congress and be ratified by at least 75 percent of the states.

“[L]et me be clear that term limits will only succeed when the same rules apply to everyone. Self-term limits are a recipe for self-defeat, as the career politicians simply wait out the true reformers. We must have term limits for all or term limits won’t succeed,” said Senator DeMint.

View Original Article

Apr 14 2011

The Jewish News Weekly: GOP Senate freshmen pledge support for Israel

The vast majority of Republican freshmen in the Senate have signed on to a letter committing to current levels of defense assistance to Israel.

Among the 13 freshmen, 11 have signed the letter initiated by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to the party’s Senate leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“As we work to reduce wasteful government spending, we recognize that providing for the national defense is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government,” said the letter, first reported last week by Politico. “Therefore, we must continue to prioritize the safety of our nation and the security of our allies, including Israel.”

A similar letter from House GOP freshmen in February garnered 65 signatures in a class of 87. The appeals are significant because they answer questions that pro-Israel groups had about the 2011 class of GOP freshmen, many of them spurred to office by the tea party movement, which has cost-cutting as its central focus.

The two freshmen who did not sign are Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has called openly for cutting aid to Israel and for halting the bulk of foreign aid funding, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

The letter is an indication that President Barack Obama’s proposal to maintain levels of funding for Israel, currently at about $3 billion annually, will be untouched.

View Original Article

Apr 14 2011

Slate: Is This the Face-Saving Debt Ceiling Compromise Bill?

By David Weigel

In my piece today, I conveyed the wisdom of some Hill aides who thought the most likely way out of the debt ceiling fight was a vote on a spending cap -- something like Sen. Claire McCaskill's "CAP" legislation. (I wrote about that legislation in "Tea Party Democrats," back in February.)

By pure coincidence, McCaskill joined her original co-sponsor Bob Corker and three newer sponsors -- John Kyl, Joe Lieberman, and Ron Johnson -- to make another pitch for the bill today.

McCaskill was asked back in February if she wanted this bill to be included with a vote on the debt limit. She said no then, and she said no today. But her co-endorsers were more open to the idea. Lieberman said that his fellow moderate senators had met on Tuesday, and convinced him that "something like this has a chance."

"We were talking about the debt ceiling," said Lieberman, "and it was quite significant -- everyone in the room said they were not prepared to vote for a, quote, 'clean' debt ceiling extension. In other words, they wanted something to happen that would give them and their constituents some kind of confidence that while we were increasing the debt ceiling we were actually doing something to lower the debt."

I asked Johnson whether he would vote to raise the debt ceiling if this bill was made part of the vote. Not quite, he said.

"I would love to see, married with this piece of legislation, also a constitutional limitation," said Johnson. "I'm willing to look at any fiscal limitation -- the more the better, honestly."

Conservatives criticized this bill in February on the grounds that it was not strict enough. It would force Congress to abide by spending limits that could be waived by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, but it has exceptions and takes a long time to trigger. But the addition of a self-identified Tea Party endorser (Johnson) and the GOP's whip (Kyl) signal where this is heading.

View Original Article

Apr 14 2011

CQ: With Debt Debate Looming, Senators Float Spending Caps Option

By Joseph J. Schatz

Binding caps on federal spending, last used during deficit reduction efforts in the 1990s, could prove pivotal as lawmakers search for possible fiscal compromises in advance of a summer battle over increasing the ceiling on the national debt.

With the government approaching a default on its debts by early July, according to the Treasury Department, conservatives and some Democratic moderates are insisting that a package of debt reduction measures will have to accompany any increase on the legal borrowing limit.

Putting in place a wide-ranging fiscal agreement on spending — or an overhaul of the tax code — that could win bipartisan support in that timeframe would be next to impossible.

That reality has allowed a group of senators advocating statutory caps on federal spending to position themselves as dealmakers.

Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who introduced legislation (S 245) earlier this year to put legal limits on all discretionary and mandatory spending, held a news conference Thursday with three new cosponsors — Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

They characterized their proposal as the one most likely to gain bipartisan support in time for a debt limit vote before early July. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner says his department will run out of ways to avoid a government default by then, at which point Congress would need to act to avoid a crisis that could send financial markets into a tailspin.

