For all the sound and fury of the class of GOP freshmen that succeeded in pushing Speaker John Boehner to cut extra funds from the continuing resolution spending bill, a Friday vote to cut $22 billion more actually split the class, only garnering the support of about 65 percent of them.
Both South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott and South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem – the two new members elected to represent their class in leadership meetings – voted against the additional cuts, as did most of the Republican leadership.
Generally speaking, members from Democratic-leaning districts or marginal Republican districts were less likely to vote for the measure, while lawmakers from safe Republican districts were more likely to vote for it.
Freshmen Rep. Steven Palazzo was the member with the reddest district that voted no. Palazzo represents the 4th district of Mississippi, rated R+20 by the Cook Political Report. In contrast, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, who represents New York’s 25th district, voted yes. Her district is rated D+3 by the Cook Political Report.
Here’s a list of how freshman GOP members voted as well as the full roll call.
The amendment, which would have cut spending across the board by 5.5 percent and slashed Congress’s budget by 11 percent, but spared any cuts for Israel, was pushed by Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus among House Republicans.
Eight of 21 committee chairmen voted for the cuts: they were Reps. Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee, Spencer Bachus, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Ralph Hall, chairman of the Science Committee, Lamar Smith, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sam Graves, chairman of the Small Business Committee, John Mica, chairman of the Transportation Committee, Jeff Miller, chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and Mike Rogers, chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
No Democrats voted for the amendment.
The additional cuts sparked a vigorous debate on the House floor between Republicans who were on opposite sides of the proposal.
Proponents said the extra cuts are small compared to how spending must be reined in to combat the looming deficit.
“What we’re doing here is a rounding error compared to what we’re going to have to do with entitlement spending,” said top spending cut hawk Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican.
One argument against the amendment forwarded was that because the cuts were made across the board at federal agencies, it would allow President Obama to decide where to direct the cuts, potentially giving him the ability to protect liberal priorities.
“I’ve got to say to my conservative friends, when you cut across the board, who do you think is going to be in charge of where these cuts come from?” said Rep. Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican.
Update: A GOP aide responds to Kingston’s argument: “Rep. Kingston’s argument against the amendment was totally inaccurate. The amendment left no more discretion to the administration than is ever given in an appropriations bill. The across-the-board cuts would have specifically reduced every affected program by a specific amount of money.”