U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) voted against both continuing resolutions Wednesday afternoon. Her problem? McCaskill says the House of Representatives’ proposal cut too deep, and the Senate cuts were insubstantial. “The House’s resolution frankly was not smart in the way they did the cuts,” McCaskill said of their proposal. “All the pain was in one place. And they are killing off the very part of our budget that has the best chance of increasing economic activity in this country: the building of roads and bridges, the educating of our kids, the research and the science and the development.” She was equally vocally critical of the Senate Democrats’ plan, calling it “disappointing.” “I still think that there are way too many people in denial around here about the nature of the problem and how serious it is. And I don’t think we’re demonstrating to the American people that we understand the nature of the problem when we present an alternative proposal with such a small number of cuts,” McCaskill said. The Missouri Republican Party weighed in Wednesday afternoon, chastising McCaskill for not voting for the cuts in the House proposal. “Claire McCaskill talks like a conservative and votes like a liberal. She claims that we need to cut significant amounts of spending—but when she was actually given the opportunity to reduce the size of government by $60 billion, she refused,” said Lloyd Smith, Executive Director of the Missouri Republican Party. The $60 billion of cuts in the House plan cut at things like science and energy research and education, things Democrats say are investments in the future and are worth protecting. But Republicans, like U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), say the federal government “can’t spend money we don’t have.” “Once again, we’re at an impasse thanks to the Senate Democrats’ unwillingness to lead or support real and substantive budget cuts. Their plan to cut only $4.5 billion when our government is borrowing about $4 billion a day is unacceptable,” Blunt said. “And the White House’s assessment that this plan meets Republicans halfway is simply untrue – at best, their plan only goes one-sixth of the way, which is simply not far enough.” “The status quo is not a solution,” Blunt said. “We must make the cuts to balance our budget just like every family and job creator in Missouri and nationwide is forced to do on a daily basis.” Both Senators have shown interest limiting federal spending. Blunt has been a proponent of a federal balanced budget amendment, which would require the federal government to only spend what it takes in. And McCaskill has sponsored Pay-As-You-Go legislation, and has introduced legislation to cap federal spending at a percentage of the GDP.
Bipartisan support for spending and tax cuts—CUTGO prevents hidden expenditures and new spending allowed under PAYGO
House Republicans are pledging to cut spending, and one early sign they're serious is the rules package they are bringing to the House floor. More than the last time it held power, the GOP is changing the rules to make it harder to tax and spend. Such procedural changes may be boring but they can be crucial to policy success, as Democrats have long understood. Take "paygo," or pay-as-you-go budgeting, under which Democrats required that any tax cut or spending increase had to be offset with other tax increases or spending cuts. The main goal was to make tax cutting that much harder. Paygo always exempted spending increases in existing entitlements and Democrats waived the rule routinely for other spending in any case. In their new rules, Republicans are giving paygo the heave-ho and substituting a rule called "cut as you go." From now on, increases in mandatory spending -- for new or existing entitlements -- will require that spending be cut by an equal or greater amount elsewhere in the budget. Another new rule will make it harder to hide deficit spending by gaming the so-called budget window. The cost of spending bills are scored over periods of one, five and 10 years, and Democrats have routinely disguised the true cost of such bills by pushing the spending into the "out years" beyond a decade. Famously, they also counted 10 years of revenue but only six years of spending to make ObamaCare appear to cut the deficit. The new House rules require budget projections for four additional 10-year windows. And if mandatory spending increases the deficit by more than $5 billion in any of those 10-year windows, the bill will be subject to a House point of order, forcing Members to vote in favor of increasing deficits.
Link—Spending Climate = T/Off
GOP massively opposes new spending—House and Senate leaders Berger 11(Joseph, staff, NYT, 1/23, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/us/politics/24repubs.html, accessed 6-29-11, CH)
The Senate’s top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said on Sunday that his party will vigorously oppose the spending initiatives President Obama plans to include in his State of the Union address on Tuesday because “it’s not a time to be looking at pumping up government spending.” And the number two Republican in the House, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, said that his party would press ahead with its plans for immediate cuts in spending, including in the defense budget. “Every dollar should be on the table,” he said. In a video Mr. Obama sent to supporters on Saturday that gave a preview of the speech, the president indicated that he would seek to balance an attack on the deficit with increased spending in fields like education, research and technological innovation that he called crucial to long-term job growth. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Mr. McConnell countered that “The American public, as one pundit put it, issued a massive restraining order,” against government spending and excessive debt in November’s Congressional elections. Indeed, Mr. McConnell seemed at times gleefully sardonic about President Obama’s efforts to depict himself as a centrist trying to find common ground with Republicans. The president, he said, has certainly moved to the enter , but mostly “rhetorically.” “The president needs to pivot,” Mr. McConnell said. “He seems to be pivoting on virtually everything else, and I don’t put him down for that. I mean he obviously saw what happened in the November election and is trying to go in a different direction. He’s quit bashing business and is now celebrating business.” “Well it’s about time,” Mr. McConnell added, “becausethe only way we’re going to get unemploA new poll by Resurgent Republic finds that the public is surprisingly receptive to cutting government spending.