Premium ContentMouse over Home then click on Premium Content for information.Voted: no
“I voted against the plan because it delays meaningful spending reductions, fails to address entitlement spending in a way that will save the programs for future generations of retirees and leaves open the possibility of tax increases.”
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb.
Voted: yes
“I feel very strongly that the United States of America must send the signal not only within the United States, but across the world, that it will pay its bills.”
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Voted: no
“It kicks the can down the road yet again on the biggest decisions and hands all the power about how to cut spending to a committee — so members of Congress can avoid responsibility and continue to point fingers.”
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Voted: no
“It offends people's basic sense of fairness that Congress would slash funding for things like student loans and cancer research, essential funding for seniors, people with disabilities and the most vulnerable people in our society, but ask not
one dollar of shared sacrifice from millionaires
and billionaires.”
WASHINGTON — Among the four U.S. senators from Iowa and Nebraska, Sen. Mike Johanns stood alone Tuesday in backing a measure to cut federal spending, raise the debt ceiling and avoid a default on the government's financial obligations.
The Nebraska Republican said it was important to avoid a default, which he said would have brought potentially devastating consequences.
A day after winning House approval, the bill had no problem clearing the Senate. Nearly three-fourths of the senators voted yes.
However, many of those casting votes of support for the plan did so while holding their noses.
Conservatives complained that the bill didn't do enough to cut spending. Liberals criticized its lack of increased taxes on corporations or the wealthy.
After the vote, Johanns sounded upbeat about the legislation. He said he wished the bill had gone further in tackling the country's budget problems but said the measure represented a key change in direction.
"Finally," Johanns said, "2½ years into my time here, I actually get to vote on a plan that has some significant reductions in spending — and to me, that is very, very important, but it can't stop here."
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, agreed that a default would have had terrible repercussions but voted against the legislation. The spending cuts in it would hurt the poor, the elderly and the vulnerable, he said. Harkin also said he felt the bill was not necessary to avoid a default.
Instead, he had urged Obama to unilaterally eliminate the debt ceiling and worry later about legal challenges to his authority.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., is facing re-election next year in a conservative state. Asked before the vote about senators in that situation, White House officials suggested that voters in Nebraska would appreciate the package's deficit reduction.
But Nelson opted to cast his vote against the plan. He said it would result in Medicare cuts and was not enough of a long-term solution to provide certainty to businesses. He also objected to its creation of a special committee that will be charged with finding ways to reduce the deficit.
If the committee failed to achieve enough deficit reduction, it would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts.
"We shouldn't run our country by committee," Nelson said. "Nebraskans deserve to know the truth about what is being cut and what spending is being protected."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, joined the entire Iowa congressional delegation in opposing the bill. Among them were two incumbents who will face off next fall in a newly drawn U.S. House district that includes parts of southwest and central Iowa: Republican Tom Latham and Democrat Leonard Boswell.
Grassley criticized the legislation as inadequate.
"The federal debt will continue to climb another $7 trillion under this deal," Grassley said, "and the promise of cuts down the road, rather than making those decisions now, is more of the same from Washington."
Despite backing the bill, Johanns made it clear that much more remains to be done.
He said basic budget math dictates overhauling entitlement programs. When asked if that could mean higher Medicare premiums, increased payroll taxes or cuts in benefits, Johanns wasn't ruling anything out.
"Unless we change the entitlement programs, the legacy we leave to the next generation is a big credit card bill that we didn't want to pay during our lifetime," Johanns said.
Contact the writer: 202-630-4823, joe.morton@owh.com
Copyright ©2012 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
