Averting a government shutdown, the House and Senate approved a compromise that cuts to $39 billion from the federal budget, but two members of the Kentucky delegation on opposite sides of the debate opposed the bill.
The House passed the proposal 260 to 167, but U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., joined 108 other Democrats and voted against the measure, citing drastic cuts to social services such as heating subsidies, housing programs and environmental protections.
In the Senate, the bill passed by a 81 to 19 vote, where U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., reject the compromise, saying it didn’t go far enough in cutting federal spending. Earlier this year, the freshman Senator proposed a $500 billion cut to reduce the deficit.
Does this prove the horseshoe theory in politics? Perhaps.
But some reports are questioning if these much talked about cuts will matter at all.
From the New York Times:
The resistance to the spending measure came after reviews of the proposal found that many of its significant cuts, including some involving health care, would not reduce federal spending now because the money in question was not likely to be spent for years, though budget rules allow the cuts to be counted as a current reduction.
According to a Congressional Budget Office report, the bill would produce only $350 million in tangible savings this year, in part because cuts in domestic programs were offset by an increase of about $5 billion for Pentagon programs.
When projected emergency contingency spending overseas is figured in by the budget office, estimated outlays for this year will actually increase by more than $3 billion.