Congress Extends Sequester to Pay for Vets Benefits

The measure awaits President Obama’s signature.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 21: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) questions Apple senior executives about the company's offshore profit shifting and tax avoidance in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill May 21, 2013 in Washington, DC. A Congressional report released yesterday said that Apple, America's most profitable technology company, used a complex system of international subsidiaries and tax avoidance efforts to shift at least $74 billion out of the reach of the Internal Revenue Service between 2009 and 2012. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
National Journal
Stacy Kaper
Feb. 12, 2014, 10:46 a.m.

By a 95-3 vote, the Sen­ate on Wed­nes­day ap­proved a House-passed that would un­wind $6 bil­lion in cuts to vet­er­ans’ be­ne­fits from last year’s budget deal that proved to be a polit­ic­al fiasco for all in­volved.

The con­clu­sion of the con­gres­sion­al battle to un­wind the cuts cul­min­ates sev­er­al days of flip-flops from Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans. Law­makers ul­ti­mately con­cluded it was shrewder to put to rest a rising polit­ic­al vul­ner­ab­il­ity with vet­er­ans than con­tin­ue petty-look­ing squabbles over off­sets that are lost on the pub­lic at large. Demo­crat­ic Sen. Thomas Carp­er of Delaware, and Re­pub­lic­ans Sens. Dan Coats of In­di­ana and Jeff Flake of Ari­zona voted against the bill.

Flake said that he be­lieved that the cut in be­ne­fits was mod­est — far smal­ler than what was re­com­men­ded by the Simpson-Bowles de­fi­cit re­duc­tion plan. And in a speech on the Sen­ate floor earli­er Wed­nes­day, he said that he voted against last year’s budget deal be­cause the spend­ing cuts did not go far enough.

Flake said that a vote against restor­ing the COLA cuts is not tan­tamount to turn­ing against the troops.

“The mil­it­ary is at a cross­roads, fast grow­ing be­ne­fits are threat­en­ing to dis­place in­vest­ments in read­i­ness of our armed ser­vices,” he said. “So I would en­cour­age my col­leagues to take a hard look at the fisc­al mess we face be­fore we vote to roll back one of the few de­fi­cit re­duc­tion meas­ures that the pres­id­ent and Con­gress has agreed to.”

A spokes­wo­man for Coats said he voted against the bill be­cause of how the spend­ing would be off­set. Coats, the spokes­man said, did not trust that the Sen­ate would stick to the ad­di­tion­al se­quester cuts. Coats in­stead fa­vors a spend­ing off­set offered by New Hamp­shire Re­pub­lic­an Kelly Ayotte, which would make it more dif­fi­cult to qual­i­fy for a child tax cred­it — par­tic­u­larly for un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants.

Carp­er’s of­fice did not im­me­di­ately ex­plain the reas­on for his “no” vote.

But with 95 Sen­at­ors vot­ing in fa­vor of the meas­ure, the takeaway is clear: Don’t mess with vets, es­pe­cially in an elec­tion year.

The le­gis­la­tion that now heads to Pres­id­ent Obama’s desk for his sig­na­ture, would pay for restor­ing a 1-per­cent­age-point ad­just­ment to cost-of-liv­ing in­creases in mil­it­ary re­tir­ees’ pen­sions by ex­tend­ing the man­dat­ory se­quester cuts an ad­di­tion­al year.

Sen­ate Demo­crats had spent much of Tues­day in­sist­ing it was im­per­at­ive to pass a “clean” bill without an off­set ASAP, ar­guing that vet­er­ans had already “paid in full” their debt to so­ci­ety, even though none of the off­sets be­ing dis­cussed would have touched oth­er vet­er­ans’ be­ne­fits or even come out of the De­fense De­part­ment.

They were push­ing a Sen­ate bill from em­battled Arkan­sas Demo­crat Mark Pry­or that would have un­wound the cuts without pay­ing for them.

But between the House’s un­deni­ably over­whelm­ing vote on its bill Tues­day — 326-90, in­clud­ing 120 Demo­crats — and the two parties’ in­ab­il­ity to agree on amend­ments to the Pry­or bill, Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic lead­er­ship ab­ruptly changed course Tues­day, schedul­ing a vote on the House bill.

A few hours ahead of the vote, Demo­crats ap­peared to be caught off-guard.

Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Carl Lev­in said he didn’t know if he would sup­port the House pay-for and needed to re­view the de­tails, in­clud­ing how he had voted on it pre­vi­ously.

“I don’t know,” he said. “There’s a little un­cer­tainty in my mind as to which par­tic­u­lar ex­ten­sion this is.”

Lev­in said Demo­crats gen­er­ally still pre­ferred a bill without a pay-for and that his per­son­al pref­er­ence was one that would close off­shore tax havens.

“I think most Demo­crats want a clean bill. If our choice is a good pay-for”¦ I would clearly vote for that”¦. If it’s a pure COLA res­tor­a­tion, I’m all in fa­vor for that, but in terms of the oth­er op­tions, I just have to with­hold judg­ment un­til I know more about it.”

The House pay-for had got­ten mixed re­views from Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans on Tues­day, with many con­tinu­ing to push for a pro­pos­al from New Hamp­shire Re­pub­lic­an Kelly Ayotte to close the child tax cred­it to un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants.

“I think se­quest­ra­tion was a ter­rible mis­take to start with,” said Ari­zona Re­pub­lic­an John Mc­Cain on Wed­nes­day.

As Demo­crats tested the wa­ters with Re­pub­lic­ans over the pay-for fight, it ap­peared last week that the GOP would balk at even de­bat­ing a bill that didn’t have a pay-for. But Re­pub­lic­ans re­versed course on Monday, join­ing with Demo­crats un­an­im­ously to take up the Pry­or bill, which was left in the dust by Wed­nes­day.

In the end, with a snowstorm threat push­ing up a loom­ing re­cess, law­makers gave up their pay-for fights and just wanted to check the box, claim vic­tory, and go home.

“My in­clin­a­tion is, I just want to solve this prob­lem,” said Maine in­de­pend­ent An­gus King on Wed­nes­day when he had joined in a Demo­crat­ic press con­fer­ence de­cry­ing at­tempts to pay for the le­gis­la­tion the pre­vi­ous day.

“And the House has now re­cessed, so if we do something dif­fer­ent, it gets delayed,” he said. “Let’s do it.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×