President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 30, 2011 06:10 AM UTC

Boehner Plan Squeaks Through House With Colorado Republican Support

  • 24 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Washington Post:

The House on Friday narrowly approved Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) debt-ceiling framework, one day after leaders postponed the vote and revamped the measure to secure support from conservatives and four days before the deadline for Congress to raise the federal borrowing limit or else send the country into default.

The new Boehner debt plan – which would allow for a short-term increase in the country’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit but would make a second increase dependent on Congress sending to the states a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution – passed the House shortly before 6:30 p.m. on party-line vote, 218 to 210.

It’s unlikely to progress far in the Senate, where all 53 Senate Democrats oppose the measure. But Friday’s vote paves the way for leaders to assemble a bipartisan compromise that will need to pass both chambers and be signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday if the country is to avoid default…

The list of 22 Republican members of Congress who voted no doesn’t contain any Colorado names, which means that any squeamishness on the part of Rep. Cory Gardner as may have been the case yesterday got cleared up by the “sweetening” of this bill, including the balanced budget amendment debate it would mandate, by John Boehner to attract additional conservative support. It has reportedly already been killed in the Senate, but the passage of any bill at this point in the “Tea Party”-dominated House is a significant victory for Boehner; albeit over his own right flank. The real purpose of this, with its fate in the Senate never in question, is to see what parts of it they can force into something the Senate can still pass.

We’d end with “tick tick tick” or something, but it seems kind of gratuitous at this point.

Tweet
Share

Comments

24 thoughts on “Boehner Plan Squeaks Through House With Colorado Republican Support”

  1. According to CNBC’s John Harwood, Congressional Democrats complained earlier that they were being “hosed” by the President who was willing to accept much deeper spending cuts, on top of those already made, with no new taxes.  Obama’s deal with Republicans then fell apart after the Democrats objected.

    Sen. John Kyle said that a possible deal will likely involve much deeper spending cuts, with the mandatory adoption of Simpson-Bowles down the road, in exchange for Republicans dropping the Balanced Budget Amendment and the two-step process, which Obama, it is said, will never accept during an election year.

    On another note, if anyone ever doubted this is a manufactured crisis, consider this:

    The 2010 budget was $3.5 Trillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2…  The interest on the national debt in 2010 was $414 Billion http://treasurydirect.gov/govt… or only 11.8%.  Most households would kill for a debt ratio like that. Am I missing something here?

    1. A 7:1 debt to revenue mix, NOT.

      Granted this is the government where some devils have learned to ply their trade by dangling the National Treasury in front of voters. But times are a changing folks and 2010 was just a taste.

      For you spending whores, it’s almost as tempting as a devil dangling fist full of fake SS cards in front of a Russian mobster specializing in minor-aged sex slaves … but that would be a matter for ACORN to assist on.

      So, as usual you’re going in the wrong direction as you attempt to traverse a narrow gauge rail line with your PV powered 1watt china-made Lionel look alike.

      What I want to know is where did our other federal representatives come out on the house and upper chamber votes. I still have yet to see any real press on the senate action other then reports that Harry said he’d kill the CCB/BBA bill the swishes through the people’s house today.

      1. I’m glad Libertad didn’t asphyxiate himself masturbating in his mother’s basement tonight.

        Sometimes we forget to be grateful for the little things.

        1. I think his post definitely reflects at least some minor asphyxiation. Hopefully mom called 911, but I hardly could fault her if she decided she didn’t want to use up her monthly minutes on that sort of call.

  2. I don’t recall hearing any pundits talking about this. Why not just declare an economic emergency and raise the damned debt ceiling?

    The representatives and senators who are blocking an increase are essentially anarchists who are deliberately and maliciously working to cripple the U.S. economy and to harm millions of U.S. citizens. That’s economic terrorism, isn’t it?

      1. Kudlow said the Reid compromise will save the day, and praised him profusely.

        Looks like your blind, ideocentric views are to the right of even conservative Republicans. The Tea Party is dead, nationally, get over it.