The proposal “can move through the process that quickly,” Lieberman said, adding that it would set a concrete deficit reduction goal while leaving Congress time to determine the fiscal policies to achieve that goal.

Plan Details

The Corker-McCaskill proposal would cap federal spending starting in fiscal 2013. Total outlays — including all discretionary and mandatory spending — would be gradually trimmed each fiscal year over the next 10 years, until federal expenditures fall to less than 21 percent of gross domestic product, compared with nearly 25 percent now.

Unlike other plans being talked about, the proposal would not exempt politically sensitive items such as Social Security, Medicare and defense spending.

That’s one way in which it differs from President Obama’s plan, announced April 13, which calls for tax increases on the wealthy and a “trigger” mechanism that would reduce spending and tax expenditures, except on Medicare and Social Security, if debt targets were not met in 2014.

The House is preparing to vote Friday on a GOP-written fiscal 2012 budget resolution (H Con Res 34) that calls for a major restructuring of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as deep cuts in discretionary spending, over the next 10 years.

“Neither of them has adequate support to be enacted,” Lieberman said. “That’s where the legislation that we’re introducing comes in.”

If the caps in the bill were not met, the White House Office of Management and Budget would be required to make cuts in federal spending — and only a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate could override those cuts.

‘Gang of Six’

The Corker-McCaskill effort comes as a separate group of senators — known as the “Gang of Six” — privately negotiates a broader set of debt reduction measures, including an overhaul of the tax code, based on the recommendations issued last December by the president’s debt commission.

That group, which includes Michael D. Crapo, R-Idaho, Kent Conrad, D-N.D., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., Mark Warner, D-Va., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has yet to release its plan.

McCaskill said she would be happy to make the spending cap proposal part of the Gang of Six effort. Corker demurred on that point, with a smile, though he said he is “pulling for” all deficit reduction efforts.

Indeed, both the Corker-McCaskill plan and the Gang of Six effort would face likely obstacles from elements in both parties. Conservative Republicans are wary of any tax increases, even as part of a larger tax code overhaul envisioned by the debt commission. Liberal Democrats are opposed to any significant changes to Social Security, in particular.

Because the Corker-McCaskill plan does not address how to achieve the spending caps, all sides may see it as more feasible politically — at least for the moment.

Acknowledging the concerns of many in her caucus, McCaskill said that “sometimes in my caucus it’s important to plant the flag and hope you can draw people toward the flag.”

Michael Brumas, a spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said only that McConnell has not addressed the Corker-McCaskill proposal publicly and pointed to the GOP leader’s remarks earlier this week: “There is bipartisan opposition in the Senate to raising the debt ceiling unless we do something significant about the debt,” McConnell said.

Mandatory deficit reduction targets were put in place in 1985; in subsequent laws and budget deals, caps were instead tied to tax and spending levels, before expiring more than a decade ago.

Conservatives say binding spending caps are not enough, particularly since Congress sometimes voted to weaken previous caps before automatic cuts kicked in.

“Every statutory cap we’ve ever had has been broken,” Rand Paul, R-Ky., argued April 12, pointing in particular to the pay-as-you-go law in the late 1990s.

Paul said a constitutional requirement is needed to force Congress to cut spending.

“Without a rule or a mandate from the Constitution, we will never balance the budget,” he said. “We will never get our spending under control unless we have an ironclad rule that we cannot evade.”

View Original Article

Apr 14 2011

Investors Op-Ed: Tax Day's Forgotten Lesson

By Ron Johnson

Monday is Tax Day, when we collectively "celebrate" the passage of the 16th Amendment.  If we want to identify a single catalyst for the growth of the federal government, this would be a prime candidate.

When the amendment was conceived, few could have imagined how dramatically it would empower the growth of government — and the extraordinary influence it would exert over economic growth and job-creation.

Passed on July 2, 1909, and ratified by the states on Feb. 3, 1913, the original targets of this amendment were the corporations and trusts of the day that had gained too much power at the expense of consumers and workers.

