Senator Smith and the Budget
Our humble senator, who may or may not support private accounts for Social Security, and who probably will vote to end the practice of filibusters for judicial appointments (but you never know), looks to be the lynchpin in yet another Senate showdown.
Congressional negotiations to break an impasse over the federal budget hit a major stumbling block on Wednesday, when an influential Republican senator walked away from the talks amid a dispute with the White House and the Republican leadership over Medicaid spending. The senator, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, has told the leadership that he is now prepared to vote against the budget, a spokesman said.
But whether the measure can pass the Senate without Mr. Smith's support is unclear. When the budget came before the Senate last month, Mr. Smith spearheaded a drive to eliminate reductions in the growth of spending on Medicaid, the federal government insurance plan for the poor, and instead to create a commission to study the future of the program. His proposal passed, 52 to 48, drawing support from six other Republicans.
By this time, you know what to do, right? Either by phone or by email.
Portland: 503-326-3386
Washington, D.C.: 202-224-3753
Eugene: 541-465-6750
Pendleton: 541-278-1129
Medford: 541-608-9102
Bend: 541-318-1298
|
April 28, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 28, '05
Too late. The NYT says the budget deal is done.
10:58 p.m.
Apr 28, '05
The budget deal is done, and Senator Smith spoke on the floor of the Senate this evening and said he was going to vote "yes" on the deal. See this.
7:48 a.m.
Apr 29, '05
Smith scorecard:
Filibusters Sides with radical GOP, but tries to soften position by advocating for "compromise"
Social security Watching the polls and waffling.
Budget Took a principled stand against $60 billion in cuts, took a compromise of $10 billion.
So far, his walk looks better than his talk.
Apr 29, '05
Smith has decided to go nuclear with Frist.
Apr 29, '05
Alworth,
I don't get it. His walk is better than his talk? I think his walk is non-existent, and even his "talk" leaves a helluva lot to be desired.
First of all, it wasn't $60 billion that he got to $10 billion. The number was $16 billion in the Senate, and he won an amendment to freeze it and get a Commission to study the cuts. Anyone who believes his vote was "heroic" is kidding themselves, as this was never going to survive reconciliation and the $10 billion "he" got was scale-down from the House's $14 billion.
His position was "cut, but study first."
In addition, he collected the Oregonian editorial headline about his "moral compass" for one of his 5 cherry-picked Dem votes that he'll run TV on -- like he did in 2002 with ANWR (which BTW is in this budget) and Hate Crimes and his phony prescription drug bill that both sucked and had no chance to pass -- in the next election.
The next day he said he'd vote for the budget, even if the cuts were there. Here's his quote in Roll Call:
Talk about leverage...I'm happy the cuts are less dramatic than they could be. Every bit counts.
But this is not very impressive, both because the bottom-line number is 70% of a bad idea, and because these cuts are ultimately going to happen. And if Gordon Smith's argument about why Oregonians should put him in the US Senate is "I acted like a Democrat on these 5 issues" and he puts $5 million dollars of TV behind it to obscure the fact that he votes the Party line on countless issues that are way out of the mainstream/public interest, we ought not not give him the benefit of the doubt when he "kinda" does something right.
The nuclear option on the filibuster is the perfect example. Is "I'm with Frist and the right-wing nutjobs, but I hope for a compromise" (when there is no legitimate compromise and Frist refuses to negotiate anything reasonable) better than an actual position that is just "I support this policy?"
8:25 p.m.
Apr 29, '05