Simpson-Bowles Knocked Out Like Trevor Berbick; House Shuts Out Obama Budget Like Bob Feller

It’s a no-good very bad week for the Obama Administration, and we haven’t even gotten to the Friday Solyndra document dump. After a bruising Supreme Court review of President Obama’s signature health care initiative (masterfully recounted by Damon Root here, here, here and other places), the president’s budget has been subjected to a gimmicky zero-vote defeat in the House of Representatives. 

More seriously, Obama’s long-dying deficit-reduction plan, spearheaded by emeritus operatives Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, has been eviscerated in a 382-38 House vote. 

From the Washington Times

The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.

Their report has popped up in every deficit discussion since then, but had never gotten a vote in either chamber until this week, when opponents prevailed.

“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs.”

The debate came as the House worked its way through its fiscal year 2013 budget plan, which Mr. Ryan wrote.

The Bowles-Simpson plan was offered as an alternative on the chamber floor.

Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.

“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”

Simpson-Bowles never really gained much traction, and the vote on the president’s unseasoned budget was a stunt. So the House actions shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Then again, neither should Obama’s claims about reducing the deficit. 

Smilin’ Al Simpson in better times


Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian||

    CAPTION: Come on, Tim! The alt text is:


  • Me||

    I liked it. Chuckled, I did.

  • ||

    "Can I squeeze your nipple, Mr. President?"

  • Joe M||

    "Was it one in the pink?"

  • sarcasmic||

    "I don't know how you can act so confident when your penis is only this big"

  • Japanese Almanian||

    Our penis SO smarr compared to BIG American penis! We have a tiny, tiny penis compare to yours...

  • ||

    "heh heh, so smarr penis...heh"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Friday document dump is the highlight of their week.

  • Almanian||

    I took a dump on Friday once.

    Well, more than once, technically, although "more than" includes "once", so....

    You know what I'm saying.

  • ||

    Ya know, Irksome Bowles really is a handsome fella, in a nebulous sort of way.

    Ahem. Anywho...these two clowns have it half-right, and we should also not be forgetting that noted, notorious deficit hawk, Alice Rivlin: Congress can raise taxes easier than breathing, it's just the cuts that never seem to materialize. Once again, when one sugests pre-2008 levels of taxation marginal rates, they should also accept pre-2008 levels of spending, with across the board cuts. The only standard deductions I would permit is charitable contributions and itemized medical expenses paid OOP in lieu of an FSA.

  • ||

    the vote on the president’s unseasoned budget was a stunt

    Why? If it's a legitimate plan, then someone should have voted for it. At least ONE person should have voted for it. If it's a stunt, what exactly where the Democrats expressing when they voted No? That they would've voted Yes if it was brought to the floor under different circumstances? What circumstances would those be?

  • ||

    Anyone see the AP headline/story on this? It's priceless

  • ||

    Since the link is abbreviated, here's the headline

    "GOP-run House easily rejects bipartisan budget"

  • shrike||

    Behindertsein ist schön

  • ||

    Subjecting the president's budget to an up-or-down vote is a "gimmick"?

  • marya||

    When people take their longchamps, they will want to have a puff of wind very much. Why they want wind at that time? Because they think their sac longchamp pas cher can make them feel cool and the cool of wind can make then feel cooler.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties