Senate Democrats are determined to get a bill reversing $6 billion in controversial cuts to veterans benefits through the chamber this week without offsetting the cost. Their message: Veterans have “paid in full” their debt to the nation and shouldn’t be used as budget pawns.
The effort is in sharp defiance of a majority of Republicans who argue that the cost of reversing the cuts in pension benefits should be offset in order to keep intact the bipartisan budget agreement reached last year.
Proving that a bipartisan pay-for is achievable, the House passed a bill Tuesday, 326-90, that would pay for repealing the cuts in veterans benefits by extending mandatory sequestration cuts an additional year. The measure has support from 120 Democrats.
But the House proposal was shot down immediately by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and reaction was mixed among Senate Republicans, with some citing fears that pledges to make cuts later can easily be broken.
“That’s not an ideal pay-for, in part because it is so distant,” said Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. “The promise of distant future spending cuts is not at all optimal.”
Breaking from the now-infamous tradition of preventing Republicans from offering amendments, the Senate is expected to actually allow a vote on a pay-for favored by Senate Republicans, according to senators and aides involved. A vote on the pay-for from Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire that would close the child tax credit to undocumented immigrants could come as soon as Wednesday.
But without Democratic support, the measure is doomed to fail. Unless Democrats suddenly change their tune and strike a compromise on an offset, the building dynamic is to put Republicans in a box of having to either support unwinding the cuts outright — as the bill sponsored by Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., would do — or being forced to vote against it over the lack of offset.
“I can’t vote for it” without a pay-for, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a defense hawk. “That’s a false choice. I’m the guy that brought up the inequity of the pay-for,” he said about using the cost-of-living adjustment cuts in the budget deal. “That is a lousy way; we ought to go out and shoot the person who came up with this idea, but you don’t want to break the Budget Control Act, so let’s find another pay-for…. I’ve never been of the mind-set that in order to fix this you’ve got to break the budget agreement.”
The Senate majority’s clear goal is to undo the 1-percentage-point cut to COLA without an offset, claim victory, and go home to reap the political rewards over the Presidents Day recess. This was something Democrats made plain on Tuesday.
“This bill is very, very simple to me — it’s a veterans’ bill,” said Sen. Mark Begich, D”‘Alaska, at a press conference with Pryor and several other Democrats sponsoring the bill. “You are for veterans or you are not. That’s the vote we will be taking. We made a promise we need to keep…. These veterans have already paid the price.”
Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana echoed that sentiment, saying that getting hung up over an offset is essentially disrespectful to the troops.
“The 127 men and women [from Louisiana] who have already paid for this bill with their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the thousands of veterans in Louisiana, are wondering why we are debating an offset,” she said.
“Whatever was owed they have already paid, and that is the issue in this bill.”
Senate Democrats could well get their way, given how politically untenable it is to take any vote that is equated with being against veterans, particularly in an election year.
Republicans last week had been expected to vote against even proceeding to a debate on the Pryor bill because it lacked a pay-for, but they abruptly changed course Monday and the chamber voted unanimously to proceed to the bill.
“I’m for fixing the COLA first and foremost,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. “The pay-for is a secondary issue.”
Democrats are banking on that pressure to score them another win in the Senate, leaving the question of how to work out a resolution with the House for another day.
What We're Following See More »
"It is with humility, determination, and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president," said Hillary Clinton in becoming the first woman to accept a nomination for president from a major party. Clinton gave a wide-ranging address, both criticizing Donald Trump and speaking of what she has done in the past and hopes to do in the future. "He's taken the Republican party a long way, from morning in America to midnight in America," Clinton said of Trump. However, most of her speech focused instead on the work she has done and the work she hopes to do as president. "I will be a president of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. For the struggling, the striving, the successful," she said. "For those who vote for me and for those who don't. For all Americans together."
Supporters of Bernie Sanders promised to walk out, turn their backs, or disrupt Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, and they made good immediately, with an outburst almost as soon as Clinton began her speech. But her supporters, armed with a handy counter-chant cheat sheet distributed by the campaign, immediately began drowning them out with chants of "Hillary, Hillary!"
If a new poll is to be believed, Hillary Clinton has a big lead in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania. A new Suffolk University survey shows her ahead of Donald Trump, 50%-41%. In a four-way race, she maintains her nine-point lead, 46%-37%. "Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections, going back to Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992. Yet it is a rust belt state that could be in play, as indicated by recent general-election polling showing a close race."
Wednesday was the third night in a row that the Democratic convention enjoyed a ratings win over the Republican convention last week. Which might have prompted a fundraising email from Donald Trump exhorting supporters not to watch. "Unless you want to be lied to, belittled, and attacked for your beliefs, don't watch Hillary's DNC speech tonight," the email read. "Instead, help Donald Trump hold her accountable, call out her lies and fight back against her nasty attacks."
Catholics who attend mass at least weekly have increased their support of the Democratic nominee by 22 points, relative to 2012, when devout Catholics backed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, a Morning Consult poll shows that those voters with advanced degrees prefer Hillary Clinton, 51%-34%. Which, we suppose, makes the ideal Clinton voter a Catholic with a PhD in divinity.