Atlanta Weather

| Traffic

Search
Political Insider

Johnny Isakson, two House Republicans to vote for debt plan

2:06 pm August 1, 2011, by jgalloway

Many members of Georgia’s congressional delegation – Democrat and Republican – still remain undecided about final passage of the debt-ceiling deal, but sides are being chosen in a hurry.

On Saturday, U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson gave a passionate speech about the need to come to an agreement. This afternoon, Politico.com has this line:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said she was inclined to support the plan, as did Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

We have yet to hear from Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss, but the two senators only rarely cancel out one another’s votes. The vote in the Senate is expected tomorrow morning.

In the House, where the vote will come this evening, we may have as many as three “no” votes cast by Georgia members. U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ranger, and Paul Broun, R-Athens, are solid opponents. Phil Gingrey, R-Marietta, is leaning that way.

“I took the pledge that I would not vote to increase the debt ceiling by one penny unless the balanced budget amendment was sent to the states for their ratification. So this doesn’t do that – it’s backing up a little bit from what we did last Friday,” Gingrey told Scott MacFarlane of Channel 2 Action News. Gingrey also said he was concerned about cuts to the defense budget that might be forced in future negotiations.

On the “yes” side, count U.S. Reps. Tom Price, R-Roswell; Rob Woodall, R-Lawrenceville, and David Scott, D-Atlanta.

Said Price, to MacFarlane:“The principles that we have stuck to is that there ought to be no tax increases, and that for any increase in the debt ceiling, there ought to be at least a similar dollar figure reduction in spending. And this proposal actually sticks to it.” The bill also, Price said, forces the House and Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment.

From Woodall, serving his first term: “I’m a yes vote. This gets me exactly what I needed. It gets me cuts immediately to spending. It gets me capped spending going forward. All importantly, it gets me a vote on the balanced budget amendment, which we haven’t had in 15 years.”

David Scott was one of the few Georgia Democrats to show his hand. “We’ve got to force one reality. This country cannot afford to default,” he said. The Atlanta congressman cited satisfaction with protections for federal programs that deal with the poor and the elderly.

House members listed as undecided include:

– Jack Kingston, R-Savannah, though his comments about the deal have been favorable. Spokesman Chris Crawford confirmed at 4 p.m. or so that his boss still hasn’t made a final call.

– Sanford Bishop, D-Albany — in the past he’s been a solid vote for the Obama administration;

– Austin Scott, R-Tifton;

– Lynn Westmoreland, R-Coweta County;

– Hank Johnson, D-Decatur;

– John Lewis, D-Atlanta;

– and John Barrow, D-Savannah.

The sooner this horse opera ends, the better. A new Washington Post poll notes this:

Asked for single-word characterizations of the budget negotiations, the top words in the poll — conducted in the days before an apparent deal was struck — were “ridiculous,” “disgusting” and “stupid.” Overall, nearly three-quarters of Americans offered a negative word; just 2 percent had anything nice to say.

“Ridiculous” was the most frequently mentioned word among Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

  • Print

28 comments Add your comment

The Snark

August 1st, 2011
2:17 pm

Oh, our delegation is a mass of something alright …

gsueagle

August 1st, 2011
2:22 pm

i wonder how any senator or representative in the last 60 years can look in the mirror and feel good. look at the mess they have put us citizens in.

JAWJA

August 1st, 2011
2:30 pm

NOT ONLY SENS AND REPS, HOW ABOUT FORMER PRESIDENT CHENEY, WHO BROUGHT US TO THIS PARTY AFTER THROWING TWO WARS WITHOUT PLANNING FOR FINANCING THEM, AND CUTTING TAXES FOR THE RICH. (TO CREATE JOBS….WHAT JOBS)

Clinton "Skink" Tyree

August 1st, 2011
2:52 pm

it would be very difficult to maintain your existence in 2011 on the salary you were making in 1960. Well, the federal tax revenues as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product is at a 60 year low.

This BS about not have a revenue problem but having a spending problem is one of those glorious half-truths. We do need to cut expenditures across the board including certain entitlements, the pentagon and subsidies — but we also need to increase revenues.

In addition, the loopholes that allow large corporations to keep huges sums of money offshore to avoid taxation like Apple with $76 BILLION offshore and paid ZERO in federal taxes in 2010 — the idiots need to close these loopholes.

Centrist

August 1st, 2011
2:56 pm

As predicted, the deal is mostly accounting and political smoke and mirror gimmicks kicking the can down the road after the elections. Actual cuts and triggers don’t get invoked until 2014, so the Committee/Commission/Gang November report will be shelved like all other such reports. The triggers will be set aside by a new Congress and President (or Obama’s second term mandate). The decade old tax rates are scheduled to revert back to what they were in the Clinton years in 2014 regardless of their impact on the economy. Washington projections use static analysis to score those tax increases as straight revenue – disregarding businesses and taxpayers cutting back their income to avoid higher tax brackets, and the multiplier affect throughout the economy. Congress will likely extend all or some of the current tax rates to avoid the economic catastrophe (probably in a post election lame duck session like last year), and then some of the smoke clears from the purposely false debt projections requiring another debt limit increase and associated politics.