But once ratified, it was immediately utilized to tax individual income. The initial tax rate was 2%. Doesn't that sound quaint compared to today's top rate of 35%?

Like most creations of government, once initiated, the income tax had a strong propensity to grow. Over the years the rates increased to a high of 94% during World War II. John F. Kennedy realized the 90% top tax rate of his day was counter-productive, and led the effort to lower it to 70%. Ronald Reagan dramatically lowered this top rate to 28%, and for a brief period of time, we were actually 72% free.

Thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses — like the plastics manufacturing plant I formerly ran — were able to grow and create jobs under Reagan's favorable tax climate. This is the lesson that we seem to have forgotten. It is a lesson we need to relearn, and we had better relearn it quickly.

Small businesses are the engine of our economy and drive job growth. They create 64% of all net new jobs and produce 13 times as many patents as larger businesses per worker. Over half of private sector employees work for small businesses, and everyone benefits from their ingenuity and high-quality service.

Chances are you own a small business, work for one or have a family member or friend who does. Small businessmen and women run the manufacturing plant in the industrial park that employs local workers. They are the farmers who grow our food and the hardware store owner who helped fix that leaky roof.  If we're lucky, they include the computer-whiz down the block who may be the next Bill Gates.

Small businesses and their workers are especially hard-hit by high taxes. Every dollar of additional tax that a business pays is a dollar that cannot be spent on increased wages, health insurance, retirement savings, investment in equipment and the hiring of new workers.

All elected officials say they are working hard to create jobs. But politicians and governments don't create jobs — businesses do. Government can only maintain an environment that encourages entrepreneurs to invest and hire.

Instead, our government is producing more spending, more regulation, more taxes, bigger deficits and higher levels of debt. For the working people who run small businesses, Uncle Sam's policies do not inspire confidence. They inspire dread and create uncertainty. It is this uncertainty that is standing in the way of real economic growth.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's solutions have centered on increasing the size of government and beating the drum for higher taxes on the "wealthy." Its definition of wealthy targets small businesses. Included in this category are 750,000 small businesses that employ 25% of American workers. These are firms that organize as sub-chapter "S" corporations and LLC's and report income and pay taxes at the individual rate.

Had the 2003 tax cuts been permitted to expire, many of these businesses — like mine — would pay taxes at a rate almost 15% higher than the corporate tax rate. These businesses are already paying close to 50% of their hard earned income to various levels of government. That's a lot of income that is not available for business expansion and job creation.

The lust for more tax revenue, debt and deficits measured in trillions, a sluggish economy and anemic job growth are all symptoms of the problem. They are not the root cause. The size, scope and cost of government is. This is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Which brings me back to my original point: the growth of government. In 1902, federal government spending was 2% of GDP, and largely reflected the vision of our Founding Fathers for limited government. Today, the federal government accounts for 25% of our economy, and has gone far beyond the constraints of the enumerated powers and its Constitutional authority.

The debate in Washington has at the very least shifted from spending increases to spending cuts. This is a start, but we have a long way to go. To restore the Founders' vision — and restore economic growth — we must begin now.

View Original Article

Apr 13 2011

CSN News: Another Tea Party Republican Says 'No' to Fiscal 2011 Funding Bill

By Susan Jones

A small but growing number of conservative Republicans say they'll vote no on the compromise bill that will fund government operations for the six remaining months of fiscal 2011.

On Wednesday, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he'll be among the "nays."

“I made a commitment to support the House in its pledge to cut $100 billion from the budget -- a budget that should have been passed last year, when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency," Johnson said. “This is the first (continuing resolution) that does not achieve that level of spending reduction. As a result, I will vote no when this CR comes before the Senate."

The funding deal struck by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Barack Obama includes $38.5 billion in spending cuts for the entire year compared with Fiscal Year 2010 enacted levels.

"The agreement is far from perfect," Boehner said, "and we need to do much more if we’re serious about creating new jobs, fixing our spending-driven debt crisis, and ending the uncertainty that continues to plague our economy.  But it is a positive first step," Boehner insisted.

Sen. Johnson agrees that lawmakers "must do better."