      2. Balanced Budget Amendment would never happen, and everyone knows it. So get that out of the way and start working on a real solution. House Repubs are a joke. Spend 24 hours to put an addition on a bill that can’t possibly happen and especially in 6 months. Boehner didn’t even try to talk to the Dems.

        I am pretty sure if Boehner went any further to the right on that “bill” he would have fallen off the scale.

        You know this because you were able to type, which makes me believe that you are not stupid. Please don’t prove me wrong.

        1. I’m not saying he’s an angel, but I’m fairly sure if you’d listened in on Boehner’s conversations yesterday, you’d have heard a lot of “Whatever.  Stick the f***ing amendment in.  The Senate’s going to kill it anything.  Just f***ing pass something!”

  3. The country is deeply divided; those who hold our debt will make a fortune the interest rate goes up and a balanced budget amendment would cripple the country’s ability to respond to attack.

    So, who is behind all of this…who is funding the repubs and their tea party?

    Divide and conquer.  

        1. that our obligations always be satisfied, is it constitutional to even have a debt limit in any other than a symbolic, suggestion sense? Basically, the 14th says we will meet our obligations, period.  In that case, the debt limit doesn’t and never has existed in any legal sense since the 14th became part of our constitution, and doesn’t now. It’s always been political theater. Nobody’s noticed because it’s always been raised routinely as the symbolic, no teeth piece of theater it is, but the fact is, it’s meaningless under our constitution when push comes to shove.  Obama ought to just say so and end this circus.

          Will the Rs make a fuss and call him bad names? Sure but what else is new? It will be his team’s job to take the messaging high ground.

          1. The 14th Amendment says debts war debts run up by the Union are valid debts and it says war debts run up by the Confederate States will not be honored (as they weren’t part of the United States at the time).

            Yes, you can pick a phrase out of that clause that literally says what you say, but, in the context of that clause, it means nothing close to what you say it means.

            1. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

              The “debt…shall not be questioned” rule says it “includ[es]” civil war debt — not that it applies only to civil war debt.

                1. A debt is “authorized by law” if it’s for spending Congress did authorize. Once Congress says in its annual appropriations bill, “we’re buying 1000 planes,” and then the executive cut the check to buy the planes… well, we’re done – the U.S. has a congressionally authorized debt to Boeing, regardless of any “debt limit” vote. Bill Clinton put it better than I could, without using a stupid example of buying 1000 planes:

                  “I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”

            2. the validity of our debt can’t be questioned which means we’re good for it, no matter what.  That makes any debt ceiling essentially meaningless.

              That’s why debt ceiling raises, up until now, always pass, even if a few pols ( Obama was one once) use the process to make points with “no” votes, knowing that their “nos” will not affect the outcome and it’s really only a formality.

              The difference now is that the GOTP thinks they really have the option of just saying no and using that to blackmaiing us into complete surrender. If Obama gives away any more of the store than he already has to get them to say “yes”, as if they have the right to actually force default if we don’t meet all their demands, he’s a fool.  

              1. The debt ceiling law authorizes the issuance of a certain value of Treasury notes.  The budget authorizes spending, but not borrowing.

                I’m with you in that I think the budget bill, being more recent and being a law that the Congress enacted, takes precedent.  But it’s not a sure thing.

                Obama is a Constitutional professor, and he’s got a lot of lawyers wandering around the halls if he needs them for a second, third, or fourth opinion.  The WH has already stated they don’t think the 14th is a valid option.

                1. I think it goes against their obsessive belief that they somehow will eventually win by looking the most reasonable, civil, centrist, conciliatory etc. etc.  They don’t want to use it. You can bet Cheney would have given it a whirl if he thought he needed it.

                  Of course being more conciliatory than thou has been a huge failure but the Obama advisers seem to accept it as an article of faith the way the GOTP accepts tax cuts as the all purpose panacea.

                  Got a cough that just won’t go away?  The Obama administration recommends being conciliatory to it and the GOTP recommends tax cuts. No need to call anyone in th morning.

      2. if the he does exactly what the Tea Party demands.  He no longer has any power independent of his new TP bosses. On the other hand, if one of their demands is no more Boehner…  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

65 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!