Grassley & King vote no, rest of Iowa delegation votes for deal to end shutdown, extend debt limit

Radio Iowa ^ | October 16, 2013 | O. Kay Henderson

[iowamark]

Republicans Chuck Grassley and Steve King were the only two members of Iowa’s congressional delegation to vote against the deal that has ended the federal government shutdown and extended the government’s borrowing authority. King said once spending issues and the debt limit were joined in one bill, the momentum toward passage was inevitable.

“The American people have fatigue and I understand that, but it’s worth the fatigue if we can accomplish the goal in the end,” King said during an interview with Radio Iowa. “We didn’t get that done in this battle. This battle is not indicative of the entire war and I intend to continue my efforts to repeal ObamaCare.”

Tom Latham, the other Republican in Iowa’s congressional delegation, voted for the deal to end the D.C. stalemate, but in a written statement he called it “the lesser of two evils.” Latham also said he “could not support an irresponsible path that risks defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States.” Latham’s colleague downplays the idea there’s a rift now among Republicans in the House.

“I think we’re actually more together than it might appear from that vote…There’s more support here for our leadership than one would think. There’s less division. There’s very little acrimony of people pointing their fingers at each other and saying: ‘It’s your fault. It’s your fault,’” King said. “Instead they understand that everybody went through their own crucible.”

According to King, Republicans in the House are “tighter” because of the past 16 days.

“I think that we’ve identified 25 or 30 emerging conservatives who are going to be a voice for a long time to come,” King said. “So we laid a foundation in order to do good things in future.”

King, though, said he shared his doubts about the strategy of shutting down the government with his fellow Tea Party conservatives in congress weeks ago.

“But I also said that this will be tried in the court of public opinion and if the American people step behind this thing strongly enough…then I can expect that we’ll see the House Republicans hold strong enough to get this done, at least in a significant way,” King said. “And, you know, instead, too many of them saw that the polls, they believe, were going against them and they decided it wasn’t worth holding the ground and holding the stand that we had taken.”

King also said he’s “troubled by a culture” that cannot live within its means.

“I wanted to move a balanced budget amendment…We didn’t get that done. I wanted to address the entitlement spending. We didn’t get that done,” King said. “Those things must be approached at some point and sooner is easier than later because every quarter that goes by this gets harder and harder and more and more painful.”

Both of Iowa’s Democratic congressmen voted for the deal, although Congressman Dave Loebsack of Iowa City suggested in a written statement that congress merely “kicked the can down the road” and there’ll be another crisis when the stop-gap spending measure runs out January 15th and the new debt limit expires February 7th. Congressman Bruce Braley of Waterloo said he hopes the bipartisan deal allows congress to “find the space” to reach long-term solutions.

Iowa’s U.S. Senators split in today’s vote, with Democrat Tom Harkin voting for the deal and Republican Chuck Grassley among the 18 senators who voted against it. Grassley issued a written statement, calling the measure a “missed opportunity” to reduce the country’s long-term debt. Harkin said the deal will give congress some “breathing room” to make long-term decisions, but Harkin admits the country may be subjected to another cliff hanger in early 2014.

[iowamark]

Grassley Votes Against Continuing Appropriations Act for 2014
""A statement from Senator Chuck Grassley regarding his vote against Continuing Appropriations Act for 2014:

“There's been a lot of talk about the negative impact of not raising the debt limit, but there’s too little focus on the negative consequences of ignoring the $17 trillion debt. Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs. Yet the President refuses to lead for fiscal responsibility, both short and long term, even with a government shutdown. This agreement raises the debt limit with no action on the debt. It’s a missed opportunity for forcing action to limit government and increase economic opportunities. America needs the President to roll up his sleeves and work with members of Congress to address the long-term fiscal problems of our country. Our grandkids depend on it.”"

[Cowboy Bob]

Now that everyone has voted...and they are on Record, I hope ObamaCare implodes and goes down in flames and takes Democrats and RINOs with it.

[onyx]

11. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), retiring

The Republican Candidates are
Matt Whitaker
http://mattwhitaker.org/
Sam Clovis
http://iowans4samclovis.com/
David Young
http://www.youngforiowa.com/
Jodi Ernst
http://www.joniforiowa.com/
Scott Schaben
http://scottschaben.com/

[nathanbedford]

King said once spending issues and the debt limit were joined in one bill, the momentum toward passage was inevitable

This strategic truth was easy to recognize at the time this bottom card was dealt and in fact it was recognized by many of us armchair strategists and we so posted on FreeRepublic. If that reality was obvious to us it was certainly obvious to the professionals in the House and in the Senate and that is no doubt why they authorized Paul Ryan to conflate Obamacare with the debt ceiling and seal the doom of Ted Cruz's efforts to defund Obamacare.

It was obvious because the establishment Republicans were asking us to strain a gnat and swallow a camel. They told us that the public would be receptive to reducing their own entitlements like Social Security to reduce an ephemeral threat like the national debt. This in contrast to a reluctance to save voters money by defunding Obamacare. The absurdity of this argument and the establishment' s position was obvious from the beginning.

More, shutting down the government was working against Obama in the press but the shutdown of the debt ceiling affecting the whole operation of government carried with it implications for reduction in Social Security checks and significant stock market damage and economic damage to Main Street. The constituency to defund Obamacare at the cost of shutting down small parts of the government was much larger than the constituency to reduce spending at the cost of the potential economic crash.

I conclude, therefore, that the leadership was not reluctantly forced to surrender after having fought their way to Appomattox, they planned the surrender well in advance.

All the rest was kabuki theater dancing up to the surrender.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Is Scott related to Jim Schaben ?

[Free Vulcan]

I really wish Latham would have voted no.