"In order to get the economy growing again we must limit the size, scope, and cost of the federal government," Johnson said. He is calling for "very hard spending caps," and once those are established, Congress can begin the "hard work of prioritizing spending under those caps."

“I stand ready to work with anyone willing to seriously address these issues,” Johnson said.

Sen. Rand Paul said on Monday he’ll also vote no on the 2011 funding bill.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter, Paul said the bill will leave the nation with a record $1.6 trillion deficit for 2011 – the third year in a row with a record deficit.

“Only in Washington can a budget that spends more than it did the year before, with a larger deficit, be portrayed as ‘cutting,’” Paul wrote.

Paul urged his colleagues to think about the 2011 funding plan this way: “The entire budget-cut plans skim 3 percent off the top of our historic $1.65 trillion deficit. That means the side of Big Government got 97 percent of what they want.

“I prefer to be on the other side,” Paul said. “I will vote a resounding NO this week to this so-called deal. And I urge my colleagues, if they are serious about cutting government spending, to do the same.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Tuesday that he won’t vote for the 2011 funding bill, either – “because we are almost $1.7 trillion in debt with every new year of spending. We're almost $15 trillion in debt total. And I've pledged not to vote for any of these spending packages unless or until the package is accompanied by some kind of long-term spending restraint. And we don't have that yet.”

Sen. Lee said that spending as a percentage of GDP has to shrink, and Congress must agree that it won’t spend more in a year than it takes in.

View Original Article

Apr 13 2011

The Heritage Foundation: Sen. Ron Johnson: Debt Ceiling Debate Should Net Spending Cap

By Tina Korbe

While some members of Congress still attempt to unscramble all the details of the six-month spending deal struck by leadership last week, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he’s already steeling himself for the next big debate.

“This whole CR skirmish — and that’s about all it is — is just setting us up for what I think is the really big fight and that’s over the debt ceiling,” Johnson said yesterday at The Bloggers Briefing.

Speaking at Heritage shortly before his maiden Senate speech, the freshman senator from Oshkosh said the upcoming discussion about the debt ceiling offers spending-conscious members of Congress an unparalleled opportunity to negotiate major cuts and necessary spending caps.

“I think our maximum of leverage really is around that debt ceiling,” he said. “The Democrats in the Senate … they’re going to be forced to vote for that debt ceiling increase or they’re going to shut the government down. The only way they’re going to get support from the Republicans like me is if they establish those hard spending caps.”

Known for his business background and private-sector perspective, Johnson prides himself on his true status as a “citizen-legislator.” He said the president’s weak position throughout the spending debate has evoked a certain realism in him.

“If we had a president right now who was leading,” he said, “we could maybe accomplish something in the next year and a half. I haven’t seen that. I’m not necessarily confident that’s going to happen. So, unfortunately, unless we get enough Senate Democrats to go along with us to establish hard spending caps, this is going to be kicked down to the 2012 election and that’s what that election is going to be about.”

Johnson personally favors a constitutional amendment to limit the size of spending in relation to GDP, in addition to a statute to do the same. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has introduced such an amendment, while Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has proposed legislation to statutorily reduce spending.

But whatever the mechanism, Johnson said, spending caps are essential to solve the debt problem — the big picture that most preoccupies Johnson.

“The absolute first step has to be establishing that hard spending cap,” he said. “To me, deficits, out-of-control spending, high unemployment, a sluggish economy — those are all symptoms of the root cause. To me, the root cause absolutely is the size, the scope — I’m talking about all the things the government is involved in that it never should have gotten involved in, all the regulatory overreach — and the cost of government. I’m looking for hard spending caps that actually address and attack that root cause.”

View Original Article

Apr 13 2011

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Johnson says he'll vote no on current-year budget deal

By Craig Gilbert

Freshman Republican Ron Johnson said Wednesday he will be voting against the budget deal that was  struck last week between the White House and congressional Republicans to avoid a government shutdown.

Johnson said the agreement doesn’t go far enough in cutting spending.

“We can do better; we must do better,” said the Senator in a statement.

