I don’t like to space posts so close together, but this is just in… (there’s a fresh post below too.)
217 House Democrats voted to extend the nation’s debt ceiling to $14.294 trillion, but Frank Kratovil wasn’t one of them. I guess that once again he drew the hall pass from Nancy Pelosi to vote no, which was iffy because the measure only passed 217-212. (There were 5 who didn’t vote, which leads me to wonder where the empty seat is. Since 2 of them were Democrats – Gutierrez and Murtha – they would’ve likely had a majority anyway.)
Delmarva was well represented on the bill as all three representatives (Castle, Kratovil, and Nye of Virginia) voted nay. Needless to say, aside from the Republican Roscoe Bartlett, the remainder of Maryland’s feckless Congressional delegation had no problem putting their grandchildren further into debt.
Since the bill passed the Senate earlier (before Scott Brown could be sworn in and possibly create a cloture roadblock) it will soon be on President Obama’s desk.
While it’s good that Kratovil voted as he did and he deserves kudos, the question needs to be raised: if Frank Kratovil (and, for my friend Melody Scalley down Virginia way, Glenn Nye) are now trying to portray themselves as Republican-lite, why not just elect the real thing in November?
Michael, what the differece between the first vote and the On Adoption of the second portion of the divided question vote? He voted no on the first and yes on the second.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll048.xml
If I’m reading the House floor proceedings correctly, the measure was split into two parts by parliamentary procedure. The first part simply increased the debt limit, and that was the part Kratovil voted against (but passed 217-212.) The second question was in the matter of adopting so-called “PAYGO” procedures where supposedly additional spending is evened out by cutting something else (or increasing revenue.) Kratovil has been in favor of this all along so he voted for it.
While the idea behind PAYGO is sound, the problem is that it’s way too easy to consider something as “emergency” legislation that is exempt from PAYGO. And obviously the idea of increasing revenues is easier and more dear to Democrats than the idea of making cuts.
Thanks for clearing that up.