WASHINGTON -- For the first time in four years, The Senate Saturday approved a budget -- a Democratic $3.7 trillion spending plan for 2014 that combines tax increases through elimination of loopholes and targeted spending cuts but still leaves the nation heavily in debt 10 years from now. It passed 50-49, mostly on a party line vote. Four Democrats,...
WASHINGTON -- For the first time in four years, The Senate Saturday approved a budget -- a Democratic $3.7 trillion spending plan for 2014 that combines tax increases through elimination of loopholes and targeted spending cuts but still leaves the nation heavily in debt 10 years from now. It passed 50-49, mostly on a party line vote.
Four Democrats, all up for re-election in 2014, joined the Senate's entire Republican delegation in voting against the budget, which passed at 4 a.m. CT after an all-night session.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who is also facing re-election in 2014, voted yes, while Sen. David Vitter, R-La., voted no. Some senators appeared exhausted as the session neared the end this morning, breaking at one point for a standing ovation for the Senate pages who stayed on duty throughout.
The Democratic budget is dramatically different than the spending plan adopted by the GOP-led House Thursday in another party-line vote.
Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter split on Saturday's budget vote -- with Landrieu voting yes and Vitter joining all Republicans in opposition.
The Republican plan includes significant new cuts in federal domestic spending, increases in defense, and imposes lower income tax rates by eliminating loopholes. But unlike the Senate Democrats, the House doesn't use any of the revenue from ending tax breaks to lower the deficit -- all of the money would go to tax reduction.
The House bill also approves changes in Medicare for people aged 55 and younger -- a system in which people beginning at age 65 would get vouchers to purchase private insurance or traditional Medicare, though Democrats say it will be far short of the actual cost for health coverage.
The Senate bill makes more targeted cuts, and includes additional money, $100 billion, for highway and other infrastructure projects to rebuild aging facilities and create jobs. It also reverses $1 trillion in across the board budget cuts over the next 10 years, a process known as sequestration. The bill allows the Senate to pass changes in the tax code without the possibility of a filibuster, and approves some spending cuts. But it would still leave the United States with a $566 billion deficit in 10 years, about half the current total.
Landrieu, a Democrat who is facing a tough re-election challenge in 2014, explained her yes vote Saturday morning.
"I voted for the Senate budget because it takes a balanced approach to reduce our deficit by targeting smart spending cuts and finding additional revenues from closing loopholes in our tax code. Respected economists, including the leaders of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission and Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, say that while reducing our annual deficit to a much lower percentage of GDP is a very important target, they caution against drastic reductions that would throw ice water on this growing recovery."
"The Senate Budget hits those targets while keeping economic growth and the security of the middle class at the forefront. The Ryan (House Republican) Budget, in contrast, shifts the entire burden of deficit reduction on the backs of the middle class and working poor. It pulls the rug out from this promising recovery while lavishing tax cuts to the top 1 percent. Yes, it purports to 'balance' the budget in 10 years, but at what cost to the middle class? It is an unconscionable and shameful reflection of the values America stands for."
Republicans said the Democratic budget falls short.
"Honest people can disagree on policy," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "But where there can be no honest disagreement is the need to change our nation's debt course. The singular truth that no one can escape is that the House budget changes our debt course while the Senate budget does not. The Senate budget increases taxes, increases spending, and adds $7.3 trillion to our debt. It has zero real deficit reduction."
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, said the GOP and Democratic budgets aren't in the same league.
"This (the House Republican spending plan) is a responsible budget that balances in 10 years, saves Medicare from bankruptcy, repeals Obamacare, and gets our economy moving again so we can create jobs through pro-growth reforms that establish a fairer and simpler tax code," Scalise said. "Our growth-oriented budget contrasts dramatically with the liberal Senate budget that raises more than $1 trillion in new taxes and never achieves balance, as well as President Obama's failure to even meet the legal deadline to present a budget."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Republicans offered a plan rejected during the 2012 election. It's a path, she said, "to more tax cuts for the rich, but less opportunity for the middle class."
Given the substantial policy differences between the two parties on federal spending and taxes, it's unlikely that the House and Senate can agree on a spending plan. Many economists and business groups, including the Business Roundtable, maintain that a budget agreement that reduces the deficit would be boom for the U.S. economy, even if some taxes are increased.
Landrieu got an amendment added to the budget early Saturday that supports construction of Veterans Affairs health clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles.
"Because of a bureaucratic bottleneck at CBO (The VA's Chief Business Office), veterans across the country, including 20,000 in South Louisiana, have faced unacceptable delays in these health clinics," Landrieu said. "After the sacrifices these brave men and women have made for our country, it is unconscionable to allow this to continue."
The Senate also voted Saturday morning on two amendments offered by Sen. Vitter -- one requiring a valid photo ID to vote in federal elections and the other ending what the senator called the "mobile phone welfare program." Both were rejected.