The 2011 spending measure is designed to cut current year appropriations by just under $40 billion. It was agreed to by GOP congressional leaders in a compromise deal with President Obama, but some conservative lawmakers weren’t happy with that number and the GOP is expecting defections on the measure. Critics have also questioned the use of creative accounting to achieve that level of cuts.

“Are these things real cuts?” Johnson asked Tuesday in an interview.

In his statement he said:

“In order to get the economy growing again we must limit the size, scope, and cost of the federal government. The first step is to establish very hard spending caps. My preference is a constitutional limit on spending married with an identical legislative spending limitation.  Once the spending caps are established, then the hard work of prioritizing spending under those caps must begin.”

View Original Article

Apr 13 2011

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Johnson makes Senate floor debut

By Craig Gilbert

Freshman Republican Ron Johnson gave his maiden speech on the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon, remarks that lasted roughly seven minutes and reflected the central theme of his 2010 campaign - alarm over the long-term growth of government.

"We have racked up enormous debt and now the bill is coming due," said Johnson, who said he waited until now to speak in the spirit of Senate tradition that freshmen spend time on the job before engaging in floor debate.

Johnson said that 100 years ago, "the individual was pre-eminent and government's role was modest and pedestrian."

He singled out two early 20th-century developments that he said paved the way for the federal government to dramatically expand: the adoption of the 16th Amendment that made the income tax constitutional; and the introduction of the cloture rule in the Senate, which allowed for a supermajority of senators to end filibusters and cut off unlimited debate on legislation.

Johnson said government grew "in reaction to real problems," but complained that the combined size of local, state and federal government was approaching that of nations in Western Europe.

"We haven't reached that tipping point yet but we are extremely close," said Johnson, who said he grew up in an America where "hard work was valued, personal responsibility was expected and success was celebrated, not demonized."

Said Johnson:

"I am sad to say what I have witnessed during my lifetime is a slow but steady drift, and I would argue over the last two years, a lurch, toward a culture of entitlement and dependency. This is not an America I recognize."

Johnson said the fight over this year's budget has been an argument over a "few billion dollars," when "our problem is a thousand times larger than the current debate."

In an interview later, Johnson said he thought the country's fiscal problems were so big that they "will not be fixed on a partisan basis."

In singling out the cloture rule and the income tax as enablers of government growth, Johnson said he was not proposing they be abolished. But he suggested the filibuster has served as a legislative brake and bulwark against one party overreaching and getting rid of it "would be a tragedy."

In the interview, Johnson indicated he was leaning against the bipartisan spending agreement reached last week by the White House and congressional leaders on funding the rest of the fiscal year, amid reports that some of the savings reflect accounting maneuvers rather than actual cuts in programs.

"Are these things real cuts?" Johnson asked of the $38 billion package of budget reductions.

"I'm going to have to be really convinced to vote for that right now," he said.

View Original Article

Apr 13 2011

CBS News: Could Congress reject the budget deal?

By Lucy Madison

As discourse over the deficit and the debt ceiling heats up in Washington, pundits and lawmakers alike have turned their attention to what will likely turn into a series of contentious partisan debates. But Congress is still preparing for a Thursday vote on the budget bill to fund the federal government through the rest of the 2011 fiscal year -- and as increasing numbers of Democrats and Republicans come out against the measure,  some are wondering whether the bill actually stands a chance of failure.

On CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged" on Wednesday, Bob Schieffer, CBS News chief Washington correspondent and anchor, pointed out that such a possibility was very real.

"I'm still not certain [the budget bill is] going to pass," Schieffer said, noting that the deal had been hammered out by congressional leadership - not Congress as a whole.

"This is going be very, very close," Schieffer added. "And that just shows you how dicey all of this is here. You've got Democrats up in New York out demonstrating on the streets about the social cuts; you've got the Republicans talking about, 'we're not cutting enough.'"

Chip Reid, CBS News' chief White House correspondent, noted that Republicans would be unable to rely wholly on partisan loyalty to get the bill passed through the House.

"There is a lot of nervousness about it right now, especially on the Republican side, because [House Speaker] John Boehner would love to be able to pass this with Republican votes - [but] it doesn't look like he's going to be able to," Reid told CBS News political correspondent Jan Crawford, who hosted the discussion.

