And Bush will Say We Need To Cut Taxes on The Rich Again

The New York Times

March 16, 2006
Senate Votes to Raise U.S. Debt Limit to Nearly $9 Trillion
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, March 16 — The Senate voted narrowly today to raise the national debt limit to nearly $9 trillion, averting what would have been the first default ever on United States Treasury notes and giving Democrats an opportunity to portray Republicans as reckless with the people's money.

The 52-to-48 vote, with all Democrats and a handful of Republicans voting "no," increased the debt limit by $781 billion. The increase was the fourth since President Bush took office, prompting Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, to declare that "years of Republican mismanagement" have driven the nation deep into the red.

"Any objective analysis of our country's fiscal history would have to conclude this administration and this rubberstamping Republican Congress are the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country," Mr. Reid said. "In fact, no other president or Congress even comes close."

Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who heads the Senate Finance Committee, said before the vote that an increase in the debt limit to $8.97 trillion was essential to preserve "the full faith and credit of the federal government," and that spending for the Iraq war and for antiterrorism measures had helped to push up spending.

But the vote, essential or not, put Republicans in the embarrassing position of calling officially for more debt, and it let Democrats speak out for fiscal restraint. Only three Republican senators, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Ensign of Nevada and Conrad Burns of Montana, voted against raising the debt limit.

"We don't have too little money in the government," Mr. Coburn said on Wednesday. "What we have is not enough will to cut the spending or reform the programs."

Lawmakers bemoan the overall debt and annual deficits, but few show much enthusiasm for casting tough votes to cut into them, especially in an election year. It was quite the contrary in the House and Senate on Wednesday as efforts to offset new spending were blocked and more dollars were directed to popular causes.

As the House took up a bill on Wednesday to provide almost $92 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as hurricane recovery, the Republican leadership prevented its conservative wing from proposing to pay for the spending out of idle money. Conservatives were left seething that the must-pass money will instead be added to the deficit.

Twenty-nine Republicans opposed the party procedural proposal to bring the bill to the floor — an almost unheard of revolt.

"At the end of the day, I think it unfair to make members of Congress choose between our troops and fiscal discipline," said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and a conservative leader.

In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats engaged in a bidding war over how and by how much to increase spending on ports security after the furor over the transfer of some port terminals to an Arab company. Republicans prevailed on a plan to add $978 million paid for through an across-the-board cut. That was $13 million more than Democrats had proposed, with that sum to be paid for by closing corporate-tax loopholes. But Democrats crowed that they had forced the issue.

Republicans also joined Democrats in providing more than $1 billion for community-development block grants, supporting a plan by Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, who is in a tough re-election fight.

Spending was also increased for other causes, like veterans' health care.

The Senate faces a push today for $7 billion in new money for medical research and education programs, a proposal that would effectively bust the budget ceiling.

The actions disturbed outside advocates of spending restraint, who said Republicans were rolling the dice in the November elections by failing to respond to grass-roots demands for tighter control on spending.

"Somebody needs to stand up and say, Stop me before I spend again," said Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman who heads the economically conservative Club for Growth. "They do seem to be addicted."

Democrats have their own problems with the fiscal approach of majority Republicans. They contend that Republicans have misguided priorities that give short shrift to social programs.

The Democrats say deficits created under President Bush are a direct result of a series of tax cuts that Democrats warned would result in a flood of red ink or a push to cut costly benefits. They scoff at recent Republican concern about getting a grip on spending.

"They are all worked up about the problem they created," Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on Wednesday. "Three trillion dollars in debt, and now they figure out they need to control it?"

Some Senate Republicans acknowledge that they would have preferred to wring more savings out of the budget, which even its author describes as a vanilla spending blueprint drafted with the election year in mind. But with resistance among some Republicans to cuts and the prospect of scant help from Democrats, Republicans say they had little choice. Even with concessions to politics, it is uncertain the budget can pass.

"This isn't the budget I would have written," Senator John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire, said. "But it is better than the alternative, which is no budget at all and no discipline on appropriations bills." Republican leaders say they recognize the need to put the government on a more stable fiscal foundation before the retirement demands of the baby boom generation bring what some critics consider an economic house of cards tumbling down.

But the new House majority leader, Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said it would take a long-term effort to sell the public on the need for significant changes. Mr. Boehner said he did not see it as something to be undertaken in routine spending and budget bills.

"To go in and start making cuts without first helping people understand the problem, the extent of the problem, and the fact that these programs are not sustainable for the long term is, I think, political suicide," he said.

David Stout contributed reporting for this article.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company