1/24/13 UPDATE: Thank you to all those folks who called their Congressman on the No Budget, No Pay bill. Unfortunately, H.R. 325 passed yesterday, 285 to 144.
These details were supplied by our friends at OKforTea:
“Here are the results of the votes on HR325. It did unfortunately pass with 285 votes for and 144 votes against.
We have to give a BIG THANK YOU to Rep. Jim Bridenstine and Rep. Markwayne Mullin for taking a stand against Kicking The Can Down The Road and voting NO on HR325. It is great to see Congressmen who have kept their word and do the right things.
It is however unfortunate that Rep. Frank Lucas, Rep. Tom Cole and Rep. James Lankford who decided, for whatever reason, to vote YES on HR325 and turn their backs on conservative values that they say they are for.”
OK-SAFE, Inc. – Congress is facing budget decisions that will effect all of us. All five members of the Oklahoma delegation are Republicans who say they are “conservative”.
As time goes by, however, it is becoming more and more apparent that instead of five conservatives, we in Oklahoma have one real conservative representing us in Washington - the 1st District’s Jim Bridenstine.
Congressman Bridenstine was the only member of the OK delegation to vote NO to re-elect the weak John Boehner as Speaker. He voted against incurring more debt to pay for “Superstorm” Sandy damage. Now it looks like Bridenstine will be the only member of the Oklahoma delegation to vote NO on the House’s so-called “No Budget, No Pay” debt ceiling deal.
(H.R. 310) [Correction! It is H.Res. 39/ H.R. 325 that is being considered 1/23/13. H.R. 310 will be considered at a later date.]
Congressman Bridenstine has provided the following statement, detailing his reasons for voting NO on “No Budget, No Pay” deal.
January 22, 2013
From U.S. Congressman Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma 1st District
House Republicans have created a plan bold in name, but weak in substance. It’s called “No Budget, No Pay”. Here is the plan:
- Suspend the debt limit until May 19th.
- Make zero cuts to spending in the deal.
- Violate the 27th Amendment of the Constitution by “varying” congressional compensation.
- Let military sequestration take effect, cutting $500 billion from the Department of Defense.
- Pass a Continuing Resolution codifying federal spending at post-sequester levels.
- Wait to fight for spending cuts until we hit the debt ceiling again in May 2013.
Here are the reasons I am voting “no” on “No Budget, No Pay.”
The first part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to suspend the debt limit through May 19, 2013 with no spending cuts. It seems Republicans have decided not to leverage the debt limit to achieve real reforms. In lieu of cuts, the bill will contain language stating that the Senate must pass a budget or not be paid. This sounds strong, but there will be no clause stating that the Senate budget must place us on a path to fiscal responsibility. Nor will there be a clause stating that the Senate budget must be reconciled with the House budget. This is seemingly just a ploy.
American voters do not want the debt ceiling to be raised without spending cuts. A CBS News / New York Times poll, conducted January 11-15, found 60% of all Americans want to see the debt ceiling raised with spending cuts. Only 17% want the ceiling raised without cuts. A Fox News poll reported 69% who say Congress should only raise the debt limit after agreeing on major cuts in spending.
A suspension of the debt ceiling is more alarming than an increase. The bill as presented leaves no statutory limit on federal debt. It assumes that the Treasury will not reverse its extraordinary measures, replacing the funds “borrowed” from other accounts by issuing billions of additional debt in the three month interval. That is an assumption that has not been acceptable in the past and is not acceptable today.
I campaigned saying I would raise the debt ceiling only if substantial spending cuts or a balanced budget amendment was included. Raising the ceiling without negotiating spending cuts will disappoint voters, putting a lot of pressure on everyone who campaigned on fiscal conservatism or responsibility.
Since the Democratic Senate will not go for a 3-month debt limit suspension that ties their pay to a budget, this plan will be spun as gimmicky and not serious. Republicans will not win the public relations effort, but they will be on record voting to allow the debt to increase with no spending cuts. This will alienate the Republican base.
The second part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to let sequestration take effect in March, cutting $500 billion from the Department of Defense. This is intended to put pressure on the Democrats to reform entitlements. Using threats to curtail military funding to create a crisis for the purpose of political advantage is an inappropriate policy. This bad policy also enables the President to continue compromising our national security for a social welfare agenda that restricts economic freedom, punishes achievement, cripples our economy, and makes us less competitive in the world.
It should be noted that there are no new savings when we allow the Sequester to take place. These savings were a result of the August 2011 debt ceiling increase negotiation. It should also be noted that using a debt limit increase to control spending has been successful in the past and it will be successful in February 2013 if Republicans are willing to forgo the “No Budget, No Pay” debt limit suspension for a real negotiation.
The third part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to codify the Sequester with a continuing resolution at post-sequester spending levels. Again, there are no new savings here. These savings were a result of the 2011 debt limit increase negotiations. We need new savings (cuts, reforms, etc.)
The fourth part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to have a “real” fight over the debt limit in May. The reality is that if a vote to raise the debt limit ‘clean’ (without spending cuts) comes to the floor, 30 Republicans will join 200 Democrats and there will be no savings realized.
My final concern is the most difficult to ignore. “Varying” congressional compensation appears unconstitutional by both letter and original intent. The text of the 27th Amendment was submitted by the Framers as part of the original Bill of Rights in 1789. It was ratified in 1992, 202 years later. If the Framers of the 27th Amendment had simply meant that compensation of Senators and Representatives not be “increased nor diminished” then they would have used that exact phrase as it stands in the Constitution referring to the compensation of the President in Article II, Section 1. Instead, the Amendment is written , “No law, varying the compensation.” Varying the timing of payment is varying the payment. Your banker will testify.
We are asking that folks call the other members of the OK Congressman and ask them to vote NO as well.