"He's going to have to get some Democratic votes here, and to some degree his party's going to be split," Reid added. "It's a very uncomfortable situation and I think the White House is probably enjoying watching him squirm a little bit. But at the end of the day, they would like it to pass."

If 24 or more House Republicans vote against the bill, Republicans will need to Democratic support in order to pass the budget and avert a government shutdown.

But the measure, which calls for cuts of approximately $38 billion below current levels, has strong opponents on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats argue the reductions are too severe and disproportionately target the poor. Some Republicans and Tea Party members, on the other hand, say the cuts don't go far enough.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who leads the conservative Republican Study Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday that he would not vote for the bill, citing the original GOP goal of $100 billion in cuts.

"Voters are asking us to set our sights higher," he said in the statement.

"You're going to see a significant number of Republican Study Committee members vote for the deal, and you're going to see a significant number vote against the deal," he added.

Freshman Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, said he, too, would vote against the bill because he did not believe it went far enough in making cuts. (Most believe that the bill will pass in the Senate.)

"I made a commitment to support the House in its pledge to cut $100 billion from the budget - a budget that should have been passed last year, when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency," he said in a message on his website on Wednesday. "I did so because I believe it was important to take that first step in enacting real spending cuts. This is the first CR that does not achieve that level of spending reduction. As a result, I will vote no when this CR comes before the Senate."

Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation, expressed his disappointment in what he described as "Boehner's bargain."

"As John Boehner's freshly laundered white flag of surrender floats gently in the breeze high above the Potomac River, even more details are emerging showing just how bad his capitulation was," Phillips writes in a post on the Tea Party Nation's website. "Boehner sold out important policy considerations for a whopping $38 billion dollar reduction. Only, it isn't $38 billion. According to the National Journal, the actual reduction, thanks to some bookkeeping tricks will be....$14.7 billion."

Phillips urged conservatives not to vote for the bill and expressed his hope that Boehner is unable to secure the necessary votes from Democrats to pass it.

"Many on the left are upset with the compromise as well and they will not vote on it," Phillips writes. "If there are enough defections on both sides of the aisle, the tally could reach 218 and that is the magic number to defeat the bill."

Tea Party supporters Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) have said they will vote to reject the bill.

The extent of Democratic support for the measure remains unclear. House minority whip Steny Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday that "my presumption is that we don't know where our people are."

A number of Democrats have objected not just to the depth of the reductions, but also to the programs they target: The budget deal cuts $700 million from safe drinking-water programs, $390 from heating subsidies, $276 from flu-prevention programs and $390 from emergency heating assistance directed toward low-income families. It also targets the Environmental Protection Agency, which would lose $1.6 billion under the plan, and the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

ABC reports that New York lawmakers gathered on Monday to protest the cuts, which they said unfairly target working families, seniors, and immigrants.

And a handful of congress members have joined a religiously-oriented hunger fast opposing the measure, and are calling for what leader Jim Wallis describes as a "moral budget."

"This fast is not just about cutting spending, but about the values that will determine our priorities and decisions," Wallis writes in the Huffington Post. "Should we cut $8.5 billion for low-income housing, or $8.5 billion in mortgage tax deductions for second vacation homes? Should we cut $11.2 billion in early childhood programs for poor kids, or $11.5 billion in tax cuts for millionaires' estates? Should we cut $2.5 billion in home heating assistance in winter months, or $2.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies and off-shore drilling? This debate isn't about scarcity as much as it is about choices."

Rep. Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat, pledged her support to the effort in the name of working families and women's rights.

"I am participating in Hungerfast because it is important to stand against Republican efforts to drop students from Head Start programs, eliminate life saving health care services for women, and slash necessary job training programs," Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) told the participating group WomenThrive.org. "At a time when our economy is still recovering, we cannot afford to balance the budget on the backs of women, working families and our most vulnerable communities. We must do better."

House Majority Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters on Tuesday that while he thought the bill enjoyed "strong Republican support," he would happily accept Democratic votes.

"Certainly we'll always ask for them," he said.

View Original Article