Warner, Kaine comment on Senate sequester vote
The U.S. Senate voted today on proposals to avoid automatic across-the-board spending cuts, but the measures seem unlikely to change anything. A Democratic measure would have canceled the $85 billion in cuts, and replaced them with a combination of tax increases and cuts to defense and farm programs that would phase in over a decade. A Republican alternative would require Obama to propose an alternative that relied exclusively on spending cuts, ruled out tax increases and limited what he could take from Pentagon accounts.
Virginia’s two Senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, explain their votes and their thoughts below:
Warner:
“I voted for the Reid proposal because I favored its 50/50 blend of targeted spending cuts and new revenues, which would have avoided sequester and moved us further toward a balanced approach to fix the debt. I voted for the Republican counterproposal because it would have provided flexibility in making the required cuts. While I continue to work for a broad, balanced and bipartisan approach to deficits and debt, both of these approaches represented a less stupid approach than sequestration and its disproportionate impact on Virginia.”
Kaine:
“Today, the Senate acted on two bills related to the harmful sequestration cuts scheduled to take effect tomorrow. I voted to support consideration of a bill that offered a balanced, specific and accountable approach to replace these cuts entirely. And I voted against consideration of an all cuts approach that would shock Virginia’s economy.
“I supported the Murray/Mikulski bill because it offered a specific alternative to replace the first year of the sequester with a balanced package of targeted spending cuts and revenue. Then, the Senate would return to a normal, annual budgeting process to find the appropriate mix of spending, taxes and deficit reduction in future years. While still involving significant spending cuts, the bill’s balanced inclusion of new revenue reduced these cuts by half, thus protecting defense and other key priorities. I opposed the Inhofe/Toomey proposal because it would in no way reduce the number of Virginians who stand to be impacted by the sequester. It would leave massive cuts in place and hurt everyone from sailors and pilots in Norfolk, to shipbuilders in Newport News, to teachers across the Commonwealth.
“I believe there is still time to replace the sequester and find a way to let the budget process work the way it’s supposed to. Congress and the Administration need to stay at the table, debate budgetary proposals and find compromise. In the days to come, we can and must find a way to replace sequester cuts and continue the process well underway of writing the first Congressional budget since 2009.”
February 28, 2013 - 3:40 PM
The whole truth on this seems to be as always that the Republicans are doing this on purpose to try to hurt President Obama. This could have been resolved long ago if the Republicans thought as much about our country as they do their party. It don’t look too good for their party when one of their own calls their party the party of stupid. They will pay in 2016.
I am pleased the Virginia Senators are taking reasonable positions. I wish more members of both houses would do the same.
In my lifetime nothinglike this has ever happened BUT there has never
been another Oboma trying to totally destroy america.
I think he is doing a good job of total destruction of
this country. Its clear to see HE HATES America.
Congress and senate job is to protect this country
and BOTH are REFUSING to do anything to stop the destruction.
The Republicans are using Obama’s very own idea to hurt him? Sound logic there.
Both Don and John seem to be out of touch with the facts as I understand them. First fact. The concept was a part of a budge deal worked out in 2011 and approved by the White House. No one seemed to object to it them. Fact #2. The concept was actually introduced by the White House as explained by Bob Woodward. (OK, you can debate that “fact”.) Fact #3. The actual amount is supposed to be less than the reported 85 billion. I have read it is really more like 42 billion. Fact #4, and there is no question about this one, many departments and agencies are, or can be, EXEMPT from ANY cuts. Fact #5. This represents about 2.5% of the federal budget. As every business leader that has spoken on it over the past week says, there is not a single business, big or small, that cannot easily cut it’s budge by 2.5% with NO ill effect. If the government cannot do it now, then it will never be done. And fact #6. Your stupid senators continue to place the blame on the Repubs while failing to offer a budget proposal as required by law….but Oh, that’s OK. Blame is easier that doing something. Like my old drill sgt used to say, “Grab your ears and pull!” “Hear that POP?” “Know what it was?” “IT WAS YER HEAD COMMIN’ OUTTA YER ARS!”
I would like to ask the good senators to please clarify for all Americans and Virginians in particular, your definition of “middle class” and “balanced approach” and the relationship they have to each.
As for revenue, the federal government doesn’t raise revenue except through taxing. It seems that you want to tax those of us who work or have worked and been every so slightly successful. My husband and I served the nation for a combination of 65 years. We paid for our children to go to college through our saving savings and student loans. I have had the same cell phone for 3 years, it still works just fine, but I am curious as to why I need to ensure someone else, should get the new I-phone, or that they should have a computer, that I and others like me pay for and get their internet connection supplied by us the tax payers.
I believe the sequestration is going to be a terrible thing for Hampton Roads but the President’s and those of you in the Democrat Party need to stop using the phrase “balanced approach” and revenue and use the actual term it is “raising taxes. Oh and by raising taxes on the rich – well, that would actually be all of us above the $45,000 a year for a family of 4 here in VA mark. My daughter and her husband who have a college education, have worked really hard to make it around $80,000 this last year (6 years out of college), but can’t buy a house because their taxes are now so high. Let’s start using the real terminology and call it what it is. The President’s idea of compromise is “republicans cave” and the rest of us should fork over our money so others don’t have to make an effort. Great concept!
Please, provide me your definition of “balanced” and “revenue”. I would love to have a “grown up conversation” of what is fair and balanced – not to steal the phase from Fox News, but it works. Compromise means everything is on the top, not one group over another. Raising taxes isn’t one of the “spoils of war” because Obama won the election. This is the United States and our forefathers are all rolling in their graves over the silly childish behavior from everyone, especially Obama.
God Bless America and each of you. VR
Where do I apply for that free IPhone and Internet?
Nan Miller, do you REALLY call your post a “grown up conversation”? I see it as bitter partisan disinformation.
–
“It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism”
http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
-
This book was not written by left wingers. This divisive governance started under Newt Gingrich and the GOTP has turned it into a joke on us.
–
Maybe you do think that a hedge fund manager should pay a lesser percentage in taxes than your children. I don’t.
I agree with Nan on one point…our slave-owning FF would be “rolling in their graves” over an AA president, all right.
If the GOP is going to take the position that the sequestration won’t be so bad…good for them. Time will tell.