The reason that the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party is driving the debate is that enough voters understand that we have an overspending problem instead of an under-taxing one. Democrats will never agree to enough cuts in spending since that is how they buy most of their votes and campaign contributions. (Both parties buy campaign contributions with tax breaks to the TRULY wealthy individuals and corporations, and the Republicans pander to the the religious right).

dixiedemons

August 1st, 2011
2:57 pm

The Dems will vote yes. The Reps have to check-in with Grover $$ , Ru$h , and $arah before they know which way to go. Re-election is around the corner.

Eli

August 1st, 2011
3:01 pm

Of course Tom Graves is voting against this…just like Tom Price and Paul Broun, Graves, more than anything, wants the US to be a third world nation.

Taxes have never been lower and look at our situation now compared to in the past. Nobody in the US can retire, we have a health-care crisis, an energy crisis, a budgetary and financial crisis, an unemployment crisis, etc. I remember the 50s, guess what? With top tax brackets of 90% we had none of these problems.

Capitalism and democracy only work together when the focus is on consumer and worker protection, not shareholder profits.

Centrist

August 1st, 2011
3:01 pm

Percentages of taxes staying the same are increases in revenue as the GNP increases. During recessions and high unemployment, the percentage of tax collections lag GNP. Increasing taxes during those times is total economic folly – but makes for good campaign rhetoric.

Mr. KnowitAll

August 1st, 2011
3:10 pm

Why don’t the libs call it straight. When they say increase revenues—they really mean INCREASE TAXES.. When they say “balance”, what they mean is INCREASE TAXES.

I want the democRats to go ahead…I want Oblablama to go ahead….run on Increasing Taxes. Ask Walter Mondale how that turns out.

Never before has it been so apparent. democRats stand for TAX AND SPEND.

intowner

August 1st, 2011
3:25 pm

As opposed to the Military, who have gone on record as saying their blank-check days (as so staunchly supported by the republican party) have got to end… can’t just solve a problem by throwing more money at it~ so the Dems being tax and spend: applies to the military too…

I’m all for cutting entitlement programs – starting with the military and those folks over 60 yrs of age.

Yes, as a local business owner i’m feeling taxed enough already – and ready for retirees to stop being given the hospital store on my dime.

MiltonMan

August 1st, 2011
3:29 pm

Eli – wanting to take us back to the 50s – nothing like going through a Korean War again.

MiltonMan

August 1st, 2011
3:32 pm

Liberals – better name for them is the bi-polar party

The Clown-in-Chief went on record saying that the reps gave him nothing to work with & now the liberals are complaining that they have something.

Bottom Line: Increase debt limit so that Obozo can buy more votes

MrLiberty

August 1st, 2011
3:32 pm

Its not indecision that is the problem – it is a complete LACK OF PRINCIPLES.

Ron Paul will have no problems with his decision. There is one congressman that is both principled and predictable. He has been voting against EVERY appropriations bill (with minor exceptions) since he got to congress. He certainly has voted against every debt increase. His principles are sound. Government should be getting smaller, not larger. Spending should be going down, not up. A debt is slavery for future generations. The constitution dictates what the federal government should be doing – AND NO MORE.

The problem with our delegation is that they have no principles other than what will get me reelected, what do my friends want, what will benefit my donors the most, and definitely NOT – what is best for the nation or what does the constitution say.

Saxby and Isakson will vote whatever way their leadership tells them to vote. They are both spineless criminals who could care less about america’s future. If there are any NO votes from the congressional group it will be because of partisan politics or because too much money is being cut from the global empire warmongering budget.

MrLiberty

August 1st, 2011
3:36 pm

People keep throwing out the term “third world nation.” Has it occurred to any of you how nations become “third world?” Generally it is because of a lack of respect for property rights – income is property. It is also generally because of government excesses, massive inflation, massive debt, and destruction of the middle class through central banking and taxation. Sound familiar? We will not become a third world nation because we stop all the spending. We will become one UNLESS we stop all the spending.

You cannot create prosperity with a credit card or a printing press. Neither the republicans or the democrats seem to understand that.

Dirty Dawg

August 1st, 2011
3:37 pm

The ‘deficits’ that are causing all the apoplexy were brought on by tax-cuts that were ‘demanded’ by geedubya at the time because we were enjoying a Clinton-driven surplus and it was ‘only fair’ to refund the money to tax-payers…a couple of ‘wars of choice’…an ‘unfunded’ Medicare drug program that wouldn’t even allow (as a sop to big pharma) the Government to negotiate the price of the damned things – I mean even WalMart does that every day…and an economy in the ditch primarily because Republicans won’t allow the current Administration to pull it out because it might mean Obama will be more ‘re-electable’ (and the reason it’s in the ditch in the first place is because Bush/Cheney allowed Wall Street to put it there plus a rejuvenated economy with the unemployment rate cut in half would eliminate that deficit we’re so all-fired upset about)…so don’t try to hang your damned ‘tax and spend’ label on the Democrats. Your boys did this to us and are still doing it. The GOP stands for greed, obstruction and prejudice – and they’re proud of it.

