Most Senate Republicans rallying against Reid’s option

By Karoun Demirjian

Published Saturday, July 30, 2011 | 12:57 p.m.

Updated Saturday, July 30, 2011 | 1:34 p.m.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says his no-taxes, $2.4 trillion plan to cut the deficit and raise the debt limit is the “only option left” to let the country avoid disaster.

But the Republicans in the Senate don’t think so — or, at least, enough of them have pledged to vote against it to ensure that there’s no way it could pass.

“Your amendment completely fails to address our current fiscal imbalance and lacks any serious effort to ensure that any subsequent spending cuts are enacted,” wrote 43 senators in a letter to Reid. “The only possible justification for a $2.4 trillion increase in borrowing authority is to allow the President to avoid any accountability for these issues before his 2012 election.”

The 43 Republican senators released the letter as members of the House debated a replica of Reid’s bill in that chamber, in order to vote it down.

So the Reid bill as it stands won’t pass either chamber, despite the changes Reid made to it Friday to solicit more Republican support. The latest iteration of the bill maintains all the cuts based on discretionary and war spending that were in Reid’s original proposal, but adds provisions to lower sums paid out in farm subsidies and education loans, and lifts a final fail-safe trigger mechanism straight from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell earlier proposal to allow President Obama to extend the debt ceiling over the objections of a divided Congress.

But what’s more interesting than how many Republicans said they would vote against is how Republicans wouldn’t say that.

There are four Senate Republican names missing from the letter that was sent to Reid earlier today: Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

If moderates are going to break from the pack, it’s usually those four — whose votes for the Reid bill would get the count to 57, three votes shy of the 60 votes he needs to circumvent the threat of a filibuster.

“A filibuster at this late hour, and when so much is at risk, is irresponsible. It puts our economy at risk,” Reid said. “A majority vote was good enough for the Speaker’s proposal in the House of Representatives yesterday, but Republicans believe it isn’t good enough for the Senate today.

“I appreciate that several of my Republican colleagues have reached out to me over the last few hours, hoping to reach a compromise ... but my friend, the Republican leader of the Senate, must come forward as well,” Reid continued. “Rather than filibuster, I ask that my Republican colleagues work with Democrats to make our proposal better.”

There was a similar cry coming from the House Saturday, where GOP leaders brought the mock-Reid bill up for a vote under the suspension calendar — a designation usually reserved for matters that are considered non-controversial.

But for a matter as controversial as this, the House’s suspension calendar is functioning somewhat like a Senate filibuster: to pass under suspension, a bill must collect a two-thirds majority, an absolute impossibility for a measure opposed by most members of the dominant party.

“They’re afraid their process might show how much support there is for this proposal,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“This is the second time you’ve put a bill on the floor guaranteed to fail,” said House Democrats’ Assistant Leader Steny Hoyer. “The people aren’t looking to us for what we can stop. They’re looking to us for what we can do.”

In the end, no Republicans voted for the Reid plan, which went down on a vote of 173-246.

The deadline for raising the debt ceiling is 12:01 a.m. Wednesday morning — after that point, the country won’t be able to pay its bills. But there’s an earlier deadline in place: 1 a.m. Sunday.

That’s when Reid’s bill is scheduled to come up for a filibuster-proof vote; but if lawmakers can make an agreement before then, he can substitute out the language with that agreement, which wildly improves its chances of passage.