The House last week was considering a proposal by Democrats to require paying for tax cuts or increases in mandatory spending programs (like Medicare, Social Security) with cuts or new sources of revenue elsewhere in the federal budget.
The Senate already had taken that stand in its budget blueprint, and House Democrats made a motion to instruct House conferees to go along with the Senate. The House GOP leadership, however, was concerned that the so-called "pay-as-you-go" provision could hinder future tax cuts and opposed the Democrats' motion.
But Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-1st District, sided with the Democrats and initially voted for the motion, one of 16 Republicans initially counted as being with the Democrats.
"The Senate has it right, that pay-go should apply to spending and tax reductions," Whitfield said.
Whitfield said one of his concerns was that the programs overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on which he serves, would have to come up with $2.2billion over the next five years in cuts or new revenue to offset permanent tax cuts. That could hurt things like benefits in Medicare and Medicaid programs, Whitfield said.
Republican leaders, however, worked the floor to change their colleagues' votes, and held the vote open for 23 minutes beyond when the time for voting officially expired.
Whitfield switched at the leadership's request, he said. The new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, told him there may be other options to raise revenue besides cutting mandatory spending programs, Whitfield said.
But he said he is convinced there will have to be some creative thinking
among lawmakers, because he views the chances of the Senate and the House
agreeing on a pay-as-you-go formula to be remote.