Could Congress reject the budget deal?
As discourse over the deficit and the debt ceiling heats up in Washington, pundits and lawmakers alike have turned their attention to what will likely turn into a series of contentious partisan debates. But Congress is still preparing for a Thursday vote on the budget bill to fund the federal government through the rest of the 2011 fiscal year -- and as increasing numbers of Democrats and Republicans come out against the measure, some are wondering whether the bill actually stands a chance of failure.
On CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged" on Wednesday, Bob Schieffer, CBS News chief Washington correspondent and anchor, pointed out that such a possibility was very real.
(Watch the video above.)
"I'm still not certain [the budget bill is] going to pass," Schieffer said, noting that the deal had been hammered out by congressional leadership - not Congress as a whole.
"This is going be very, very close," Schieffer added. "And that just shows you how dicey all of this is here. You've got Democrats up in New York out demonstrating on the streets about the social cuts; you've got the Republicans talking about, 'we're not cutting enough.'"
Chip Reid, CBS News' chief White House correspondent, noted that Republicans would be unable to rely wholly on partisan loyalty to get the bill passed through the House.
"There is a lot of nervousness about it right now, especially on the Republican side, because [House Speaker] John Boehner would love to be able to pass this with Republican votes - [but] it doesn't look like he's going to be able to," Reid told CBS News political correspondent Jan Crawford, who hosted the discussion.
"He's going to have to get some Democratic votes here, and to some degree his party's going to be split," Reid added. "It's a very uncomfortable situation and I think the White House is probably enjoying watching him squirm a little bit. But at the end of the day, they would like it to pass."
If 24 or more House Republicans vote against the bill, Republicans will need to Democratic support in order to pass the budget and avert a government shutdown.
But the measure, which calls for cuts of approximately $38 billion below current levels, has strong opponents on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats argue the reductions are too severe and disproportionately target the poor. Some Republicans and Tea Party members, on the other hand, say the cuts don't go far enough.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who leads the conservative Republican Study Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday that he would not vote for the bill, citing the original GOP goal of $100 billion in cuts.
"Voters are asking us to set our sights higher," he said in the statement.
"You're going to see a significant number of Republican Study Committee members vote for the deal, and you're going to see a significant number vote against the deal," he added.
Freshman Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, said he, too, would vote against the bill because he did not believe it went far enough in making cuts. (Most believe that the bill will pass in the Senate.)
"I made a commitment to support the House in its pledge to cut $100 billion from the budget - a budget that should have been passed last year, when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency," he said in a message on his website on Wednesday. "I did so because I believe it was important to take that first step in enacting real spending cuts. This is the first CR that does not achieve that level of spending reduction. As a result, I will vote no when this CR comes before the Senate."
Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation, expressed his disappointment in what he described as "Boehner's bargain."
"As John Boehner's freshly laundered white flag of surrender floats gently in the breeze high above the Potomac River, even more details are emerging showing just how bad his capitulation was," Phillips writes in a post on the Tea Party Nation's website. "Boehner sold out important policy considerations for a whopping $38 billion dollar reduction. Only, it isn't $38 billion. According to the National Journal, the actual reduction, thanks to some bookkeeping tricks will be....$14.7 billion."
Phillips urged conservatives not to vote for the bill and expressed his hope that Boehner is unable to secure the necessary votes from Democrats to pass it.
"Many on the left are upset with the compromise as well and they will not vote on it," Phillips writes. "If there are enough defections on both sides of the aisle, the tally could reach 218 and that is the magic number to defeat the bill."
Tea Party supporters Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) have said they will vote to reject the bill.
The extent of Democratic support for the measure remains unclear. House minority whip Steny Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday that "my presumption is that we don't know where our people are."
A number of Democrats have objected not just to the depth of the reductions, but also to the programs they target: The budget dealcuts $700 million from safe drinking-water programs, $390 from heating subsidies, $276 from flu-prevention programs and $390 from emergency heating assistance directed toward low-income families. It also targets the Environmental Protection Agency, which would lose $1.6 billion under the plan, and the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.
ABC reports that New York lawmakers gathered on Monday to protest the cuts, which they said unfairly target working families, seniors, and immigrants.
And a handful of congress members have joined a religiously-oriented hunger fast opposing the measure, and are calling for what leader Jim Wallis describes as a "moral budget."
"This fast is not just about cutting spending, but about the values that will determine our priorities and decisions," Wallis writes in the Huffington Post. "Should we cut $8.5 billion for low-income housing, or $8.5 billion in mortgage tax deductions for second vacation homes? Should we cut $11.2 billion in early childhood programs for poor kids, or $11.5 billion in tax cuts for millionaires' estates? Should we cut $2.5 billion in home heating assistance in winter months, or $2.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies and off-shore drilling? This debate isn't about scarcity as much as it is about choices."
Rep. Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat, pledged her support to the effort in the name of working families and women's rights.
"I am participating in Hungerfast because it is important to stand against Republican efforts to drop students from Head Start programs, eliminate life saving health care services for women, and slash necessary job training programs," Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) told the participating group WomenThrive.org. "At a time when our economy is still recovering, we cannot afford to balance the budget on the backs of women, working families and our most vulnerable communities. We must do better."
House Majority Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters on Tuesday that while he thought the bill enjoyed "strong Republican support," he would happily accept Democratic votes.
"Certainly we'll always ask for them," he said.