The Snark

August 1st, 2011
4:23 pm

CENTRIST: I agree with you that Democrats have traditionally bought most of their votes and campaign contributions with spending. The problem is that in 2000 the Republicans stole that page from their playbook (Medicare Part D, anyone?) and ran with it.

AtlantaWolf

August 1st, 2011
4:24 pm

I am so disappointed in all of Congress- Republicans and Democrats. I have gone from being a long term Republican to an Independent who doesn’t trust any politician that has been in Washington for more than one term. Congress needs to put in term limits. All of you go to Washington, live off the fat of the land, worry about getting re elected, and basically sell out to make sure that you stay in Washington. All of you should be ashamed of the shape our country is now in. This debt deal is a joke- raise the debt limit, cut by the same amount, and let the country continue to go deeper and deeper in debt. I wonder how many back room deals have been made to present this to the public as a solution. All of you should be fired. “Leaders”- what a term to call the people who are taking our country down the toilet. So go and vote for this new bill and let someone else fix the problem 20 years from now so everyone in congress can blame it on the other guy.
.

Publius

August 1st, 2011
4:29 pm

Mr L
3rd world governments can’t lead, are controlled by self interested factions and only become impoverished because productivity falls a distant second priority to the interests of those factions.

The “spending” problem you speak of would evaporate with increased productivity. You will argue that raising taxes will further hamper productivity, but that’s just the bug juice. 4 of 10 (or something like that) gov’t $$ are going to fund the Bush wars that, sadly, have become the Obama wars.

This deal without revenue elements is dead on arrival.

Publius

August 1st, 2011
4:40 pm

Ask yourself, when was USA most prosperous? A. 1950 B. 1960 C. 1970 D. 1980

Now check out the top tax rate for your answer. Hint the lowest was near 30% higher than today.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Joesnopy

August 1st, 2011
5:11 pm

People when you send millions of jobs overseas you create a tax REV problem. The major problem we are having now is a jobs problem. The Wall Street problem caused us millions of housing related jobs. All of the jobs created during the Bush era was housing related. During the Bush era 2 million white collar jobs went overseas now 98% of white collar jobs do not have unions and the taxes CORPS pay are at a all time low so why did the jobs leave. It is called investing in emerging markets people so if you want a job move to another country.

Road Scholar

August 1st, 2011
5:26 pm

How about a war tax to be levied (could be the repeal of the Bush tax cuts) to pay for the cost (deficit) that the wars ran up ? The Repubs failed to place them in the budget (now they want a balanced budget amendment (that’s rich! would you really trust these Bozo’s to open up the Constitution?)). The “war tax”would expire upon the pullout of our last troops from Iraq and Afganastan, or upon th cost being paid in full…that includes healthcare for our troops.

American Idiot

August 1st, 2011
6:16 pm

No member of the House or the Senate has any interest in what is good for the average American because we don’t have enough money to line their pockets. Oops! I meant we don’t have enough money to lobby them. Oh well, it means the same thing. These morons make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year! Of course, they don’t want to raise taxes for the wealthy! They would rather have senior citizens starve to death than require GE, Haliburton, or Apple to pay one dollar in federal taxes!

Democrats or Republicans. They’re all the same! They don’t represent anyone who can’t pay them off!

Joesnopy

August 1st, 2011
6:25 pm

Well the State of Georgia is to blame. We are a GOP controlled state and have almost the worst unemployment rate in America. Now the Georgia house tried to raise tax REV via the middleclass but was caught by a Georgia House DEM so they killed the bill. The problem the Georgia House DEM had with the bill was the Georgia House RePubs were giving the rich a tax break in the same bill. Now Georgia need tax REV so we can recover because CORPS are not hiring in Georgia so we need to do something to get more people working so we can get more tax REV. Now since Georgia is a GOP controlled state why are we in such a mess if the GOP knows all. Hey they can give the rich in Georgia a tax break if they create jobs but do you know Georgia is already a low tax State so what gives.

William

August 1st, 2011
6:51 pm

Go ahead.. both parties.. Vote for this debacle and the 2010 Vote For Freedom will seem like a pleasant memory to you incumbents…
2 more years, the Obamanation will be gone and so will YOU!

MrLiberty

August 1st, 2011
8:26 pm

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said she was inclined to support the plan, as did Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. ‘Nuf said.

Big Hat

August 1st, 2011
8:28 pm

I am an Antichrist, I am an anarchist, I know what I want and I know how to get it, I wanna destroy passerby, ‘Cause I wanna be anarchy.

SmittyATL

August 1st, 2011
8:38 pm

Under this framework, the debt will continue to grow over the next 10 years. All that has been accomplished is that: a) the rate of debt increase has been slowed down; and b) many liberal Democrats have admitted that the debt is a problem.

Ah, well… a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Irma McGinnis

August 3rd, 2011
6:55 pm

THANK YOU FOR VOTING FOR THE BILL. YOU ARE A TRUE AMERCIAN
Irma McGINNIS