Minnesota reps split on debt ceiling; Bachmann, Ellison both vote against

Categories: Politics
bachmann ellison.jpg
Bachmann, Ellison: Debt makes for strange bedfellows.
Finally, Michele Bachmann and Keith Ellison have something in common. Yesterday's U.S. House vote to raise the debt ceiling and make $2 trillion in spending cuts passed the U.S. House 269-161, but Minnesota's most conservative and most liberal member of Congress both voted against it.

Like a circle inside a circle, the final tally left the four moderate Minnesotans in the House -- two Democrats, two Republicans -- meeting in the middle to vote for the plan, and the four partisan Minnesotans -- again, two from each party -- sticking to the sides, and voting against.

Ellison held a press conference with the Progressive Caucus to denounce the bill, which he thinks is too heavy on spending cuts.

"Deficit reduction," Ellison said, "should not be enacted in a hostage situation."

Bachmann, who canceled her campaign events in Iowa just to vote against the bill, went the opposite way on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, saying the bill's cuts weren't enough, and that "all of this overspending does impact job creation."

"We need tough love," Bachmann said. "We didn't see a lot of tough love out of this deal."
Bachmann, when she wasn't listening quietly or being constantly interrupted by Hannity, went on:

"We needed to obviously make sure we didn't go into technical default, and we needed to make sure military men and women got paid," she said. "But from there we have to make serious cuts, and unfortunatelty the can's been kicked down the road and now we have government we obviously can't afford."

Thumbnail image for cravaack wiki.jpg
Cravaack's vote against the bill was a surprising change of heart.
Joining Ellison and Bachmann in voting against the deal were Democrat Betty McCollum and Republican Chip Cravaack.

Cravaack's vote was probably most surprising, as he'd voted in favor of a previous bill to raise the debt ceiling, and had been flipping and flopping in interviews last week. But yesterday, he flipped back against the deal, explaining his change of heart in a statement:

"Just recently, I voted for 'cut, cap, and balance' and to raise the debt ceiling; however, I gave my word to advocate the core, fiscally conservative principles my constituents in the 8th District entrusted upon me last November. I will remain an independent voice in Washington - if the numbers don't add up, I'm not voting for it."
Democrats Tim Walz and Collin Peterson voted to pass the bill, joined by Republicans John Kline and Erik Paulsen. For Walz, the key point seemed to be simply avoiding default, as he explained in a statement.

"After a frustrating process that took far too long, I am glad we finally reached an agreement and acted tonight to avoid a default. This compromise is not perfect. Compromises never are. But as someone who believes strongly that we need to reduce our debt, while also keeping the promises we have made to our seniors, to our veterans, to our soldiers, and to our children, I chose to support this legislation. Most importantly, I believe this provides our economy with stability it desperately needs during this time of recovery."
Kline, meanwhile, seemed more optimistic.

"While it is far from perfect, I am pleased this proposal is based on the framework of 'Cut, Cap and Balance' and free from any job-killing tax hikes. As I have maintained throughout negotiations, any solution must cut government spending more than it increases the debt limit; implement controls to restrain future spending; and guarantee the American people the vote they deserve on a Balanced Budget Amendment."

The bill goes to the Senate this morning, where, with the expected support of Minnesota Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, it is expected to pass before the midnight deadline.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Dear Mr. President,

In case you don't know this, I'll let you in on a little secret:

There is one thing Republicans fear more than anything else in the world- a successful Democratic president.  Because they know damn well that if one gets some left-leaning policies in play, America will never want to go back.

This is why they scream and stomp their feet and stymie every effort to advance any legislation that doesn't involve taking away people's sexual rights.  That is the advantage to being the "quid pro quo" party- they don't actually have to do ANYTHING, they just have to stop anyone else from doing anything.  They have no real solutions to offer, only Trojan horse legislation that appears to benefit the nation, but truly only benefits their corporate benefactors and allows the newly-emboldened plutocrats to continue their power grab.A strong government is the only thing that stands between modern American democracy and a Wild West-style free-for-all, full of marauding cattle barons and ruthless railroad monopolists.  And this is why these corporate interests are chipping away at the foundations of democracy through lobbying efforts that emphasize deregulation to the point of capitalist anarchy and economic policies that starve the social infrastructure but still fatten their wallets.

Michelle Bachmann
Michelle Bachmann

Fucking the idiot Republicans and the cowardly Democrats.    This is a bullshit deal that fucks over poor and middle class people.    Both sides are awful.    America is screwed when our government is exclusively made up of pussies and idiots. 

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

Ha!  The President did as he pleased for two years.  His opposition was shut out as he and the Democrats did as they pleased for two years.  And here we are.  Everything the democrats said would happen, did the opposite.  Here is a administration that has experts examine things, and month after month, the numbers "unexpectedly" went up or down. "Unexpectedly" Really?"Unexpectedly" is the cover up cry of a hack!

And "left-leaning policies"Double HA!You mean like the tried and tested left-leaning policies that have been in play in Europe for decades?You mean like those same left-leaning policies that have now crippled most countries in which they were enacted?You mean like those same left-leaning policies that have caused the countries who enacted them, to rely on the neighboring country for help who have a better finical situation mostly due to "right-leaning" policies?

If I'm wrong, please explain what happened to Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy?

And when you say "status quo pro",  you are talking about the "Tax and Spend" policies of the liberal?

I'm' guessing you used to write for the Global Warming crowd.  You carry a sharp pen.Oops, I forgot.  Those chameleons went and changed their colors, but not their financial destructive intent


"status quo" not "quid pro quo"-

Stupid browser won't let me edit!

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

Wow, I agree!Except I believe you mixed the titles of who is the idiot and who is the pussy.

I'm not really sure how you can say this bill F**ks over the poor.  They have no skin in the game as of now.  Does this bill require them to "pay their fair share" and provide some of what they consume?


Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy have all had a variety of different economic policies. Greece overspent and everyone (and you'll love this, Kirk!!) dodged their taxes. Italy fucked up by failing to close the income gap between north and south and letting their infrastructure and research investments falter, reducing the competitiveness of their industrial economy. Portugal and Spain were both just developing into strong regional economies when their real estate markets crashed.

And the "right-leaning" neighbors who pulled Greece out of the fire? Yeah, they have a public health system, a strong public pension and welfare system, and everyone there gets six weeks of paid vacation every year.

I sure wish we were that "right-leaning".


I missed the part where the poor stopped paying sales tax, maybe you can point out where that is?

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault